Converts and Established Customs

[Cowboy]

The personal relationship with God that is clearly stated by using the informal "Thou" instead of the formal "You."  Modern English doesn't even have a formal/informal distinction so that Orthodox element is completely lost.

Only a linguist or English teacher would know that "Thou" is informal and "You" is formal. I think that most people would say the opposite is true(uneducated Americans that we are).

[CRCulver]

The personal relationship with God that is clearly stated by using the informal "Thou" instead of the formal "You."  Modern English doesn't even have a formal/informal distinction so that Orthodox element is completely lost.

The Uralic languages don't even distinguish between "he", "she", and "it" in the third person singular, along with a host of other differences from the Greek, and yet the Finnish Orthodox Church uses modern Finnish for its liturgy, the Russian Orthodox Church translated much hymnography into Mari, and my own patron St Stephen of Perm translated the writings of the Church into Komi. As I just said before in my last post, most of the arguments for retaining another language or some archaic form of English were soundly answered when St Cyril defeated the Trilingual heretics.

What results when one is so suspicious of translation is a worship of the text itself that is almost Protestant. Any given text on its own always contains ambiguities. However, the liturgy is, or at least should shouldn't be, always on its own, but rather accompanied by catechesis and homiletics that entirely clarify the meaning of the liturgy, regardless of how one-to-one a language is with the Greek.

[Anastasios]

That's just the heresy of the trilinguals all over again. Crazy translations from certain scholars with agendas might not express Orthodox thought correctly, but any language is capable of expressing the beliefs of the Church, even English in its modern form.

Eh, don't throw labels of heresy around so easily there.  It would be heretical to say that English can't express a thought as well as Greek.  But to say that one register or form of English is just as good as another is not something I subscribe to, even though it seems to be something that linguistic relativists like to throw around.  Do you really think Ebonics can convey the thoughts of Orthodoxy as well as a standard American dialect, for instance?  Or, say we admit that all forms of language could express a thought potentially--that doesn't mean they are all of the same cultural approporiateness. Perhaps you are right and modern English can express the thoughts and we don't need to add thee and thou with the -eth and -est endings to be precise.  I think, however, that these archaisms and lofty registers add to the worship experience and help convey the thought in a different context than just using plain speech, even if it is standard educated speech.

Anastasios

[CRCulver]

Do you really think Ebonics can convey the thoughts of Orthodoxy as well as a standard American dialect, for instance?

Yes, of course. The only problem with using AAVE ("ebonics" is not used in the literature and is often considered pejorative as not only ebony-skinned people speak it now) is that it is not the standard language. Which is to say, in our diverse country, those who speak AAVE can understand the language of the media, while speakers of other forms cannot so easily understand AAVE. Therefore, for pastoral efficiency, it's best to use the language of the media. The same is done in Finland. No one here would deny that any given Finnish dialect is as capable of grand thoughts as the others, but because the dialects are so varied, a standard form is used.

Perhaps you are right and modern English can express the thoughts and we don't need to add thee and thou with the -eth and -est endings to be precise.  I think, however, that these archaisms and lofty registers add to the worship experience and help convey the thought in a different context than just using plain speech, even if it is standard educated speech.

There was no "loftiness" of -eth and -est in the Greek, it was just plain everyday language. The loftiness of liturgy comes in worshiping a supremely awesome God and partaking of the Flesh and Blood of the Crucified and Risen Lord. Thoughts of tweaking the language came only later.

[AMM]

To take it a step further, why stop at modern English? If you are in south central LA, why not do a liturgy in Ebonics? Ebonics IS a valid dialect of English even though most of us hate it, so why not liturgize in it if the claim is that people should not have to learn higher registers to worship?

Probably if for no other reason than any hierarch with two brain cells to rub together would understand that the time, effort and money required to produce such a translation of the required liturgical texts would be a colossal waste of time.  Just as when opening a mission the bishops don’t just randomly pick places and hope people show up.

Regarding the language issue, I apologize if I used the wrong terminology to describe the exact style of English used.  I’ll stick to just describing whatever the various styles are as archaic, denoting simply they are not the language that is used commonly today.

Perhaps there are people who can listen to the liturgy in archaic English, or read a prayer book printed in the same language and the meaning of the words is readily apparent to them.  I know some people who this doesn’t happen to be the case for though, both non native speakers of English and a couple of residents of my household who are under the age of seven.

I personally as I have said don’t have an issue with using archaic English; if there are people who like it and find it aids their worship, that’s great.  I like our services which are almost all in what I would call contemporary English with some Slavonic mixed in here and there.  My issue is with those who criticize churches that use languages other than English, but themselves use an archaic form of that language.

I’m not sure if I’m one of the “whiners”, but I can say I don’t believe Cowboy is “whining” if that was directed at him.  I may not agree with a good deal of what he is saying, but to me he clearly wants what he thinks is best for the church.

[BoredMeeting]

Only a linguist or English teacher would know that "Thou" is informal and "You" is formal. I think that most people would say the opposite is true(uneducated Americans that we are).

Well, I am neither so that rather disproves your initial assertion, doesn't it?

As to the other part, are you then suggesting that the Liturgy must be "dumbed down" for the poorly educated American masses to get it?  I would think that just pointing out what "Thou" really means would suffice.

[Cowboy]

Well, I am neither so that rather disproves your initial assertion, doesn't it?

As to the other part, are you then suggesting that the Liturgy must be "dumbed down" for the poorly educated American masses to get it?  I would think that just pointing out what "Thou" really means would suffice.

I don't know a single soul who uses thee and thou in everday spoken language and I view teaching them the arcane formality of You vs Thou as a terrible waste of time. To me this would be just an unnecessary barrier to understanding the words of the Divine Liturgy. The Liturgy can be done in normal everday English without being "dumbed down".

[Veniamin]

The Liturgy can be done in normal everday English without being "dumbed down".

No, it can't; everyday English is already dumbed down.  To avoid that effect, you're going to have to use a more formal, educated form of English than is the norm for everyday use.

[CRCulver]

No, it can't; everyday English is already dumbed down.

What nonsense. If everyday English is "dumbed down", the koine of the early Church must have been thoroughly moronic.

[aserb]

Whilst all future replies on this post beist in Elizabethian English. Dost that please thou? Excuse me whilst I repair to the praetorium to rent thy clothes.

[Anastasios]

There was no "loftiness" of -eth and -est in the Greek, it was just plain everyday language. The loftiness of liturgy comes in worshiping a supremely awesome God and partaking of the Flesh and Blood of the Crucified and Risen Lord. Thoughts of tweaking the language came only later.

From what I have read, the Fathers wrote and deliberately added archaisms (Atticisms) into the Patristic writings and liturgy.

Anastasios

[CRCulver]

From what I have read, the Fathers wrote and deliberately added archaisms (Atticisms) into the Patristic writings and liturgy.

The Fathers, being educated speakers of Greeks, would have of course been influenced by the literary language of their surroundings. However, all these creeped in centuries after the first Christians. Now, ordinarily calls for the Church to go "back to basics" are misguided, but here one can point to a long tradition in later times of the Church translating prayers and liturgy into the unadorned vernacular of converted peoples. Seriously, if St Stephan lovingly translated holy writings into a language that all the Muscovite elites called "primitive" and "ugly" (Komi didn't even get an exalted literary standard until hundreds of years later), why repeat the same misguided invective against the speech of everyday Americans?

[GiC]

From what I have read, the Fathers wrote and deliberately added archaisms (Atticisms) into the Patristic writings and liturgy.

Anastasios

Very true, the Liturgy is a far higher form of Greek than the Koine, and would have been a far more educated and anachronized form of the language than one would have encountered in everyday speech; a form of speech that most could understand fairly well, but that only the most educated could speak or write...somewhat similar to Early Modern English (Elizabethan) compared to current speech.

Oh, and one small note on english linguistics for this subject, most so-called anachronistic translations of the liturgy are not in Early Modern English, which is Elizabethan English, but rather Middle Modern English, which is Victorian English. There are no real linguistic divides between Elizabethan English and Modern English, they are both quite modern and pronounced very similarly. The divides between Old, Middle, and Modern English happened first with the Normand Conquest and the introduction of Old French into Old English creating Middle English, Middle English was never truly uniform because of the several and unique ways in which Old French and Old English could merge. The Beginning of Modern English actually came with Chaucer, who standardized the London dialect, which would, with a vowel shift (or possibly two, the jury's still out on that one) become Modern English within about a hundred years (Chaucer, though technically a Late Middle English writer, really had more in common with his Modern English counterparts than the Early Middle English writers). Ultimately, I question those who claim to be unable to read or understand something written in Middle Modern English, the language is almost identical to what you find in your local fishwrap, and I doubt such a person would even realize the greatest and most significant changes between Middle and Current Modern English (primarially the loss of the subjunctive and a minor decrease in other inflection)...heck, you still say I-me and he-him, what's so hard about thou-thee?

[Panagiotis]

How about we use the language of the people and leave it at that? Just because a few radicals want to use ebonics or bastardize what is the normal tongue of English does not mean we have to bow down the whims of, say, 00.3% of the English speaking population.

Just my own thoughts.

Blessings,
Panagiotis

[GiC]

How about we use the language of the people and leave it at that? Just because a few radicals want to use ebonics or bastardize what is the normal tongue of English does not mean we have to bow down the whims of, say, 00.3% of the English speaking population.

Just my own thoughts.

Blessings,
Panagiotis

I have a better idea, why not just use Greek, the language in which the Liturgy was written...and that would have the added benifit of making this argument moot

[BoredMeeting]

...I view teaching them the arcane formality of You vs Thou as a terrible waste of time.

And how many seconds would it take to communicate this? 45? Maybe 60? Some waste!

To me this would be just an unnecessary barrier to understanding the words of the Divine Liturgy. The Liturgy can be done in normal everday English without being "dumbed down".

How is learning about the formal "Thou" an obstacle? Removing the understanding does remove the implied personal relationship with God, ergo an Orthodox teaching is diminished.

What is the great fear of educating these allegedly simple-minded Americans to help them understand the Liturgy a little better?

I certainly support the idea of doing the Liturgy in English (although an occasional litany in Slavonic or Greek reminds us that this Liturgy is bigger and older than any of us in the here and now) but that doesn't mean we have to drop to the lowest common denominator. That sort of thinking is what lead the Latins to their guitar masses.

[CRCulver]

Removing the understanding does remove the implied personal relationship with God, ergo an Orthodox teaching is diminished.

As I said before, plenty of languages don't have a one-to-one mapping with Greek. Where are your complaints about Finnish, Mari, or Komi, which are "gender-neutral" by nature? But even if the understanding can't be represented in the liturgy, it can be explained through circumlocution during catechesis and subsequent teaching of the flock.

but that doesn't mean we have to drop to the lowest common denominator.

You seem to think that an obsolete form of English is automatically "superior" to modern literary language, which is of course a fallacy. Languages don't degrade over time. Modern English has its own formal register which is just as suitable for today's liturgy as Elizabethan English was in its time.

That sort of thinking is what lead the Latins to their guitar masses.

No, the thinking represented here led to the successful evangelization of dozens of convert peoples. The writings of the Church were not translated into an archaizing form of Slavonic (though stagnation happened latter), Komi, Mari, Aleut, or the languages of Africa were now great gains are had.

[BoredMeeting]

As I said before, plenty of languages don't have a one-to-one mapping with Greek. Where are your complaints about Finnish, Mari, or Komi, which are "gender-neutral" by nature?

And as I replied before, I'll deal with those when someone attempts to inject them into my English service book. Until then, I'll satisfy myself with fighting the dumbing-down of Liturgical English.

[AMM]

Seriously, if St Stephan lovingly translated holy writings into a language that all the Muscovite elites called "primitive" and "ugly" (Komi didn't even get an exalted literary standard until hundreds of years later), why repeat the same misguided invective against the speech of everyday Americans?

Aside from St. Stephen, remember that St. Makarii of Glukharev was censured and punished for attempting to translate the Bible in to modern spoken Russian in the 19th century.  St. Makarii noted at the time that while the Koran was available in modern Russian, the Bible was not.

What should be obvious is that the vast majority of the church favors church languages, in both the services and the texts.  Be it Slavonic, Byzantine Greek, or Middle/High/Old/Whatever English.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: Converts and Established Customs