|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 18, 2011 17:04:51 GMT
The point is not that the Good News is being made obscure and difficult - it is that it naturally possesses points which are obscure and difficult (cf the points in the gospels where audiences respond to Jesus with "this is a hard saying" - for example, when He talks of destroying the temple and rebuilding it in three days, when he talks of giving them His Flesh to eat and His Blood to drink) and watering these down in the interests of instant comprehension is a betrayal - it makes people assume they have understood it when they have not. The Gospels specifically refer to Jesus addressing the mass of the people in parables and offering fuller explanations to the disciples (those who are committed and have advanced in understanding). Nicodemus was initially taken aback when Jesus told him he must be born again; when Jesus said it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven, the disciples were shocked because they saw this as so rigorous that no-one at all could be saved; when He said that if your eye causes you to sin, cut it out, He engaged in hyperbole. When you denounce the passage you quote (and I notice you return to the same passage over and over again), is your objection to the translation or to the original? How would you render the same original? There is, I admit, a real danger in archaism - but purely colloquial language rapidly becomes restrictive and banal. If my opinion is wrong, I am not entitled to it any more than I am entitled to say 2+2=5. You are clearly arguing that my opinion is wrong and yours is correct, so don't deceive yourself by saying "you are entitled to your opinion".
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 20, 2011 21:31:32 GMT
Let us have a practical illustration of Brencel's theory of translation Gerald Manley Hopkins' poem THE WRECK OF THE DEUTSCHLAND has been famously parodied as follows:, A boatload of Catholic Huns, Including five doom-driven nuns, Got wrecked - what a shame - But since Heaven's our aim The dead were the fortunate ones. Now according to Brencel's theory of translation the above is in every way superior to the original, which can be found here: www.bartleby.com/122/4.html since the limerick can be understood at a glance whereas the original poem frequently uses unfamiliar expressions and requires some thought. Therefore, if Brencel's approach were consistently followed, not only should this "translation" be the standard but the Hopkins original should be suppressed as unnecessary gibberish, since to suggest it contains anything lacking in the "translation" would be elitist!
|
|
|
Post by brencel on Sept 29, 2011 16:59:02 GMT
hibernicus, you write “The point is not that the Good News is being made obscure and difficult - it is that it naturally possesses points which are obscure and difficult (cf the points in the gospels where audiences respond to Jesus with "this is a hard saying"
The Good News may possess points which are “obscure and difficult”, but there is no reason the points cannot be expressed in clear English otherwise they will be even more difficult to understand; which is not the idea behind proclaiming the Good News. Jesus did not have to become incarnate, but he wants people to know this including the simplest and most unlearned amongst us.
hibernicus, you write “The Gospels specifically refer to Jesus addressing the mass of the people in parables and offering fuller explanations to the disciples (those who are committed and have advanced in understanding).”
You seem to misunderstand Jesus’ use of parables. According to Wilfred Harrington, OP “By Jesus’ day the parable had become a familiar form in rabbinical preaching…When Jesus chose to speak in parables he was following a convention familiar to his hearers.” He also points out that parables “have the timelessness and the power of story.” Remember that not all parables are difficult e.g. the Good Samaritan, the Talents and the Prodigal Son.
Jesus apparently spoke in clear language; there is nothing to suggest he used archaic language for his speech.
I enjoyed your use of Hopkins, however, the idea is to spread the Good News, not write poetry. In addition, we do not have the original order of the Mass, the Last Supper, to translate. Yet it would appear that it was much more informal in every way than any Mass we have today and no one appears to have had any problem with the language, although they did not understand what was actually happening at the time.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 1, 2011 12:59:37 GMT
Here's something that addresses many of Brencel's points - an interview with a professional translator who has produced a commentary on the new translation. Comments in square brackets marked Fr Z are by F Zuhlsdorf from whose blog I got this; those in ALL CAPS are mine. wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/anthony-esolen-on-new-corrected-translation-some-of-the-best-comments-i-have-seen/EXTRACTS ZENIT: You suggest that a translator is hired to be humble, [Do I hear an "Amen!"? - FR Z] regardless of what he’s translating. Explain this and how it applies to the liturgy. Esolen: The translator, I believe, must adopt as his motto the words of St. John the Baptist, referring to Jesus: “He must increase, and I must decrease.” It wasn’t my job, when I was translating Dante, to intrude my personality into the poem. It was rather my job to bring out Dante’s personality, his concerns, his acerbic wit, his devotion, his passions. Now if this is true of what Dante called his “sacred poem,” [then] it is all the more true of the liturgy. Here, we must consider the words of the Mass not simply as the work of excellent human poets, but as a gift of God, mediated through the Church, to his people. At all costs, then, the translator must wish to render the words of the Mass with precision and power, respecting the literal and figurative meaning, the poetic and rhetorical form, and the beauty of the original. For instance, it is not the job of the translator to omit words simply because they strike him as too redolent of the Church rather than of the street corner [Do I hear an "Amen!"? - FR Z] — to translate words such as “sacratissimam” and “sancte” and “venerabiles” as simply nothing. [cf. Roman Canon - FR Z.] It is a sin against the whole community, thus to impose one’s individual taste. [THIS IS ONE OF THE CENTRAL POINTS AT ISSUE, AND BRENCEL HAS NOT ADDRESSED IT AT ALL. TO CONSISTENTLY ELIMINATE REPETITIONS OF "HOLY" AND "SACRED", FOR EXAMPLE, IS NOT A QUESTION OF COMPREHENSION] ZENIT: People have complained that the sentences in the new translation are unwieldy, with many phrases strung together. You defend this practice. Why? Esolen: I do not defend unwieldy sentences. This complaint has as its basis one sentence in the first Eucharistic Prayer, which is long and complex in the Latin, and now also in the English. What I defend are well-constructed sentences, as elements of oral poetry. All the old prayers are so constructed. [To translate for people in Fridley, "the old prayers are constructed like that - FR Z.] When you break up those sentences into three or four separate sentences, [parataxis - FR Z] the effect is to be disjointed; the essential relations between words and images and Scriptural allusions are lost. These phrases are not “strung together.” Anyone who makes that allegation has a wholly mistaken, and I may say a childish, [OOH-RAH! - FR. Z] understanding of the Latin.
For example, one of the prayers for the Feast of the Holy Family is built upon the image of the “domus,” the house or home. We consider first the home of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, and we pray that we will imitate them in our own homes — in “domesticis virtutibus,” which the translators happily render as “the virtues of family life” [In a happier day we might have said "homely virtues" - FR. Z.] — so that we may enjoy the glories of the house of God. To translate that three-part prayer, which is one tightly constructed sentence, into a three-part prayer in one tight English sentence, is not to “string phrases together,” but to reflect artistic unity by artistic unity. [IN OTHER WORDS, HE IS SAYING THAT THERE IS A NATURAL PROGRESSION OF THOUGHT REFLECTED IN THE CLAUSES WHICH IS OBSCURED BY DIVISION INTO SHORT SENTENCES] ZENIT: You also offer three defenses for preferring a literal translation of the Latin. One of those you describe as “unlocking the figurative meaning beneath.” Could you give an example?
Esolen: Every translator of poetry knows that the choice is not between the literal and the figurative, but between a loose or general rendering and one that is both literal and therefore sensitive to the figurative meaning also. It is a constant concern. Take the word occurrentes in the collect for the First Sunday of Advent. The loose paraphrase from 1973 merely grasps for the general idea behind the text, that Jesus will meet an “eager welcome” when he comes again. But the literal, concrete meaning of the word is rich in Scriptural allusion. The root of the word comes from the verb currere, to run. [cf. WDTPRS commentary - FR Z.] If we keep the notion of running in mind, we recall — as the prayer intends us to recall — the parable of the five wise virgins, their lamps filled with oil, who ran forth to meet the bridegroom as he came. The translators have now rendered the line in such a way as to bring out both the literal and the figurative meaning, and thus also the Scriptural allusion: We pray to the Father for “the resolve to run forth to meet your Christ.” That’s what I call a translation. The other was a paraphrase.
ZENIT: You frequently note the vast difference that comes with a seemingly slight change in wording. For example, in the Creed, we will express faith in God, creator of all that is “visible and invisible,” which you say is quite different than “seen and unseen.” How so?
Esolen: The 1973 text was often deaf to the precise meanings of English words. [Because it was dumbed-down? Or was it intentional? - FR. Z] It wasn’t simply that the paraphrasers misconstrued the Latin. They misconstrued the English also, or they were not paying close attention to the English. [VERY GOOD POINT] The example above is a case in point. The Latin visibilium et invisibilium is not the same as visorum et insivorum. When we say “seen and unseen” in English, we mean those things we happen to see and those things we happen not to see. So, for instance, I have not seen a certain planet in the heavens, nor have I seen the mother of St. Peter, or the stone rolled before the tomb where Jesus was buried. But all those things are visible, provided there be someone at hand to see them. When we declare that the Father is the creator of all things visible and invisible, we are affirming the existence of things that no one can see with the eyes of the body, unless God chooses to make them manifest: angels, for instance; but also such immaterial objects as the moral law. [That is a great point. I almost always limit myself to consider the angelic realm in invisibilia - FR. Z.]... END OF EXTRACT Read the whole thing. Brencel makes one other point which seems quite extraordinary in two different ways. He says that we do not have the original Order of the Mass, the Last Supper, to translate. But the translation is not supposed to be of the Last Supper, or of some "ideal" version of the Mass - it is supposed to be of the Latin text formally approved by the Church, and that is the only standard by which it can be judged. A translation is not supposed to exist without reference to the text which it translates. What Brencel seems to be arguing is that the original English translation is SUPERIOR to the original text for the celebration of Mass - which is not a point about translation at all. Let us suppose that someone were asked to produce a translation of the Eastern Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, handed the person who commissioned it the English translation of the Latin-rite Novus Ordo and argued that it was a superior translation because it was more accessible. It may be superior (you can argue it as you wish) but it certainly would not be a translation of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, and to call it a "translation" would be a red herring.
Secondly,the Last supper was not so informal as Brencel suggests - a Jewish Passover celebration such as the Last Supper is a ritualised exchange of questions following a set order. I might add that the liturgy is also the heavenly liturgy described in the Book of the Apocalypse, spendid, complex and eagerly received by the inspiration of the Spirit.
Thirdly, Brencel assumes that every change following on the last Supper must be a change for the worse, and that a translator is entitled to discard at his own sweet will any bits of the liturgy which do not fit in with it. He should read Newman on the Development of Doctrine, and should ponder on the implications of the fact that, as he notes himself, at the Last Supper the Apostles were not fully aware of its significance and only realised it afterwards. In the same way the working out of the Deposit of Faith involves things which were latent from the beginning but only grasped later, and to reject them solely because they were defined later involves rejecting elements of the original itself.
|
|
|
Post by brencel on Oct 1, 2011 15:24:26 GMT
You are only quoting one translator’s opinion, hibernicus, and remember many professional translators disagree with the translator’s opinion. Here are some thoughts: TO CONSISTENTLY ELIMINATE REPETITIONS OF "HOLY" AND "SACRED", FOR EXAMPLE, IS NOT A QUESTION OF COMPREHENSION I have no problem with “holy” and “sacred” We pray to the Father for “the resolve to run forth to meet your Christ.” That’s what I call a translation. Now I am not a translator, but if I hired a translator to translate something into English and he presented me with “run forth” I am afraid he would not get paid; “run out” or “run forward” maybe but to use “forth” in this day and age is to purposefully make the translation archaic and serves no other purpose. In addition, I have no problem with “visible and invisible”. The problem is not that there is a new translation it is the archaic and bad translation in general as in “forth” above. Brencel makes one other point which seems quite extraordinary in two different ways. He says that we do not have the original Order of the Mass, the Last Supper, to translate. But the translation is not supposed to be of the Last Supper, or of some "ideal" version of the Mass - it is supposed to be of the Latin text formally approved by the Church, and that is the only standard by which it can be judged. A translation is not supposed to exist without reference to the text which it translates. What Brencel seems to be arguing is that the original English translation is SUPERIOR to the original text for the celebration of Mass - which is not a point about translation at all.Nonsense, hibernicus. You were using the translation of original poems as a comparison. The Latin may be what is being translated, but as we all know that it was not the original Mass, so the important thing is to translate clearly, so everyone understands, the thoughts and meanings of the Latin into modern English; anything else is not proper translation. I did not argue that “the original English translation is SUPERIOR to the original text for the celebration of Mass”, but now it has been raised I agree that ANY English translation is superior for the vast majority of English speaking Catholics than any Latin version that they cannot understand. Let us suppose that someone were asked to produce a translation of the Eastern Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, handed the person who commissioned it the English translation of the Latin-rite Novus Ordo and argued that it was a superior translation because it was more accessible. It may be superior (you can argue it as you wish) but it certainly would not be a translation of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, and to call it a "translation" would be a red herring.You are correct, hibernicus, it is superior for the English speaking Church! Secondly,the Last supper was not so informal as Brencel suggestsRead this from Msgr Charles Pope, and remember the disciples were all reclining on couches as was the custom: blog.adw.org/2011/04/my-my-what-the-lord-had-to-endure-at-the-last-supper/Thirdly, Brencel assumes that every change following on the last Supper must be a change for the worse,What! More unfounded nonsense. The problem, hibernicus, is that you appear to believe that the Mass is stuck in the Latin translation, that there can be no further development, as in a good modern English translation!
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 3, 2011 21:13:21 GMT
Brencel - The point of setting forth someone's opinion is because it seems worthy of discussion. To remark dismissively and without discussion that it is "only one person's opinion" is to reject the whole concept of reasoned discussion. Your opinion is only one person's opinion, so is mine, so is (let us say) Bernard's opinion that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope in 1958. The point of setting forth opinions is to judge their validity by reference to mutually agreed criteria - to refuse to assess them at all is to devalue the whole idea of reasoned debate. It seems to me that you are not objecting to the translation as such - you are setting forth your idea on how Mass should be celebrated. The concept of translation implies an original text which is translated. In this context the original is the authoritative Latin text of the Novus Ordo Mass, which is supposed to be the basis from which all translations are prepared. The translation is not supposed to be of an unspecified ideal text - it is supposed to be of this specific text. The blogpost to which you link does not address the question of the formal structure of the Last Supper at all, but describes the Apostles' hamfisted reactions to it. This is exactly like saying that because in the Garden of Gethsemane the Apostles all ran away and left Him, we should follow their example. BTW, in the ancient world guests at formal dinners reclined on couches, since chairs had not been invented - that does not mean it was not a formal occasion. Your statement that ANY English text is superior to a Latin text is EXACTLY like saying that any English translation of Dante's Divine Comedy is superior to the Italian original. The point is that any assessment of a translation must begin by assessing it in relation to the original from which it is translated, and it is only by so doing that we can determine what is and is not a legitimate development. Your view, on the other hand, implies that the translator can introduce any arbitrary change which he sees fit and justify it as "development". Let us suppose that the Dante translator (for example) were to leave out all the references to Popes in the Inferno on the grounds that it is unedifying to portray Popes in Hell, that would not be a translation, it would not be a development - it would be a travesty. The new translation of the NO is more "modern" than the old given that it comes 40 years later, yet you don't consider it a legitimate development. If there is to be further "development" of the original Mass it will come through the Church as a whole changing the authoritative text, not through arbitrary changes imposed by translators. If it is "unfounded nonsense" to describe your position as being that every liturgical change since the Last Supper is a change for the worse, why do you argue that since there is no authoritative text of the Last Supper there can never be an authoritative text of the Mass?
|
|
|
Post by annie on Oct 7, 2011 13:03:03 GMT
In my parish we rely on Mass leaflets rather than missals as we did once. The beauty of the missal was that we could read every word along with the priest whether in Latin or it's English translation and so we were fully involved with the actions of the priest. Is the new translation of the Missal for Ireland being made available for the general public or are the Magnificat people the best ones to approach? I would be glad of your advice.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 7, 2011 23:04:45 GMT
I believe new missals are being prepared - I am not sure whether they are on sale yet.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Oct 9, 2011 20:45:48 GMT
Is Brencel happy with the appalling mistranslation which the English-speaking church have been using for 40 years?
|
|
|
Post by annie on Oct 9, 2011 22:37:56 GMT
I believe new missals are being prepared - I am not sure whether they are on sale yet. Good news! Both the weekly and Sunday Missals will be sold by easons through their website www.easons.com Publication date is given as 23th November 2011
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 10, 2011 12:28:11 GMT
Benedict - Brencel's attitude appears to be that there is no such thing as a mistranslation and that the translator should be free to introduce whatever new elements he feels like without regard to the original text. I fail to see how the views he expresses in the post reproduced below can be explained any other way. In reproducing the post extract I put H before the quotes from me which Brencel reproduces, B before Brencel's own comments, and add my own further comments in [ALL CAPS] EXTRACT B; The Latin may be what is being translated, but as we all know that it was not the original Mass [THIS IS QUITE INCOMPREHENSIBLE UNLESS BRENCEL IS SAYING THAT THE LATIN IS NOT AUTHORITATIVE AND THE TRANSLATOR IS FREE TO DEPART FROM IT AT HIS OWN SWEET WILL], so the important thing is to translate clearly, so everyone understands, the thoughts and meanings of the Latin into modern English; anything else is not proper translation. [THE ISSUE IS PRECISELY WHETHER "THE THOUGHTS AND MEANINGS OF THE LATIN" HAVE BEEN OBSCURED IN PLACES IN THE INTERESTS OF A SIMPLISTIC VERSION OF UNDERSTANDING] I did not argue that “the original English translation is SUPERIOR to the original text for the celebration of Mass”, but now it has been raised I agree that ANY English translation is superior for the vast majority of English speaking Catholics than any Latin version that they cannot understand. [WHAT HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH ITS USE AS A STANDARD TEXT FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSLATION?] H: Let us suppose that someone were asked to produce a translation of the Eastern Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, handed the person who commissioned it the English translation of the Latin-rite Novus Ordo and argued that it was a superior translation because it was more accessible. It may be superior (you can argue it as you wish) but it certainly would not be a translation of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, and to call it a "translation" would be a red herring. B; You are correct, hibernicus, it is superior for the English speaking Church! [IN WHAT SENSE IS IT SUPERIOR AS A TRANSLATION OF THE LITURGY OF ST JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, WHICH IS MY QUESTION? IT IS NO MORE A TRANSLATION OF THAT LITURGY THAN IT IS OF DANTE'S DIVINE COMEDY. DOES BRENCEL MEAN THAT IT IS SUPERIOR AS A LITURGY TO A FAITHFUL ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THAT LITURGY, OR HAS HE COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION?] H; Secondly,the Last supper was not so informal as Brencel suggests B; Read this from Msgr Charles Pope, and remember the disciples were all reclining on couches as was the custom: [AS I POINT OUT IN A SUBSEQUENT POST, THE LINKED ARTICLE SIMPLY SAYS THAT THE DISCIPLES MISUNDERSTOOD THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LAST SUPPER AT THE TIME, NOT THAT IT WAS NOT A FORMAL OCCASION. IN THE ANCIENT WORLD GUESTS AT FORMAL DINNERS RECLINED ON COUCHES - THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS NOT A FORMAL OCCASION.] blog.adw.org/2011/04/my-my-what-t....he-last-supper/H: Thirdly, Brencel assumes that every change following on the last Supper must be a change for the worse, B; What! More unfounded nonsense. The problem, hibernicus, is that you appear to believe that the Mass is stuck in the Latin translation, that there can be no further development, as in a good modern English translation! [THIS IS QUITE INCOMPREHENSIBLE UNLESS BRENCEL IS SAYING THAT THE TRANSLATOR IS ENTITLED TO DISREGARD THE ORIGINAL TEXT IN THE NAME OF "DEVELOPMENT". ONCE THE IDEA OF AN AUTHORITATIVE TEXT IS DISREGARDED, THIS WOULD MEAN EVERY TRANSLATOR REWRITING AT WILL ON THE BASIS OF WHAT HE THINKS OUGHT TO BE IN IT, WITH NO WAY OF DECIDING BETWEEN THEM]
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 14, 2011 23:38:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 21, 2011 22:03:43 GMT
Anthony Esolen discusses how the original translation of the Novus Ordo flattens and dumbs down the original, and how the new translation restores what was lost. Read the whole thing, with the detailed discussion of how this works in the Mass for the Feast of the Transfiguration: www.firstthings.com/article/2011/11/restoring-the-wordsEXTRACT Some forty years ago, a team of men were charged with rendering the Latin of the Catholic Novus Ordo Mass into English. They did so, dully and inaccurately, for the common prayers spoken by the people at every Mass. But when they worked just beyond the view of the people, they became different men altogether. Then they felt the fire of zeal. The prayers spoken by the priest—the collects, offertories, prefaces, postcommunions, special blessings, and even the eucharistic prayers—gave them a vast field to ply their talents. According to their own testimony, the translation they came up with is “faithful but not literal.” That should have made people wary. When one translates poetry, the literal is especially to be attended to, since it is the literal that is the vehicle for whole constellations of meaning. Jesus did not say, “The Kingdom of God has relatively inauspicious beginnings.” He said, “The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed.” They justified their decisions by appealing, selectively, to instructions from the Vatican. Even the instructions they highlighted are but sensible reminders that translation is an art, not a mechanical application of rules. “The total act of communication must be kept in mind,” as well as the “literary form” proper to the respective languages. Latin words, “succinct and abstract,” must be made concrete, while “pompous and superfluous language must be avoided.” Thence came the mischief. They ignored the poetry. They severed thought from thought. They rendered concrete words, or abstract words with concrete substrates, as generalities. They eliminated most of the sense of the sacred. They quietly filed words like “grace” down the memory hole. They muffled the word of God. They did not translate. Or if they did, it was not into English. A more obedient reading of the Vatican instructions would not have produced the thin, pedestrian, and often misleading version Catholics have used these last forty years, one that depended, for whatever reasons, upon the destruction of words, and images, and allusions (particularly biblical allusions) and the truths they convey. In their work, the wonderful dictum of Thomas Aquinas, bonum diffusivum sui, “the good pours itself forth,” was inverted into malum diminuendum alterius, “evil seeks to diminish the other.” Among other things, that meant the petty withholding of words of praise, presumably because they were considered redundant. But is that the mark of love? Is a second smile, or a second kiss, redundant, because there has been a first? And if there has not been a first smile or kiss, are such things unnecessary, because they seem to serve no strictly utilitarian function? I have searched the 1973 Order of the Mass alone (a mere fraction of all the prayers that have been retranslated) and found thirty instances of such laudatio interrupta. Most of the time an adjective of praise, such as sanctus, gloriosus, beatus, and a few others, simply disappears: sancte Pater becomes Father, dilectissimi Filii tui becomes your son, beatae Mariae becomes Mary, diem sacratissimam, on Christmas and Epiphany and Easter and all those glorious days in the history of salvation, becomes that day. Sometimes, though, a whole phrase is simply dropped as too hopelessly cast in the language of holiness: sanctas ac venerabilis manus, when Jesus blesses the wine in Eucharistic Prayer I, vanishes; so, in the same prayer, does sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam; so also in conspectu maiestatis tuae. No need, apparently, to dwell upon the holy and venerable hands of the Lord, or the sacred sacrifice and immaculate victim we offer in the Eucharist, or the presence of God’s majesty, which we hope one day to enjoy. I have reviewed hundreds of pages of Latin text, with the first Novus Ordo’s rendering beside me. I defy any English-speaking Catholic in the world to defend the work, on any grounds whatsoever, linguistic, poetic, scriptural, or theological. Eventually, the Vatican, noticing that the liturgy had in fact not been translated into English, ordered that the job be done. Hence every prayer said at every Mass for every day of the year and every purpose for which a Mass may be said has in the last few years been translated, an immense undertaking... Beyond the muffled meanings, there’s something else missing, hard to describe. Imagine a world of gray: gray skies, gray dress, gray language, gray thoughts, gray feelings, gray prayers. How to describe red and green and gold to someone whose life is enveloped in gray? The language of this collect rather spreads the gray. It avoids imagery and cadence, the soul of poetry. It is, at best, entirely conceptual. We do not see or hear or touch anything... END OF EXTRACTS
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 2, 2011 23:01:01 GMT
Here's another point about Brencel - he seems to assume that any development must necessarily be in the direction of greater informality and colloquialism. Why can't a development in the direction of greater formality and precision be equally legitimate? By what criterion does Brencel decide what is a legitimate development? Isn't it the case that ANY new development will cause problems at first until people get used to it?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 4, 2011 0:08:07 GMT
Fr Zuhlsdorf has a post on a critique of the new translation published in the uber-liberal NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER (which Fr Z habitually calls TH FISHWRAP) by a 16-year-old Latinist. Note in particular how this makes explicit that many of the objections to the new translation are in fact objections to the original Latin text. wdtprs.com/blog/2011/11/of-fishwrap-and-sandals/#comments
|
|