inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (1Cor. 11:16)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, translators typically select the exclusive form, only referring to Paul.

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (1Cor. 11:31)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, translators typically select the inclusive form (including the addressee).

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

dual vs. plural (Matt. 9:32)

Many languages in the world distinguish between plural and dual (and sometimes trial) pronouns (for instance, “you” specifically addressing many, two, or three people).

In Matt. 9:32 (“As they were going out…” in one English translation) it is left open whether “them” refers to the two blind men or Jesus and the two blind men.

Both the Bislama translators (in the Nyutesteman long Bislama of 1980) and the Uripiv use a dual (indicating that this refers to just the two blind men).

One of the translators explains: “(1) Only Jesus is mentioned as going into the house (Matt. 9:28). The disciples no doubt entered with him, but it is a fair enough working assumption that if they were explicitly mentioned in one place (Matt. 9:32) they would have also been in the other. So we conclude that the ‘they’ in 9:32 is probably not referring to Jesus and the disciples. (2) A reasonably close parallel, as far as the Greek text is concerned, supporting this interpretation can be seen in Matt. 2:13. (First verb of new section repeats last verb of previous section, with same subject, in a genitive absolute construction, with de and followed by idou introducing new participants.)”

Source: Ross McKerras in Notes on Translation 2/1 1988, p. 53-56.

dual vs. plural (Matt. 9:28)

Many languages in the world distinguish between plural and dual (and sometimes trial) pronouns (for instance, “you” specifically addressing many, two, or three people).

In Matt. 8:30 (“Now there was a herd of many swine feeding at a distance from them” in one English translation) it is left open whether “them” refers to the two demon-possessed men, to the men and Jesus or to the men, Jesus and the disciples?

The Bislama translators (in the Nyutesteman long Bislama of 1980) use a dual, whereas the Uripiv uses a plural.

One of the translators explains: “I would argue, however, for a plural rather than a dual or trial, since we were told in Matt. 9:28 that the two men had ‘come to’ Jesus (who was probably accompanied by his disciples). ‘Come to’ renders the Greek word hypantao, otherwise used by Matthew only in 28:9. It is used also in the Markan parallel, in Mark 5:2; here we see from 5:7 that the man came right up to Jesus, so I interpret the them as referring at least to Jesus and the demoniacs.”

Source: Ross McKerras in Notes on Translation 2/1 1988, p. 53-56.

ashamed, shame

The concept of “shame” in Wantoat is “to feel badly because someone has said bad things about me which I consider undeserved, or to feel badly because another’s actions towards me have been improper or disappointing to me. (…) The result is that the shamed person avoids the one who has insulted him.”

“In Mark 8:38 and Luke 9:26 if we were to use the Wantoat word mäakagat (“I am ashamed”) we would bring into the translation the component of shame which implies that Jesus has rebuked or insulted the person concerned, and so he is too embarrassed to remain in His presence; too embarrassed to go on serving Him; too disappointed in Jesus to remain as one of His people.”

Therefore, in Wantoat, the idea is expressed like this: “If someone rejects me and what I say, I, the Son of Man, will reject him…”

Source: Don Davis in Notes on Translation December 1974, p. 8-9.

offering (Luang), sacrifice (Luang)

The Greek terms that are translated uniformly as “sacrifice” or “offering” in English have the option of various terms in Luang with different shades of meaning.

For Acts 24:17, himima-rere’a (“holding two hands out”). “The focus of this term is on the gift being given by a person of lower position to a person of higher position.”

For Acts 21:26, hniurliwtu-nwali odawa (“pour out sweat [and] turn into sweaty smell”). “The focus is on the personal cost of the sacrifice.”

For Gen. 22:2-8 and Gen. 22:13, hopopa-hegeuru (“peace sign”). “The focus is on the animal or object being sacrificed, as in the story of the sacrifice of Isaac. This term was used throughout that whole chapter. This term is also used in verses that speak of Jesus as the sacrifice for our sins.”

For Acts 15:29, hoi-tani (“serve with right hand – serve with left”). “This term is used in referring to sacrifices or worship offered to idols or pagan gods.”

Source: Kathy Taber in Notes on Translation 1/1999, p. 9-16.

See also sacrifice.

love (Luang)

The various Greek terms that are translated as “love” in English can be translated with various terms in Luang with different shades of meaning.

For Acts 7:46 and Titus 1:8, ralamni nala (“insides take”). “This term has the sense of finding favor with or being pleased by someone and is used for love between a man and a woman, between a parent and a much-loved child. It is also used of God’s being especially pleased with a human, such as he was with Noah and Moses. It can refer to loving objects good or bad, and to loving the world. The focus here is on some pleasing characteristic of the person or thing loved.”

For Mark 6:34, nmawaldoinla (“insides turn completely over”). “Love mixed with pity and distress. One can feel this for oneself as well as for others. Jesus felt this way when he looked at the multitudes who were like sheep without a shepherd.”

For Mark 1:11, lilili (“take care of, honor”). “Loving with special care, attention, and honor. This is the term often used for loving a dear child and God’s loving his Son.”

For 1 Thess. 2:8 and Mark 1:11, siayni (“love, pity”). “Affection for children or for those in difficult circumstances.”

For Titus 3:4 and 1 Thess. 1:2-3, ralamni kalwieda-paitiota (“good insides”). The focus of this term is the goodness of the one who loves. There is absolutely no focus whatsoever on the one loved, who may even be despicable. This term is often used for God’s love and mercy toward us especially in such verses as ‘God loved us, not because of what we have done, but because of his great mercy.'”

For 1 Thess. 1:4 and 2 Tim. 4:10, napalniana (“insides face”). “The sense of this term is very close to that of the sense of ‘ralamni nalal’ for ‘love’. It indicates something about the thing or person loved that pleases the one loving. However, the sense ‘ralamni nalal’ refers generally to love as an outcome of the loved one’s pleasing characteristics, while this term, when it collocates with human beings, is used more for love that results from the loved one’s loving actions. It is not used for the love between a man and a woman.”

The following are service-related terms for “love.” “There are several different words for love where the focus is on the act produced by love, not on the goodness of the one loving, the one being loved, or any emotion of affection or pity. These words are differentiated by the particular service given and are mainly used in verses where people are commanded to love one another.”

For 2 Thess. 1:3 and 1 Tim. 6:18, ra’a-palu (“love-widow”). “This term’s focus is on love displayed by giving to one another financially.”

For 1 Thess. 3:12, nhimpai-nmanatu (“hold out hands, place carefully”). This term’s focus is more on daily practical care of someone.

For Titus 2:2 and 1 Tim. 6:11, hima-re’a (“hold out hands”). “This term’s focus is on helping someone with their work.”

For 1 Thess. 4:9, mpiehwa-mliakta kalwiedweda (“good/careful actions”). “This term’s focus is on the proper treatment of others on meeting them. It implies being hospitable, polite, respecting.”

Source: Kathy Taber in Notes on Translation 1/1999, p. 9-16.

evil

The Greek that is often translated as “evil” in English has the option of various terms in Luang with different shades of meaning.

For Acts 24:9 and Gen. 6:11, yata-hala (“bad-wrong”). “This term refers to evil behavior.”

For Acts 27:12, yota-yata (“bad-bad”). “This term refers to the evil results of behavior or to objects of poor quality. (In Acts 27:12 it refers to a bad harbor).”

For Acts 12:11 and 13:50, yatyatni (“its badness”). “This term is often used when evil comes on a person from an outside force.”

Source: Kathy Taber in Notes on Translation 1/1999, p. 9-16.