inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Neh. 9:36)

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, the Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the exclusive form, because it “includes those who are praying and the people they represent and excludes God who is being addressed in the prayer.”

addressing God

Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed. The first example is from a language where God is always addressed distinctly formal whereas the second is one where the opposite choice was made.

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight

Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.

As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator 2002, p. 210ff.), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.

In these verses, in which humans address God, the informal, familiar pronoun is used that communicates closeness.

Voinov notes that “in the Tuvan Bible, God is only addressed with the informal pronoun. No exceptions. An interesting thing about this is that I’ve heard new Tuvan believers praying with the formal form to God until they are corrected by other Christians who tell them that God is close to us so we should address him with the informal pronoun. As a result, the informal pronoun is the only one that is used in praying to God among the Tuvan church.”

In Gbaya, “a superior, whether father, uncle, or older brother, mother, aunt, or older sister, president, governor, or chief, is never addressed in the singular unless the speaker intends a deliberate insult. When addressing the superior face to face, the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́ or ‘you (pl.)’ is used, similar to the French usage of vous.

Accordingly, the translators of the current version of the Gbaya Bible chose to use the plural ɛ́nɛ́ to address God. There are a few exceptions. In Psalms 86:8, 97:9, and 138:1, God is addressed alongside other “gods,” and here the third person pronoun o is used to avoid confusion about who is being addressed. In several New Testament passages (Matthew 21:23, 26:68, 27:40, Mark 11:28, Luke 20:2, 23:37, as well as in Jesus’ interaction with Pilate and Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well) the less courteous form for Jesus is used to indicate ignorance of his position or mocking (source Philip Noss).

In Dutch and Western Frisian translations, however, God is always addressed with the formal pronoun.

See also female second person singular pronoun in Psalms.

Translation commentary on Nehemiah 9:36

Behold, we are slaves … behold, we are slaves: Behold (hinneh in Hebrew) is a very emphatic way of drawing attention to what will follow (see Ezra 9.15). It occurs twice in this single verse drawing attention to the people’s lament, focusing on their complaint that they are slaves. In Latin this is expressed as ecce (literally meaning “Look!”), but in English Behold is an archaic interjection. Many languages have similar interjections that emphatically mark the discourse for what will follow, for example, Ndaa! (Deftere Allah). A shift is made from third person for the Israelites (“they/their/them”) in verse 35 to the independent first person plural pronoun we in this verse. This is the first person exclusive plural pronoun that includes those who are praying and the people they represent and excludes God who is being addressed in the prayer.

For slaves see the comments at Neh 5.5. Instead of serving God in their own land, the speakers here acknowledge twice that they are slaves to other people. This repeated statement emphasizes the irony and tragedy of their present situation. New Living Translation tries to capture this emphasis by rendering this verse as follows: “So now today we are slaves here in the land of plenty that you gave to our ancestors! We are slaves among all this abundance!”

In the land that thou gavest to our fathers to enjoy its fruit and its good gifts: Their ancestors had been given the land … to enjoy, but they had been unfaithful. Now the descendants live in the land but are slaves and must even give its “yield” in taxes to foreign kings (verse 37 below). Not only had God given them good gifts, but even the land had given them its fruit and its good things. This statement is full of sad irony. To enjoy is literally “to eat,” and many languages will have a similar expression as in Hebrew.

The following is a close rendering of the Hebrew that can be a model for the translator:

• Look! Today we are slaves!
The land that you gave to our forefathers
to eat her fruit and her good things,
look, we are slaves in her today!”

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Nehemiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .