inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Ps 20:9)

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 and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation both use the exclusive pronouN.

king

Click here to view graphically

Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin that is translated as “king” in English. Here are some (back-) translations:

(Click or tap here to see details)

  • Piro: “a great one”
  • Highland Totonac: “the big boss”
  • Huichol: “the one who commanded” (source for this and above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Ekari: “the one who holds the country” (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
  • Una: weik sienyi: “big headman” (source: Kroneman 2004, p. 407)
  • Pass Valley Yali: “Big Man” (source: Daud Soesilo)
  • Ninia Yali: “big brother with the uplifted name” (source: Daud Soesilio in Noss 2007, p. 175)
  • Nyamwezi: mutemi: generic word for ruler, by specifying the city or nation it becomes clear what kind of ruler (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
  • Ghomála’: Fo (“The word Fo refers to the paramount ruler in the kingdoms of West Cameroon. He holds administrative, political, and religious power over his own people, who are divided into two categories: princes (descendants of royalty) and servants (everyone else).” (Source: Michel Kenmogne in Theologizing in Context: An Example from the Study of a Ghomala’ Christian Hymn))

Faye Edgerton retells how the term in Navajo was determined:

“[This term was] easily expressed in the language of Biblical culture, which had kings and noblemen with their brilliant trappings and their position of honor and praise. But leadership among the Navajos is not accompanied by any such titles or distinctions of dress. Those most respected, especially in earlier days, were their headmen, who were the leaders in raids, and the shaman, who was able to serve the people by appealing for them to the gods, or by exorcising evil spirits. Neither of these made any outward show. Neither held his position by political intrigue or heredity. If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior. If the shaman failed many times in his healing ceremonies, it was considered that he was making mistakes in the chants, or had lost favor with the gods, and another was sought. The term Navajos use for headman is derived from a verb meaning ‘to move the head from side to side as in making an oration.’ The headman must be a good orator, able to move the people to go to war, or to follow him in any important decision. This word is naat’áanii which now means ‘one who rules or bosses.’ It is employed now for a foreman or boss of any kind of labor, as well as for the chairman of the tribal council. So in order to show that the king is not just a common boss but the highest ruler, the word ‘aláahgo, which expresses the superlative degree, was put before naat’áanii, and so ‘aláahgo naat’áanii ‘anyone-more-than-being around-he-moves-his-head-the-one-who’ means ‘the highest ruler.’ Naat’áanii was used for governor as the context usually shows that the person was a ruler of a country or associated with kings.”

(Source: Faye Edgerton in The Bible Translator 1962, p. 25ff. )

Translation commentary on Psalm 20:9

The Hebrew text may be taken to mean what the Revised Standard Version footnote has, in which “the King” refers to Yahweh; or else it may mean, as the Good News Translation footnote has it, “Give victory to the king, O LORD; he will answer us when we call,” in which “he” should refer to Yahweh but appears to refer to the king (since the third person is used, not the second); see Traduction œcuménique de la Bible “The king will answer us on the day we call to him.” Consequently Good News Translation, Revised Standard Version, and others (Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, New English Bible, New American Bible, Bible de Jérusalem, New Jerusalem Bible) follow the Septuagint, Targum, and Jerome, and express the imperative answer us, addressed to Yahweh. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (“C” decision) offers four possible interpretations of the Masoretic text without suggesting a preference: (1) “O LORD, save; may the king answer us the day we call (to him)”; (2) “O LORD, save; may the king (that is, God) answer us the day we call (to him).” And with a different division of the Hebrew phrases: (3) “O LORD, save the king; may he (the king) answer us the day we call (to him)”; (4) “O LORD, save the king; He (that is, God) will answer us the day we call (to him).”

Give victory to the king, O LORD must often be restructured as “O LORD, help the king defeat his enemies.”

Answer us must not be translated by a term meaning to give a verbal reply, but rather by a term for responding to a request. Some languages distinguish between answers that are direct or indirect, polite or impolite, evasive or frank. In the present context one can sometimes say “hear us and help us.” If the translator wishes to preserve the formal feature of “answer you” in verse 1 corresponding to answer us in this final verse, the same term should be used in both places.

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Reyburn, William D. A Handbook on the Book of Psalms. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1991. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .