Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 12:09, caeruleancentaur wrote:
> Chris Bates <chris.maths_student@N...> wrote:
> >I think religeous texts are almost always amongst the most difficult
> >things to translate. I remember hearing once about a missionary who
> >wanted to translate the bible into the local language, but this was
> >somewhere where they didn't have donkeys, horses or anything similar.
> >How do you translate the story of the birth of Jesus without
> >mentioning a donkey!?! You could translate it as "big four legged
> >beast that carries things" I suppose, but if you don't mention that
> >these were common place then readers not familiar with donkeys or
> >horses etc might assume that this beast is a miracle rather than
> >something you see every day. So you have to include way more than
> >just one word just to get across the basic idea of Mary riding on a
> >donkey.
>
> I agree with you in principle.  Missionaries do have problems in
> translating terms that are culturally bound.  Just a reminder,
> though, that the donkey is not mentioned in the Christmas stories of
> Matthew and Luke.  Neither are camels or oxen.  It would be very easy
> to translate the Christmas stories without mentioning donkeys.  I
> would be more worried about the espousal custom in Matthew or the
> census in Luke.  Or the manger.
I've just amused myself considering the situation as-to-be-translated into Yhe
Vala Lakha, Nu Aves Khara-Ansha or Li' Anyerra-Tarah.  All three are
matriarchial societies, and for a start, the Lakhabrech would not understand
the right of the Roman authorities to have Joseph move his pregnant wife into
a territory not previously hers.

They would see it as being a situation where the resident midwife wanted
Mary's favoured hunting territories within the clan range, and was putting
unjust pressure on her.  It's one of the very few situations where the
relevant male - Mary's man - would be supported and acquitted by anybody in
the village if he assaulted the village midwife.  Where even if he killed
her, the verdict would go in his favour because he was defending his wife's
rights at a time when she was incapable of defending them herself.  The
assumption of course, would be that her parents and siblings were unavailable
to defend her interests as well - if they were present and unwilling, and
everyone had been caught up in the turmoil, then it would be a differnet
matter.

Of course, the likes of Akhriech would perk up immediately at the mention of
the donkey-analog, since it's assumed Joseph got it for her to eat.  H*&^,
Lakhabrech just do not ride prey.  And it would indicate very deep love for a
male to organize a hunt for such a large prey for his woman in the last
trimester.

Not forgetting that Uan's the only Lakhabrech who appears to have no problem
with God manifesting as a male - but then she's half-Rakhebuityan and proud
of it, and they're not so matriarchial, since the female's only about 5-7%
larger than the male, unlike the Lakhabrech, where the female's 10-15%
larger.  Rakhebuityan can see the point of King David going into the
Tabernacle to get the holy bread, and they can see the point of Jesus cursing
the fig tree.  Lakhabrech would be asking themselves why a male was handling
holy things, and why a male was looking for prey's food instead of hunting
for himself.  (The implications would be that he had lost his nerve, or was
ill, or was prohibited from doing so because of malfeasance.  Not the image
the various writers wished to present! ;)

Of course, the City humans, who are a standard patriarchial human species,
have no difficulty with such matters - but the Lakhabrech and to a lesser
degree the Rakhebuityan have been at loggerheads with the City humans for
most of their existence.  Lakhabrech and Rakhebuityan then ask themselves
what relevance would a City human has to them, even if "god" manifested
through him.

My conworld's Bible and Quran etc translators are going to be tearing their
hair out, by all appearances.  Food prohibitions are going to look silly to a
full-spectrum carnivore and a full-spectrum omnivore, no matter whether it's
pig, cow, horse, dog or whatever.
>
> Charlie
--
Wesley Parish
* * *
Clinersterton beademung - in all of love.  RIP James Blish
* * *
Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."