 |
Sometimes it's that the sheet music is all of one form and the liturgical text is of another. Sometimes different people are using different books. Sometimes the priest simply likes one more than the other. The means are not as important as the product. Said another way: I don't care why it's happening as much as I'd like it to stop.
At the same time things like using two different Matins texts doesn't phase me at all. I've served in parishes where one cantor is using the AGES text and the other is using the monthly paperback version. The flow and English of the service is unchanged even if the specific word choice from one book to the other is different. It's a headache for the priest, but not a migraine. The few people in attendance probably notice no change at all.
But I think we seem a bit silly to weave with abandon from one convention to another. God willing the chaffing I feel at hearing it will one day prove contagious and get treated with the salve of uniformity.
Posts
The problem is that most people are unfamiliar with grammar. Hey, who needs it with Twitter?
ReplyDeleteSarcasm aside many are under the mistaken impression that use of the second person singular pronoun is more formal, when it is the opposite. I would like to see consistency and ultimately a consistent retention of the second person singular pronoun.
English is a fairly crude language and "you" is too ambiguous. When reading a Psalm, for example the question of whether "you" refers to one or many can impact the psalm is interpreted. Similarly using second person singular in reference to God (but not exclusively, which is the consistency mistake) underscores that the Trinity is One.
The arguement that the secons person singular pronoun has fallen out of usage doesn't hold water. A simple explanation is all that is needed for linguistic precision. For example: this is nothing like the problem presented by Liturgical Greek vs Modern Greek.
English? A crude language? I recommend you read some Dickens over this advent season! Our language is rich in history and alive with nuance - but we have to love it enough to use it well. Archaism doesn’t always imply elegance, or a calque quality translation
DeleteOne linguistic problem has to do with register. For example, biblical texts written in a rather lowbrow Greek get rendered into the highest-brow possible English.
ReplyDeleteHere's another linguistic oddity I have come across: The epistle is read in three languages. Two are done in an ordinary speaking voice, but the Russian reader insists on a singsong sort of chant.
"Russian reader insists on a singsong sort of chant..."
DeleteNo, put it out of your head it's not a "Russian" thing. Texts have always been chanted in the Church. The recent practice of reading with a speaking voice is a modern misunderstanding and literal interpretation of the word "Read". Now, the fact that the vocation of the Reader/Chanted/TaperBearer is not taken seriously is another problem. Everyone who serves, reads, or sings should be trained and it wouldn't take much.
Our real problem with English translation of the liturgy is that there isn’t a single standard version for all Orthodox parishes in North America. Thee/thou and you/your appear interchangeably even in Spender and Shakespeare - the linguistic shift wasn’t abrupt and overnight after all.
ReplyDeleteThee/Thou and You/Your appear in Shakespere because the usage is grammatically correct. One is the Second Person Singular (Thee/Thou) and that doesn't mean You/Your is automatically replaced. Correct translations would use Thee/Thou and You/Your appropriately as opposed to the weird practice of using Thee/Thou to refer to God and You/Your to everyone else.
DeleteSpenser’s 75th sonnet is an example of what I mean: a 16th poet appearing to use a singular “you.” It’s not so simple as singular thee/plural you. Who decides what is grammatically correct anyway? Judging 21st century vernacular by 16th century standards is arbitrary. If the goal is antiquarian speech, rather than clarity, we betray a chronological bias to which we’re entitled. But there’s no real rational or theological case to be made for the preference of one dialect over the other. The old RSV method to which you allude is a convention of midcentury classics translation technique which I agree is liturgically and theologically absurd.
DeleteSee this link. You can be used in the singular case without contradiction.
Deletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English#Pronouns
This old article of mine from 1999 may be of interest here:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-04-110-r