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 Translator2002, 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.
Here, John addresses Herod with the informal pronoun, showing a lack of respect.
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 Translator2002, 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.
Here, angels address people with the formal pronoun, expressing respect.
In most Dutch as well as in Western Frisian and Afrikaans translations, the angels are addressing people with the informal pronoun.
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 Translator2002, 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.
John addresses Jesus with the formal pronoun
Voinov explains: “This relationship is somewhat complicated. John and Jesus are relatives, John being the older. However, John recognizes Jesus as more important than himself, as the Messiah whose sandal straps he is not worthy to untie (Mark 1:7). At the same time, Jesus highly respects John, submitting to the inferior position by receiving John’s baptism, and later calling him the greatest among the prophets (Matt 11:7-15). In the Tuvan translation, we finally decided that the overall circumstances indicate that John addresses Jesus with the formal pronoun as a sign of respect.”
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 most 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 Translator2002, 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.
Here, Jesus addresses Mary, his mother, with the formal, respectful pronoun, whereas she addresses him with the informal pronoun, typically used by parents for their children.
Vitaly Voinov explains how the translation team made those choices: “As in probably all languages with a formal/informal distinction, so in Tuvan, parents always address their children with the informal pronoun. Mary does likewise in the only passage where she directly addresses Jesus (Luke 2:48). It was assumed by the Tuvan translation team that Jesus always treated Mary with proper filial respect as a fulfillment of the fifth commandment (cf. Luke 2:51). This is the case even in John 2, where he addresses her as gunai ‘woman’ [see woman], and at first seemingly turns down her request.”
In most Dutch translations, the same distinctions are made.
In Gbaya, Jesus addresses his mother with the less courteous pronoun. (Source Philip Noss)
In the Tuvan Bible translation project, the official policy (…) was to keep the spelling of names of major characters the same as in the Russian Synodal translation. However, the translation team and representatives of local Tuvan churches agreed that deviation in proper name spelling from the RST would be allowed on a case-by-case basis if there was a concrete need to do so.
Such a need arose with the name of Noah’s son Ham (חָ֥ם) in Genesis and elsewhere in the Old Testament.
In Russian, as in English, this is transliterated with three letters — Хам (Kham). In Russian, the name of this character has entered the language with the meaning of “boorish lout, impudent person” because of how Ham treated his father; in Tuvan, however, the word Хам (Kham) already means “shaman.” Since the Tuvan people continue to practice their traditional religion in which shamans play a major role, the translation team felt that leaving the transliteration of this name with the exact spelling as in Russian might cause needless offense to Tuvan sensibilities by unwittingly causing the text of Gen. 9:20-27 to portray shamans as the targets of Noah’s curse. Therefore, the translation team chose to avoid this potential stumbling block while continuing to maintain a close sound correspondence with the name of the biblical character as Tuvan Christians already knew it from the RST text. This was done by doubling the vowel — Хаам. Tuvan has long vowel phonemes that are written with a double vowel, so this is perfectly acceptable from the point of view of Tuvan orthographic conventions.
The correspondence of the Tuvan version of the name to the Russian Synodal spelling is still recognizable, but hopefully, the wrath of Tuvan shamans and their supporters has been averted by this small disliteration.
The rationale behind such an approach to spelling changes in names is concisely described in the foreword to the Tuvan Bible for the sake of transparency
Apparently, the similarity of the English version of this name to the food item (as in “I’ll have a ham and cheese sandwich”) is not deemed offensive enough to the meat-packing industry for a similar disliteration to be performed in English Bible translations.
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 Translator2002, 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. Here, Satan, demons or demon-possessed men address Jesus with the formal pronoun, signaling submission. Jesus on the other hand, responds with an informal pronoun which signals his more powerful position.
In Burmese there are three different levels of speech: common language, religious language (addressing and honoring monks, etc.), and royal language (which is not in active use anymore). Earliest Bible translations used exclusively royal and religious language (in the way Jesus is addressed by others and in the way Jesus is referred to via pronouns), which results in Jesus being divine and not human. Later editions try to make distinctions. In the Common Language Version (publ. 2005), Satan is shown to recognize Jesus as Lord when he addresses Jesus as ko taw (ကိုယ်တော်) (see pronoun for “God”). At the same time he is rude to Jesus when he refers to himself by the pronoun nga (ငါ) which indicates a similar or superior position, declaring himself to be the same or superior to Jesus’ Lordship. (See Matthew 4:9 and Luke 4:6 and 7.) (Source: Gam Seng Shae in The Bible Translator 2002, p. 202ff. )
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 Translator2002, 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.
Here, Pilate is addressing Jesus with an informal pronoun and Jesus Pilate with the formal, respectful form.
Voinov explains: “Pilate, as governor of Judea, would consider himself superior to Jesus, a carpenter and itinerant teacher, on the power hierarchy. This is especially visible when Pilate reminds Jesus that he is the one who decides whether Jesus lives or dies. An informal pronoun is appropriate in Tuvan to render this attitude. The more difficult question concerns the form Jesus should use in responding to Pilate. On the one hand, it can be argued from passages such as John 18:33-37 and 19:11 that Jesus did not accept Pilate’s authority. There Jesus affirms himself as king and lets Pilate know that Pilate’s authority is subordinate to God. On the other hand, it seems likely that Jesus would show due respect to the authorities, not out of fear for his life, but rather because this constituted a part of the Jewish concept of righteousness. (…) One potential problem with this solution is that readers may think that Jesus is trying to curry the favor of these powerful people in order to save himself. Before making a final decision the Tuvan translators did comprehension testing concerning this point. None of the readers interpreted Jesus’ use of the informal pronoun in this way, but rather said that Jesus was showing respect appropriate to the position of his addressee.”
In Gbaya, where God is always addressed with the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́, the common way to address superiors, Pilate and Jesus address each other with the less courteous nɛ́. (Source Philip Noss)
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 Translator2002, 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.
Here, Jesus is addressing the woman with an informal pronoun whereas she addresses him with a formal pronoun, showing respect.
In Gbaya, where God is always addressed with the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́, the common way to address superiors, the woman addresses him with the less courteous nɛ́ in verse 4:9 but then switches to the courteous plural form ɛ́nɛ́. (Source Philip Noss)
Likewise in Burmese where in the Common Language Version (publ. 2005) the Samaritan woman changes her language level from the Common to the Royal and Religious as she discovers the real nature of Jesus. Jesus appears here as a divine revealer. (Source: Gam Seng Shae in The Bible Translator 2002, p. 202ff. )
In most Dutch translations, both Jesus and the woman use the formal pronoun, whereas in Afrikaans and Western Frisian Jesus addresses the woman informally and she addresses him with the formal pronoun.
