Da Bible mon...

[@Li3n]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16285462

The Bible is, for the first time, being translated into Jamaican patois. It's a move welcomed by those Jamaicans want their mother tongue enshrined as the national language - but opposed by others, who think learning and speaking English should be the priority.

In the Spanish Town Tabernacle near the capital, Kingston, the congregation is hearing the word of God in the language of the street.

At the front of the concrete-block church, a young man and woman read alternate lines from the Bible.
This is the Gospel of St Luke in Jamaican patois - or more precisely, "Jiizas - di buk we Luuk rait bout im".

Closest thing we'll get to an Ork version... now i want a video of someone reading it...

The New Testament has been completed by a team of translators at the Bible Society in Kingston - working from the original Greek - who intend to publish it in time for the 50th anniversary of Jamaica's independence from Britain on 6 August next year.

But some traditionalist Christians say the patois Bible dilutes the word of God, and insist that creole is no substitute for English.

English, God's chose language...

 

[SpecialKO]

English, God's chose language...

You betcha!

 

[TommiR]

I suppose what the traditionalists are mostly arguing against is the translation of the bible to a language which is mostly equated to a regional dialect or pidgin, but not considered to be an official and formal language. I doubt they have a problem with non-english Bibles, but with jamaican patois being a lower-class language with not even an established dictionary or standardised writing system, they likely see it as eminently unsuitable for the task at hand.

The creole versus english debate in Jamaica seems to extend a lot further than just what language the Bible is written on, though, so I guess there are bigger things at stake here, and that line about creole being no substitute for english is meant to be taken in a broader context than just matters of religion.

 

[strawman]

If there are people who know a given language better than they know any other language, and there are people trying to deliver a message to them, then it makes sense to deliver the message in the language they know best.

 

[makare]

I suppose what the traditionalists are mostly arguing against is the translation of the bible to a language which is mostly equated to a regional dialect or pidgin, but not considered to be an official and formal language. I doubt they have a problem with non-english Bibles, but with jamaican patois being a lower-class language with not even an established dictionary or standardised writing system, they likely see it as eminently unsuitable for the task at hand.

The creole versus english debate in Jamaica seems to extend a lot further than just what language the Bible is written on, though, so I guess there are bigger things at stake here, and that line about creole being no substitute for english is meant to be taken in a broader context than just matters of religion.

That would make sense if it wasn't for all the hubbub over putting the bible in English in the first place. People just don't like change.

Isn't that right Agent K.

"People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals"

Amen Agent K, amen.

 

[TommiR]

That is certainly more effective, and I guess it was a part of the idea in western Europe when they began translating the Bible to languages other than latin during the protestant reformation. But, in addition to other possible linguistics policy motives, perhaps traditionalists feel the shortcomings of creole do not do justice to the percieved significance and dignity of the message being delivered.

Appearances are so important, and while my own opinions may differ, I can understand the viewpoint of those who prioritise form over function in these matters.

 

[North_Ranger]

There's always going to be people who dislike changing the word of God (I'm tempted to put that in parenthesis, but I'd rather not offend anyone. Besides, I've already been smote with cancer; the last thing I want is to give Him any more reasons to give me the Job treatment). If my understanding is correct, there are people who insist on the King James Bible being the one and true version in English, and while I was too young at the time, I'm pretty sure somebody had their panties in a bunch when the Finnish-language Bible was given a touch-up in the 1990s, from old-timey language to a more modern parlance.

 

[TommiR]

@ N_R: Quite so. In fact a few snarky remarks spring to mind about the Word of God perhaps needing more extensive adjustments, but I think I will follow your example of prudence and keep my peace.

That would make sense if it wasn't for all the hubbub over putting the bible in English in the first place. People just don't like change.

I agree with you in general about people's resistance to change. I take it your example was about the Great Bible authored after King Henry VIII's separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church, and the greater conflict between protestant reformation and catholic counter-reformation in 16th-17th century Europe. If so, I think the events had quite a bit more to them than could be explained by simple resistance to change.

 

[Officer_Charon]

One could argue that English itself was, approximately 1000 years ago, a similar creole of old Norman, Saxon, Latin and Scandinavian descent.

 

[TommiR]

A good point. While jamaican patois doesn't appear to be quite where Middle English was by the time of Chaucer (the lack of a standard official writing system being one of the biggies, though they seem to be working on the Cassidy-JLU), perhaps the proponents are correct in that things are just a matter of time and patois' limited lexical repertoire in expressing higher-end concepts in e.g. sciences and law is more due to a dearth of academic attention than any intrinsic flaws.

 

[figmentPez]

One could argue that English itself was, approximately 1000 years ago, a similar creole of old Norman, Saxon, Latin and Scandinavian descent.

Indeed it was, and it was the translation of the Bible into English that had a major role in transforming it into what it is now. Tackling the complex ideas found in scripture enriched the English language, and made it more capable of expressing philosophical ideas.

 

[North_Ranger]

A good point. While jamaican patois doesn't appear to be quite where Middle English was by the time of Chaucer (the lack of a standard official writing system being one of the biggies, though they seem to be working on the Cassidy-JLU), perhaps the proponents are correct in that things are just a matter of time and patois' limited lexical repertoire in expressing higher-end concepts in e.g. sciences and law is more due to a dearth of academic attention than any intrinsic flaws.

That's why when there's a body of text first being written in a certain language there's also someone or some people who start making up words for such concepts. If you don't mind, I'll use my and TommiR's native language, Finnish, as an example: when The New Testament was translated into Finnish in the mid-1500s, the Finnish language - being mostly the language of peasantry and lower middle class - did not have a word for "lion". Probably because due to our local climate, such feline predators were curiously absent in this particular part of the world. So, Mikael Agricola - the bishop of Finland who was doing the translation - had to make one up.

What I still can't figure how on earth "a noble deer" (jalopeura) is supposed to be a lion...

 

[makare]

The tone of this conversation reminds me of this


and that amuses me.

 

[Hailey Knight]

That's why when there's a body of text first being written in a certain language there's also someone or some people who start making up words for such concepts. If you don't mind, I'll use my and TommiR's native language, Finnish, as an example: when The New Testament was translated into Finnish in the mid-1500s, the Finnish language - being mostly the language of peasantry and lower middle class - did not have a word for "lion". Probably because due to our local climate, such feline predators were curiously absent in this particular part of the world. So, Mikael Agricola - the bishop of Finland who was doing the translation - had to make one up.

What I still can't figure how on earth "a noble deer" (jalopeura) is supposed to be a lion...

Couldn't they have just used the same word?

 

[strawman]

And sully the language?! NEVER!

/insert joke about france and their control of the french language

 

[North_Ranger]

Couldn't they have just used the same word?

How do you mean, "same word"?

 

[TommiR]

Indeed it was, and it was the translation of the Bible into English that had a major role in transforming it into what it is now. Tackling the complex ideas found in scripture enriched the English language, and made it more capable of expressing philosophical ideas.

Perhaps so, but I would point to the substantial body of literary works in Middle and Early Modern English built up during the preceding three hundred years or so. I would say that by the time the Great Bible came out, English was not a system of speech that they were just figuring out how to write properly, but rather an established language already in possession of a respectable set of credentials and tradition.

That's why when there's a body of text first being written in a certain language there's also someone or some people who start making up words for such concepts. If you don't mind, I'll use my and TommiR's native language, Finnish, as an example: when The New Testament was translated into Finnish in the mid-1500s, the Finnish language - being mostly the language of peasantry and lower middle class - did not have a word for "lion". Probably because due to our local climate, such feline predators were curiously absent in this particular part of the world. So, Mikael Agricola - the bishop of Finland who was doing the translation - had to make one up.

What I still can't figure how on earth "a noble deer" (jalopeura) is supposed to be a lion...

Certainly, or they use copious amounts of loanwords. That's the technical side of language planning.

Regarding jalopeura, I found this article (in finnish) which suggests that, contrary to popular belief, the word jalopeura was not invented by Agricola but had been in use for some time before that, possibly to describe the constellation Leo from where he adopted it to mean 'lion'.

 

[Eriol]

The only "real" edition of the Bible: The Lolcat Bible (This is real. The link is to Amazon.)


I'm of course kidding (though having read parts of it, it's both awesome, hilarious, and suprisingly NOT blasphemous). But it is interesting to see what happens when you try and translate to "dialects" and what you might get as a result of "tone" and such. Euphemisms and such translate very differently over time, and if you use the stereotypical british phrase of "jolly good" versus a "The Dude" speak of "cool" versus something else in another "more local" english, what is the resultant meaning? Do they differ? Or don't they? This is why IMO translating things is such a bitch, and should be given appropriate care. Is it being done in this case? Maybe, but I think it's more of a litmus test of how local dialects are treated by scholars and the public at large, than anything important regarding the Bible. Doing that rather than The Lord of the Rings (or whatever) is just to get publicity, not because it would actually help people understand it better IMO.

 

[jwhouk]

From what I've seen of that LOLcat Bible... I actually love it. It's not gonna replace my copy of the NIV or the NLT; but it's funny while still presenting the gist of the actual Biblical writing.

EDIT: And Eriol: I agree immensely with the translation issue. The trouble with any translation of the Bible is that you have to somehow mix form with meaning. Go too far in one direction and you're doing a disservice to the original documents.

 

[PatrThom]

Think The Boomer Bible is still my favorite edition*.

--Patrick
*to read for fun.