Latin Future Tense in English
  • scholistascholista
    Posts: 109
    When grammatically reflecting on Ps. 51:17 Domine, lábia méa apéries., a question comes to my mind: Is the future tense in Latin more of a request than a statement of fact?

    In other words, is there a reason why the English translation of this does not render it as the future tense that it is: Lord, you will open my lips, rather than as a request: Lord, open my lips?

    Novice Latin Student
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    It might be similar to Spanish: there is a future perfective and a future conditional tense. The future conditional tense would be more like a request, and the future perfective is more like will do something.
    Thanked by 1scholista
  • igneusigneus
    Posts: 390
    It must be taken into account that the Vulgate psalter (about which, I assume, we are talking) is a "slavish translation from a slavish translation". So we actually shouldn't be discussing meaning of futurum in classical or post-classical Latin, but meaning of the Hebrew futurum and it's translation in Greek Septuagint and in the Vulgate psalter based on it.
    Thanked by 5CHGiffen Adam Wood M. Jackson Osborn scholista gregp
  • scholistascholista
    Posts: 109
    The Nova Vulgata is said to have referenced the Masoretic text, and yet still renders this verse as
    Domine, lábia méa apéries.

    I gave away my biblical Hebrew grammar books and Hebrew Old Testament after little success at just memorizing and learning to write the consonants and diacritic vowel symbols. Can anyone read the Masoretic text and give some insight?
  • scholistascholista
    Posts: 109
    Here's what I found, since it is my quest:

    The Holy Scriptures According To The Masoretic Text (Jewish Publication Society Of America, 1917, Max Leopold Margolis) renders the English as: O Lord, open Thou my lips.

    https://archive.org/stream/holyscripturesa00marggoog#page/n828/mode/2up

    Whether the future Latin apéries translates this accurately or not, at least one Hebrew source suggests that it is a request.

  • scholistascholista
    Posts: 109
    igneus, would you care to elaborate on this?
    ...the Vulgate psalter...is a "slavish translation from a slavish translation."
  • gregpgregp
    Posts: 632
    FWIW, the Septuagint also use the Future tense.

    Κύϱɩε, τὰ χείλη μου ἀνοίξεɩς. O Lord, You will open my lips.
    Thanked by 1scholista
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,417
    Well! 'O Lord, open thou my lips' can't but be correct! It's what's in the BCP and Divine Worship. What greater pedigree would you want?
    Thanked by 2Adam Wood CHGiffen
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,193
    Indeed. And my mouth shall show forth thy praise.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Jackson,

    A line from A Man for All Seasons comes to mind. Something about the pedigree of the gentry of England, who would snore through the sermon on the mount....

    I happily acknowledge (as a former Episcopalian) that there is beauty available to the Englishman who wishes to worship God in his native tongue, and that some of it has a Catholic pedigree. Sir Charles Stanford's Beati Quorum Via comes to mind as a sublime piece, and even Benjamin Britten's Hymn to the Virgin fits as beautiful music and sublime text. But the BCP (1979) hardly qualifies as retaining that pedigree, except as a concession to the premise cited elsewhere that the holding together of the Anglican Communion is the Devil's proof that at house divided against itself can, in fact, stand.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,417
    Actually, it's 'O Lord, open thou our lips'. But still....

    And, Chris, about that 1979 BCP: is it really a BCP? It hath about it an air most specious..
    That's the book that put the Episcopalians in the same boat with the 'Romans', who gave the world 'and also with you'. Now, we Romans, finally (after how many decades did it take?), have realised our error and the Episcopalians remain valiantly (as in stubbornly) stuck with it.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,193
    And, actually, it's 'And our mouths shall show forth thy praise'.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,417
    And, and, actually, it's 'And our mouth shall show forth thy praise'.
    Or, across the pond: '...shew...'.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,193
    Oh, right, my misteak[sic].
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,471
    The underlying difficulty here is that Hebrew verbs (and Aramaic) do not express future present or past explicitly. This
    Tense - Whereas English verbs indicate tense by means of spelling changes or through the use of "helping verbs" (e.g., I talk. I talked. I shall talk), Hebrew verbs are not marked for tense. You cannot tell - just by looking at a verb form without context - when the action occurs.
    from a website Hebrew4Christians
    Thanked by 3scholista M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen
Add a Comment