The "qui" clause
-
Mouthing off on another blog, I finally expressed fairly clearly something that I've been wanting to say about the benefit of the new translation of the Roman Missal. It has to do with the "qui" or "who" clause. Some ask whether this is a construction that works in English. The sentence seems broken up right from the beginning: "O God, whose only begotten Son..., grant, we beseech thee..."
Allowing that there is no simple rendering of the Latin into English, I see a huge benefit to the qui clause:
When I hear the “qui” clause in a prayer I feel engaged with God. It acts on me like a preface does, or the Creed when I’m paying close attention. Instead of addressing a vague deity (just “God”), a collect with an appositive qui expresses that this God has a history with me. I realize the sentence construction is like nothing in common use, but the activity of expressing the historic reasons for mutual trust is a part of communication in all relationships. It can be as simple as “thanks for your kind words” or as complex as “you have been my best friend for thirty years.” It’s a kind of appreciation.
In a collect, the qui clause roots the petition of the prayer in the history of the relationship. To my ears, although it has a formal sound, it adds to the intimacy of the prayer because of its meaning.
If the qui clause is divided from the petition (as usual in the 1973), although a reference is made to the history, the causal connection between the history and the hoped-for answer to the petition is weakened.
Here is a lightly meant example of how a divided qui strikes my ear, and a contrasting, appositive qui:
Dear Dad, you have always been supportive of my education. Please send money.
-or-
Dear Dad, in light of your steadfast support of my education over the years, please send money.
The second is a more complex sentence but I feel it expresses a more engaged relationship. -
In the absence of a default box to rate postings, I am posting to say.
[X] I LIKE THIS. -
Although I'm not a native English speaker, the last sentence sounds more sincere and proper, although it may also sound very different according to HOW you say it. So if you are setting music for those two sentences, I think there will be two different types of music to be used. At the Colloquium, Fr. Kirby mentioned that the music is the soul of words. It expresses the heart of the person. I think more casual music will fit the first sentence than the second one. I think the new English translation of the Missale is not so casual sounding as the current one besides being more close to Latin, even if it's still in vernacular. I hope musicians will compose new music that suits the dignity of the Liturgy for the new translation.
-
Liam,
I think that the "who have" or "whose," etc. rendering is ordinarily the only possible option that can preserve the causal connection. If (as I think) a certain amount of awkwardness is unavoidable, what then?
I vote that we say the awkward translation that correctly expresses the relationship. -
"whose" is still idiomatic English: "[N], who have" without "you" is an archaism and an obstacle to apprehension, let alone comprehension (and I am not a person who champions immediacy of intelligibility as the summum bonum of translation). Resorting to the archaism is a fiction; the translator may imagine he is correctly expressing the relationship, but since it no longer communicates effectively with the listener, it's an illusory thing. Mechanical translation is fine for high school Latin classes, but it's not worthy of the liturgy.
-
I should add that the "you who" rendering of qui, while making it more understandable, has silly effects in spoken English when it becomes a prominent usage. You can get away with it in occasional passing without titters. But that's the nature of the vernacular. Vernaculars comes as they are, not as Latinists would prefer them to be.
-
The solution, btw, is to ditch "have" and use "has", which is what would be done in regular speech in English; good grammarians would concede that usage is better than sticking to the archaism. Lots of so-called rules in English that are more like schoolmarm rules than rules for good usage (another classic schoolmarm-type rule is the one commanding agreement between verbs and personal pronouns - that's something of a late 18th-19th century invention, and people who learned their grammars precisely take pride in replicating the usage, but it's not really necessary in good idiomatic English).
-
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2010/06/fr-sean-finnegan-compares-collects.html
See the 2008 rendering. The 1998 rendering of qui is better English (and I am talking just about the qui, since that is the subject of this post), the 2008 is more of a mechanistic translation of it. -
I like this too.
The 'qui' clause, rendered into English, indicates that we are still addressing God throughout the clause -- that is, we are praising Him to His face (so to speak) for something specific. The attitude of sustained attention and address toward God is fundamental to adoration. This is a point that some of our charismatic friends have got right in their approach to spontaneous prayers.
As for how to render it: I"m perfectly happy with "O God, who have ..." etc. For example:
"O God, who have left us a memorial of your passion in this marvelous sacrament, ..." (my translation)
To the extent that some English speakers find such a structure foreign-sounding, it's an unavoidable and understandable thought on their part. It's a permanent linguistic trend. There is always a pressure to simplify language and eliminate forms that seem unusual.
Yet the form "...who have..." is correct. The verb in the subordinate clause agrees with the clause's antecedent in number and in 'person'. That is, when someone is being addressed, we are speaking in the 'second person', and the second-person forms are to be used.
The same grammatical rule exists in other languages close to ours, and in other examples of English usage. It's why we say, "Our Father, who art in Heaven..." Even changing to a modern form it would be "Our Father, who are in Heaven..." We would never say, "Our Father, who is in Heaven...." -
The same grammatical rule exists in other languages close to ours, and in other examples of English usage. It's why we say, "Our Father, who art in Heaven..." Even changing to a modern form it would be "Our Father, who are in Heaven..." We would never say, "Our Father, who is in Heaven...."
And if the translation had been done in 1975, it would start, "O Father of ours, you are in heaven. May your name ..." -
It might just be a linguistic accident, but I always liked that when we use "have" in addressing God "who have done such and such" that we are using the same form as the plural. In fact, before I knew more about it, I assumed that God's plural nature was the reason for selecting "have" in some prayers and song texts.
-
And also-
Regardless of which verb form is chosen, I like the structure of the qui clause. I agree with Kathy about how it is an immediate reminder that God does not just exist, but rather God does things and is active in history, in our communal life as a church, and in my personal life as an individual. -
And also-
(in addition to my weekly attendance at Mass...) I've spent the last three years worshiping in an informal setting with a group of Protestants (from several different backgrounds). I was struck hen I read Kathy's two "Dear Dad" examples that the first one was structured in a manner that reminded me of how Protestants do spontaneous prayer, while the second example felt more inherently Catholic in nature.
I've heard spontaneous Protestant prayer hundreds of times, and it always goes:
"Father God, you are so good because of X, Y, and Z. You are always so.... gosh.... great, because of this and this.
Unrelated to that, here is what I need right now: [insert lengthy and rambling petition]... I have now...run.. out...of things...to say....so I will awkwardly add, much too fast.......[pause?] ...injesusnameamen."
Whereas Catholic prayer (even when spontaneous) seems to be more like:
"God with magnificent title, who have done something amazing and related to what I'm about to ask you, grant this thing now, just as you once did for your people long ago. We ask this through the memorized formula of the name of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, One God for ever and ever. Amen."
It could be that Catholics pray this way because we feel more of a connection to salvation history. Or it could be that we feel that connection because of how we pray. Or both. -
I think I agree with Liam. The 1998 version sounds "right" to me, without being informal, and keeping with the whole remembering salvation history when we address God thing. The 1975 version sounds irreverent somehow, perhaps because it sounds like we're reminding God what He's all about rather than reminding ourselves.
Yet, I'm not sure if I'm attracted more to the 1998 version because I am intensely focused at the moment on the qui clause itself. If I heard the 2008 version at liturgy, I probably wouldn't bat an eye at it. I wonder if Eastern liturgies use this construction... -
""God with magnificent title, who has done something amazing and related to what I'm about to ask you, grant this thing now, just as you once did for your people long ago. We ask this through the memorized formula of the name of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, One God for ever and ever. Amen."
-
Regarding the Our Father: It would be rendered "Our Father in heaven". The qui is a Latin addition to the Greek. But the English-speaking bishops decided long ago not to update the translation of a daily prayer such as that. In fact, the continued use of the customary translation also is a remaining exception to Liturgiam Authenticam's translation principles.
-
""God with magnificent title, who has done something amazing and related to what I'm about to ask you, grant this thing now, just as you once did for your people long ago. We ask this through the memorized formula of the name of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, One God for ever and ever. Amen."
Actually it's the 1998 that sometimes adds the magnificent title. In the NLM page Liam pointed to above, the 1998 for some reason adds "our Creator." Why?
Adam, I think that Catholics try to pray like the Psalms. That is the formula, over and over again: You've done this, you do this, we need you, help us. -
1998: "God our Creator, who made this most holy night radiant . . . "
2008: "O God, who have made this most sacred night radiant . . . "
The 1998 version makes it sounds as though this night was (at one time) made radiant by God, but the 2008 brings it into the present, so to speak, with the addition of the one word "have" -- God is continuing to make this night radiant even now.
One small change in wording; one giant leap in meaning.
It is details like these that make me appreciate the guidelines of Litrugicam Authenticam and the new translation.
Sam Schmitt -
I always enjoy hearing this reading from the Book of Esther, which recounts a beautiful prayer beginning, "My Lord, our King, you alone are God. Help me, who am alone and have no help but you,"
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/esther/estherc.htm -
I've been thinking about this, and it's clear that something very interesting, linguistically, is going on. There are plenty of cases where an implied "you" is understood easily in English. Why not in this case?
I suspect this is one of those areas where everyday grammar is beginning to insist on more redundancy than used to be necessary, and that "you who" is being absolutely demanded by modern American English. Without "you", "who have" sounds weird. With it, it's fine. Today, English grammar is not certain whether you're addressing someone in the second person or just talking about them in the third, unless you make it crystal clear. And honestly, with the common occurrence of quick viewpoint shifts in English that we get today (especially in narrative and performative speech), I find that a very reasonable way for the language to work.
Soooooo, basically, you're stuck with "you who" or with having your words interpreted as being a mistake in the third person.
I'll take a look over at Language Log and see if they've got anything on this. -
Maureen
As I noted before, if you add the "you" the "have" works, without the personal pronoun, "has" is what is spoken these days (it's not that common a locution, but it's what would be done). In a sense, the use of a title or name instead of the personal pronoun "you" makes it take something of the usage of the third person in the vocative. If one only follows syntax logic in grammar, one loses sight of idiomatic usage; that's good for teaching children logical rules but not actual expression.
O God, you who have
O God, who has
For example, "Lord Who Hast Made Us For Thine Own" has become "Lord Who Has Made Us For Thine Own" and I seriously doubt there are many souls who feel an urge to sing Have instead of Has.... -
"Lord Who Hast Made Us For Thine Own" has become "Lord Who Has Made Us For Thine Own"
Can you explain your basis for saying that, Liam? I really haven't noticed that change. Where is it happening: in print? Have you been seeing such a change in common speech, in casual writing, in published writing, or elsewhere? -
Chonak
Well, it's never used in casual writing - it's just not a casual form of vocative address, is it?
The easiest one to verify is the hymn tune title I gave you. Compare how often "Lord Who Hast Made Us For Thine Own" has become "Lord Who Has Made Us For Thine Own" vs "Lord Who Have Made Us For Thine Own"... When you compare the provenance of "O God, who has" vs "O God, who have" you will notice that the former are replete in modern versions, the latter are older in provenance. I think those who assume the logic of using "have" ought to win out are assuming that logic must dictate grammatical usage, and in that they mistake how English usage works. English usage has never been entirely about logical rules, despite the efforts of systematizers in the 19th century (against whom even Fowler made delicious arguments when it suited him).
Hittin' the road here. -
"I seriously doubt there are many souls who feel an urge to sing Have instead of Has...."
Liam, perhaps you should be a bit more dubious ;-) -
I wasn't going to contribute to this thread, but there were too many things that I disagreed with not to.
First, in Latin a relative clause does not explicitly communicate cause, unless it is a causal relative clause, which requires a subjunctive and often has a particle such as quippe prefixed to it. A relative clause with the indicative (like all of these prayers) can convey cause implicitly (via the linguistic tenet that one may assume that what is said is relevant, broadly speaking), but then so can independent clauses in English, just like those being criticized. In the end, I do not think that it should matter whether we use a relative clause.
Second, it is true that in the Latin Our Father, a relative clause is found where it is not in the Greek. However, in the Greek, Pater hemon, ho en tois ouranois, the use of the definite article is semantically equivalent to a relative clause. In other words, the Greek is not simply, "Our Father in heaven." In Aramaic, there was probably a relative conjunction/pronoun d- as well (cf. Syriac Abun d-bashmayo).
Adam, you forgot to include the adverb "just" somewhere in your generic Protestant prayer, e.g. I just want to praise you, etc., etc. It is often used multiple times while the person gathers his or her thoughts.
Finally, the formula can only be, "God, who have/are/grant/give etc." The use of the third singular "has/is/grants/gives, etc." is barbaric. Of course, we live in a society where people try to sound intelligent by asking rhetorical questions with, "Aren't I?" Stupid people! One does not say, "I are." I even hear college-educated people say things such as, "The tension was literally palpable." Liam is right to the extent that "God who have" is not a common construction. Therefore, if the Catholic church uses the correct grammatical choice, it will sound right because the mass will be the only place where it is heard. Consider the following reply to the putative son above. "Dear Son, I who have been supportive of your education, am unable to give you another nickle." Does anyone think that the sentence should read, "I who has been supportive..."? Hasn't the liturgy been injured enough in the name of inculturation by pandering to the perceived lowest common denominator? -
I agree that common vernacular usage is not "barbaric." in fact, in many cases when you deviate from it you sound pretentious--or even sound wrong and people start correcting you on things. I have often been on the receiving end of this... :(
although, I have my own pet peeves too. Like the plural of octopus is NOT octopi, people--! Octopus was not a Latin word, it was Greek! *sigh* -
Liam,
Not sure you got my point - I was referring to "who made" as opposed to "who have made" - not "who has made." The "liturgical present" is lost in the 1998 version.
And anyway, "Who has" is in the 3rd person. What I find confusing is addressing God and then immediately referring to him as someone else in the room - even more strange than telling God all about himself as we do in the current translation ("O God, you saved your people . . ." )
Sam Schmitt -
What I find confusing is addressing God and then immediately referring to him as someone else in the room - even more strange than telling God all about himself as we do in the current translation ("O God, you saved your people . . ." )
****
Sam, you've described exactly what is at issue in all of this for me. Are we praying to God *as if* He can hear us? If not, the very act of public prayer could be forming us to disbelieve that we have contact with God in the Liturgy. -
I propose we settle this in the modern way, with a Googlefight:
"Lord Who Hast Made Us For Thine Own" returns 2,070 hits.
"Lord Who Has Made Us For Thine Own" returns 576 hits.
Surely this rules out any claim that the modified version has become dominant.
QED ;-) -
I have no grammatical objection to "Lord, who have", inasmuch as "have" is a proper second-person form for the verb.
On the other hand, "Lord, who have made us for thine own" is inconsistent w.r.t. the antique "thou/thine" forms, keeping "thine" while eschewing "hast". The pseudo-antiquarian mismatch gives a tawdry impression, like a sign for "Ye Olde Antique Shoppe". -
A note about the translation of the Our Father: while the Greek text would be rendered as "Our Father in Heaven...", it is fitting that the English has "who art in Heaven", inasmuch as the Latin text is "qui es in caelis". Of course this is in conformity with 'Liturgiam Authenticam'.
As Father Zuhlsdorf pointed out in a recent podcast on the new translations -- he was discussing the issue of 'pro multis' -- Cdl. Ratzinger has mentioned that the Mass translations are not intended to be translations from Scripture itself, but from the Latin liturgical texts; these texts constitute a distinct theological 'source' that sometimes repeats the words of Scripture, but sometimes presents another wording. -
Kathy: God has a history with me. I realize the sentence construction is like nothing in common use
History that is ongoing, rather than on-again-off-again.
Dipping a glass into the lake on which you float versus
putting it under the faucet and twisting left-right and walking away.
Proclamations/Resolutions: whereas ... whereas ... therefore ... ??
rich_enough: addressing God and then immediately referring to him as someone else in the room
Father God we just ... and by the Power Of God ... Amen. ((c) 1970s 700 Club ?)
And there is the difficult "we" matter often discussed nearby.
Adam: the word "just"
What kind of prayer does a just man pray? "Just" prayers! :-)
(It seems that "prayer of the just man" is restricted to Douay-Rheims translation of James 5:16b) -
Lamb of God, Thou Who takest away the sins of the world....what happened to these lovely, pleasing, wholly-accurate translations?
-
They're still sitting around in the same unofficial hand missals where they've always been. You're welcome to take one along and "translate" from ICELese into Kingjamesian if you'd like.
Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,106
- General Music Discussion7,594
- Job Openings1,303
- Management of Music Programs833
- Choral Matters519
- Church Documents and Rubrics504
- CMAA Notes291
- Events651
- For Newcomers: Read First23
- Sacred Polyphony528
- Hymnody821
- Gregorian Chant: General2,582
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis354
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology57
- Vernacular Plainsong671
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant66
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire414
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,208
- Recordings222
- Music for Hispanic Ministry151
- Music Education: Children205
- Music Education: General214
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism723
- Amusements170
- General Discussion1,000
- Opinions113