Typo? - YOU ARE THE RULER WHO COME BLEST IN THE NAME OF THE LORD
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Roman Missal, 3rd Edition, has this:

    image

    QUESTION: Should not that be "comes" ?

    All the different versions have this . . .
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Here is the British Version:

    image
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    No, it's just an extremely literal style of translating Latin. The base text says, "Israel es tu rex, Davidis et inclita proles, nomine qui in Domini, rex benedicte, venis." As you can see, the verbs are in the second person, not the third. This is the same reason why so many collects in the corrected translation say things like "O God, who have been pleased to ..." instead of "who has been pleased." Notably, the Agnus Dei was, to my great chagrin not corrected; it really ought to say "Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world," not "takes." I guess they missed that one.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Mark, thanks for this.

    I cannot speak to the "Gloria Laus," but I will look into this.

    However, I know that Fortescue treats the "Agnus Dei" in THE MASS: A STUDY OF THE ROMAN MISSAL (page 388). "Agnus" as a vocative is curious, evidently trying to reproduce the original text (Jn 1: 29) exactly.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,200
    The Agnus Dei lapse is really unfortunate.
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    I agree, though, that the overall effect in English is bad here. It seems senseless to stick to that particular of Latinate grammar when, in the same line, you fail to translate "benedicte" as a vocative and insert an extraneous second "you are." From the Latin alone, I would have rendered it "Israel's king are you, O Lord, and David's magnificent scion, who come, O blessed King, in the name of the Lord."

    Incidentally, the Latin strikes me as terrible too. I don't think I've ever seen a contortion as ugly as "nomine qui in Domini."
  • BachLover2BachLover2
    Posts: 330
    Incidentally, the Latin strikes me as terrible too. I don't think I've ever seen a contortion as ugly as "nomine qui in Domini."


    Spend a bit of time with medieval Latin, Mark, and you'll be surprised what you find ... those who have done so find it far from 'terrible' ...
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    Oh, I have. In fact I generally find mediaeval Latin rather easier to read than classical, since its syntax and even grammar are generally much closer to the Romance languages into which it was evolving. The hymn in question, by contrast, strikes me as an attempt to write in a hyper-stylized way. I am used to such inversions and split phrases in collects, where they are very common and are seen as an element of classicization rather than mediaevalization, but this example really takes that and runs with it.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    As I recall, this is an issue many have with the new translation, especially in the collects. "O God, who desire..."
  • Bruce E. Ford
    Posts: 431
    In English the antecedent of "who" is always understood to be the noun or pronoun that immediately precedes it. In this sentence that noun is "ruler," and the verb must take a form that agrees with it. (cf."She is one of those people who are always late for rehearsals.")

    A problem arises when the antecedent of "who" is "you" (as in, "You who take away the sin of the world") or "you" is implied by a vocative construction, (as in, "O God, who create...") Here the rules of grammar require the use of second person verb forms. Unfortunately, in contemporary English the use of second person verb forms is not idiomatic except in the preterite. (We can say, "O God, who created..." without sounding strange, but we can't say "O God, who create..." ) This problem is particularly vexing for those who translate collects.
  • scholistascholista
    Posts: 109
    It sounds like this is a group that may be able to give some perspective to a question I've had for a long time.

    I wonder about the translation of the Te Deum:

    The glorious company of the Apostles : praise thee.
    The goodly fellowship of the Prophets : praise thee.
    The noble army of Martyrs : praise thee.

    Aren't the subjects company, fellowship and army third person singular and shouldn't all the verbs then be praises?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,223
    It would seem so: in Latin the verb is "laudat". Perhaps some day ICEL will translate it anew and we'll have a grammatically correct English text.
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    Collective nouns are singular in form but can take a singular or plural noun, depending on circumstances. If you are familiar with British English, no doubt you have noticed constructions like "The band play clubs all around Liverpool ..." and "The BBC have reported this morning ...". The British treat most companies and organizations as plural. Indeed, 150 years ago you could read in a grammar:

    When the nominative is a collective noun conveying the idea of plurality, the Verb must agree with it in the plural number: as, "The council were divided." — " The college of cardinals are the electors of the pope."

    In AmE this is somewhat less common, and those examples especially grate. Still, careful grammarians would tell you to treat, for instance, "faculty" as a singular when it is being considered as a unit ("The faculty assembles twice a month") and as a plural when it is the individual members who are being thought of ("The faculty are well educated").

    Thus the usage in the Te Deum is correct, since, while from the syntax it looks as though it is the "company" (singular) that is doing the praising, conceptually it is actually the Apostles (plural). Singular verbs would probably have suited a more modern and/or more American ear better, though.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,223
    Thanks for that. Perhaps the existing version was made by translators with a British ear!

    It's not an easy text:

    Te gloriosus Apostolorum chorus,
    Te Prophetarum laudabilis numerus,
    Te Martyrum candidatus laudat exercitus.

    So three groups are listed, and they all have to make do with one verb, and it's not clear that it can be done in English while keeping much of the particular structure. Perhaps someday it will be rendered something like:

    The glorious choir of apostles praises you;
    the honorable company of the prophets praises you,
    the white-robed army of martyrs praises you.

    Though putting "company" and "prophets" together in one line makes it sound like a business report. :-)

  • JennyH
    Posts: 106
    In English the antecedent of "who" is always understood to be the noun or pronoun that immediately precedes it.


    Actually, there are exceptions to this. But, speaking in general, I think you have stated it correctly.
  • Bruce E. Ford
    Posts: 431
    What are some of the exceptions?

    After posting my comment I looked for some confirmation in print of a rule I was taught when I was in the eighth grade, fifty-one years ago, and I failed to find any.
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    To give just one type of example, exceptions would include constructions like "... and any man is a liar who says otherwise." This is the sense Ralph Waldo Emerson, for instance, had in mind when he wrote "A man is a beggar who only lives to the useful."
  • mahrt
    Posts: 517
    I have always thought the use of the third person in the Agnus Dei is particularly inopportune, since the third person is generally used to speak of someone who is not present.

    The Te Deum is a perplexing example; the singular usage in Latin is acceptable, but in English you could not translate it literally:

    The glorious choir of apostles,
    the honorable company of the prophets,
    and the white-robed army of martyrs praises you.

    The problem is compounded by the fact that, while the proper subject is grammatically singular, though notionally plural, the modifying phrase, which makes explicit the singular subject is plural and comes directly before the verb.
Add a Comment