"Word choice in a document like that is so important, so I have to believe that they are trying to tell us something specific here; unfortunately, without them defining their language, it's impossible to know what that something is!"

Totally agree, abbysmum. I speak fluent Spanish and very often translate for non-Spanish speakers. One NEVER translates literally. You have to translate so that it makes sense to the non-Spanish speaker. Many, many words and idioms are not able to be translated literally. They make absolutely no sense in another language.

With that in mind, is the GIRM a literal translation from the Latin? Are there Latin words that should not have been translated literally, but should have been modified so that the meaning is fully understood in English?

Well said. My first language is English, but I am fluent in French and was educated in French. One of the things I learned in high school was that idioms don't translate well. That's a big part of "lost in translation", because equivalent idioms don't always exist (with connotative expression being the other large factor - something closely linked to idiomatic expression). And even when equivalent idioms exist, they rarely use the same words or pictures (although they might be expressing the same idea).

I don't know Latin well enough, but I've always assumed because Latin was a dead language, it lacks idioms. Is that a correct assumption?

There are idioms and also idiomatic registers of usage.

For example, one of the things I was taught in Spanish is the different in idiomatic register between profanities and slangs of different regional Spanish usages versus their seeming cognates in English regional usages. (A vital thing to understand in conversation, and not to be left far too advanced in learning.) Quebecois French is masterclass of examples on this terrain.

Bottom line: when it comes to languages, usages, and translations, always assume there the possibility of missing subtext. It's not plug-and-play, so if you're a person uncomfortable with missing subtext...be very patient. I spent my childhood in a large family observing how my parents - who shared values deeply - had very different usages and registers and thereby often misunderstood each other and the mix that percolated among their many children. My entire professional work was based on that youthful observation combined with my immersion in a foreign language at a young age, because I realized the inherent plasticity of language and meaning (intended and received) was a nearly universal human pattern. (One of my siblings is significantly neuro-divergent and she could never quite catch onto all of the humor of the rest of the family and it was isolating for her.) My reaction to "but language is fixed in meaning" as a way to avoid messiness is: Sure, Jan.

Well said. My first language is English, but I am fluent in French and was educated in French. One of the things I learned in high school was that idioms don't translate well. That's a big part of "lost in translation", because equivalent idioms don't always exist (with connotative expression being the other large factor - something closely linked to idiomatic expression). And even when equivalent idioms exist, they rarely use the same words or pictures (although they might be expressing the same idea).

I’m also bilingual English and French, and I agree with the general discussion but only to a point. Of course idioms don’t translate, but many things can be translated literally and aren’t. This is a big frustration for me whenever I watch films with subtitles. If the original character said “I want to eat”, some people will translate it “I’m hungry”. The problem is that both of those phrases exist with full meaning in both languages. Sometimes we go for “dynamic equivalency” when it’s entirely inappropriate imho. This is why I’ve struggled so much with the old translation of the divine office. Just translate it what it says in its simple literal sense.

In the US we have Sing To The Lord from the USCCB to help interpret the GIRM. Do Canadian bishops also take a stance on the GIRM?

I don't know that I would consider a 2015 document that "out of date" in matters of church music.

So therefore the translator should choose his translation very carefully, knowing the English language.

Unfortunately, the implementation of Liturgicam Authenticam in practice strongly discouraged meaningful consideration of actual vernacular usage and idioms. One notable exception to that was in the Ordo Missae when the final translation finally ditched that "Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world" - which is just too arcane/archaic usage in modern English, however perennially idiomatic it remains in liturgical Latin - in favor of "takes".

Yes, I got that part wrong. I should have emphasized the wrong word that was changed: it was the you for who. I appreciation the correction of my lapse in memory.

Then there are certain N.O. settings of the Agnus Dei which use "... you take away..."

The main problem in translating this phrase is that no (?) other language except Latin omits presonal pronouns, and thus the combination "qui tollis" is idiomatic to Latin and almost impossible to translate.

"You" is a literal translation because "tollis" is second person singular, a personal pronoun and conjugation that no longer exists as a separate form in English (the more polite form second person plural has replaced it for a long time), but it still existed in the 16th century ("thou takest"). The "Agnus Dei" is an original Latin text, unlike other parts of the mass text which are translation from Greek, so this can be considered the source. On the other hand, the corresponding verse in the St. John Gospel 1,29 is "Ecce agnus Dei, qui tollit peccatum mundi." (Vulgata Nova), i.e., third person singular, but this is not followed by a plea for mercy.

In light of this, both "who" and "you" are justifyable translations, I think, especially as the "miserere nobis" is clearly adressing Christ in an implicit second person ("you") form. Interestingly, the German official translation is "du nimmst hinweg" ("you take away") and thus follows the mass variant, whereas the official Esperanto translation is "kiu forigas" ("who takes away") and follows the St. John gospel. Is there any English translation that reads "who" instead of "you"?

Lots of languages omit pronouns except for emphasis.

In Italian and Polish and doubtless many others the Agnus Dei is translated with grammar just like the Latin.