Agnus Dei
Ted Fisher
pronunciation of Dei (i.e., is it pronounced Day-ee)?
Thanks.
Jaime Jean
depends on whether Latin or Italian pronunciation is used: Latin would be:
Ag-nus Day, and Italian would be Añus Day (the ñ is the sound, which doesn't
exist in English, written as "gn" in French and Italian, "ñ" in Spanish,
"nh" in Portuguese, "ny" in Catalan, etc.).
In both cases, "Dei" should be pronounced "Day".
Jaime
Ted Fisher <tfi...@eaglequest.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
373E30...@eaglequest.com...
EPalladino
Beth
Ted Fisher wrote in message <373E30...@eaglequest.com>...
Jaime Jean
pronounced, as you correctly say, Deh-ee.
Jaime
jzydek <jzy...@prodigy.net> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
7hllod$o0u$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Jaime Jean <jj...@data.net.mx> wrote in message > In both cases, "Dei"
> should be pronounced "Day".
>
> The word "Day" includes a diphthong sound -- which would not be acceptable
> when singing Latin. The word "Dei" should be pronounced, "Deh - ee."
There
> is no long "a" sound in the word at all.
>
> June
>
>
>
>
>
jzydek
Neal
"ah-nyoos day-ee".
Jaime Jean wrote in message <92682954...@news.remarQ.com>...
>Agnus Dei means Lamb of God. The correct pronunciation of this phrase
>depends on whether Latin or Italian pronunciation is used: Latin would be:
>Ag-nus Day, and Italian would be Añus Day (the ñ is the sound, which
doesn't
>exist in English, written as "gn" in French and Italian, "ñ" in Spanish,
>"nh" in Portuguese, "ny" in Catalan, etc.).
>
>In both cases, "Dei" should be pronounced "Day".
>
>Jaime
>
>Ted Fisher <tfi...@eaglequest.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
>373E30...@eaglequest.com...
Richard Schultz
: Since Agnus Dei is NOT Latin
Well, don't keep us all in suspense: if it's not Latin, what language
is it?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
David
(Neal) wrote:
> Since Agnus Dei is NOT Latin,
Crikey, thanks for that. Looks like I'm going to have to throw away my
Latin degree.
David
Dr.Matt
EPalladino <Myron...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Agnus Dei means Lamb of God. Your pronunciation of Dei is close enough.
>
>Beth
>
>Ted Fisher wrote in message <373E30...@eaglequest.com>...
>>pronunciation of Dei (i.e., is it pronounced Day-ee)?
>>
>>Thanks.
>
She's no relative to Doris Dei, and the lamb is no relative of the divine
goldfish, Carpe Diem.
--
Matt Fields, DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox http://start.at/tttb
"They need to get out of the Well-Documented Suburbia of the soul."
--Samuel Vriezen, s...@xs4all.nl on strident anti-modernists
Links & addresses for spammers: http://e-scrub.com/cgi-bin/wpoison/wpoison.cgi
Frank Eggleston
>
> In article <eW0zyA1n#GA.171@cpmsnbbsa03>,
> EPalladino <Myron...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >Agnus Dei means Lamb of God. Your pronunciation of Dei is close enough.
> >
> >Beth
> >
> >Ted Fisher wrote in message <373E30...@eaglequest.com>...
> >>Can anyone tell me the correct translation of Agnus Dei and the correct
> >>pronunciation of Dei (i.e., is it pronounced Day-ee)?
> >>
> >>Thanks.
> >
>
> She's no relative to Doris Dei, and the lamb is no relative of the divine
> goldfish, Carpe Diem.
Or to Gloria who got sick on the bus Monday.
Frank E
--
... not to mention some very questionable travel expenses.
-- The X-Files, "The Beginning"
Frank Eggleston
>
> Since Agnus Dei is NOT Latin, the correct pronunciation when singing it is
> "ah-nyoos day-ee".
>
Sorry Neal, it <is> Latin. Were you thinking maybe of "kyrie
eleison"?
Neal
that I am.
Frank Eggleston wrote in message <373EBE25...@erols.com>...
Frank Eggleston
No need for pyrotechnics. You got the pronunciation right (except for
maybe an extreme purist -- I myself have a tin ear for accents).
Frank E 8=)
Leroy Curtis
<nea...@javanetspam.com> writes
>Since Agnus Dei is NOT Latin,
Since when?
>the correct pronunciation when singing it is
>"ah-nyoos day-ee".
>
It's really rather difficult to know haw it would be correctly
pronounced, since ecclesiastical Latin became very heavily influenced
over the centuries by the language of the various countries where it was
used. But according to the way I was taught Latin, "ag-nus deh-ee" would
be a close approximation.
--
Regards
Leroy Curtis
Please replace "nospam" with "baram" in my address if you wish to
reply by Email
Francis Gerard
Frank Eggleston wrote in message <373EBD64...@erols.com>...
>Dr.Matt wrote:
>>
>> In article <eW0zyA1n#GA.171@cpmsnbbsa03>,
>> EPalladino <Myron...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>> >Agnus Dei means Lamb of God. Your pronunciation of Dei is close enough.
>> >
>> >Beth
>> >
>> >Ted Fisher wrote in message <373E30...@eaglequest.com>...
>> >>Can anyone tell me the correct translation of Agnus Dei and the correct
>> >>pronunciation of Dei (i.e., is it pronounced Day-ee)?
>> >>
>> >>Thanks.
>> >
>>
>> She's no relative to Doris Dei, and the lamb is no relative of the divine
>> goldfish, Carpe Diem.
>
>Or to Gloria who got sick on the bus Monday.
>
>Frank E
Dr.Matt
Francis Gerard <franci...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>CREDO THAT!
>Frank Eggleston wrote in message <373EBD64...@erols.com>...
>>Dr.Matt wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <eW0zyA1n#GA.171@cpmsnbbsa03>,
>>> EPalladino <Myron...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>> >Agnus Dei means Lamb of God. Your pronunciation of Dei is close enough.
>>> >
>>> >Beth
>>> >
>>> >Ted Fisher wrote in message <373E30...@eaglequest.com>...
>>> >>Can anyone tell me the correct translation of Agnus Dei and the correct
>>> >>pronunciation of Dei (i.e., is it pronounced Day-ee)?
>>> >>
>>> >>Thanks.
>>> >
>>>
>>> She's no relative to Doris Dei, and the lamb is no relative of the divine
>>> goldfish, Carpe Diem.
>>
>>Or to Gloria who got sick on the bus Monday.
Missed my toasted oats for breakfast. A Cheerios Elision...
But I returned my lock to Lam Asher, so now I don't owe Lam Asher my lock.
David Patrick
>
>Since Agnus Dei is NOT Latin, the correct pronunciation when singing it
is
>"ah-nyoos day-ee".
>
The hell it's not Latin. It is Church Latin (Vulgate, ot the Middle Ages,
and not Classical Latin), But in spite of what you purists say, it is
still Latin, and it still means Lamb of God.
Kip & Cathy
>She's no relative to Doris Dei, and the lamb is no relative of the divine
>goldfish, Carpe Diem.
But according to the Monk's song in PDQ Bach's "Hansel and Gretel and Ted
and Alice" we have:
'Agnus and her sister Doris Dei'
Who are we to believe?
--Kip Williams
Fredrik Sandstrom
>When I said "Day" I was referring to the English word "day", which is
>pronounced, as you correctly say, Deh-ee.
But the English word "day" uses a diphtong, it only has one syllable. The
Latin word "dei" has no diphtong but consists of two syllables - thus
"deh-ee".
*-- --*
| Fredrik Sandstrom | fre...@infa.abo.fi | http://infa.abo.fi/~fredrik |
*----- Computer Science at Abo Akademi University -----*
David
EZA...@prodigy.com (David Patrick) wrote:
>
> >
> >Since Agnus Dei is NOT Latin, the correct pronunciation when singing
> it is
> >"ah-nyoos day-ee".
> >
> The hell it's not Latin. It is Church Latin (Vulgate, ot the Middle
> Ages, and not Classical Latin)
On the contrario, it's perfect Classical Latin, even if no Classical Roman
would have said it.
David
Dr.Matt
Dr.Matt <fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>In article <#ANTNS9n#GA.302@cpmsnbbsa02>,
>Francis Gerard <franci...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>CREDO THAT!
>>Frank Eggleston wrote in message <373EBD64...@erols.com>...
>>>Dr.Matt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <eW0zyA1n#GA.171@cpmsnbbsa03>,
>>>> EPalladino <Myron...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>>> >Agnus Dei means Lamb of God. Your pronunciation of Dei is close enough.
>>>> >
>>>> >Beth
>>>> >
>>>> >Ted Fisher wrote in message <373E30...@eaglequest.com>...
>>>> >>Can anyone tell me the correct translation of Agnus Dei and the correct
>>>> >>pronunciation of Dei (i.e., is it pronounced Day-ee)?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Thanks.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> goldfish, Carpe Diem.
>>>
>
>
>Missed my toasted oats for breakfast. A Cheerios Elision...
>But I returned my lock to Lam Asher, so now I don't owe Lam Asher my lock.
No, wait, that's not quite right.
The young sheep has been returned and with it a bit of my hair:
I don't owe lamb; I share my lock.
If you think that's bad:
Shhhhh! Ma! Your Sorrel I deny. (A low "hey"..). Nu? I deny. Egad!
Steve Forrest
Ted Fisher <tfi...@eaglequest.com> wrote:
>Can anyone tell me the correct translation of Agnus Dei ...
In case you're interested in the complete text:
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi: miserere nobis.
Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world: have mercy on us.
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi: dona nobis pacem.
Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world: grant us peace.
-Steve
Margaret Mikulska
>
> In case you're interested in the complete text:
>
> Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi: miserere nobis.
> Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world: have mercy on us.
>
> Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi: dona nobis pacem.
> Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world: grant us peace.
Since "tollis" is 2nd person sing., not 3rd, "taketh away" is the proper
translation. (3rd person is "tollit".)
-Margaret
Steve Forrest
>> Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi: dona nobis pacem.
>> Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world: grant us peace.
>
>Since "tollis" is 2nd person sing., not 3rd, "taketh away" is the proper
>translation. (3rd person is "tollit".)
Oops. Mea culpa!
-Steve :)
Margaret Mikulska
... at which point I realized that although "taketh" seems to be the
official translation, this is also the 3rd person singular, AFAIK.
Perhaps "takest" would be more accurate.
-Margaret
Roger Lustig
Margaret Mikulska wrote:
>
> > >Can anyone tell me the correct translation of Agnus Dei ...
> >
> > In case you're interested in the complete text:
> >
> > Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi: miserere nobis.
> > Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world: have mercy on us.
> >
> > Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi: dona nobis pacem.
> > Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world: grant us peace.
>
> Since "tollis" is 2nd person sing., not 3rd, "taketh away" is the proper
> translation. (3rd person is "tollit".)
Wouldn't the 2nd person be 'takest'? 'Taketh' is 3rd person.
Well, *was* 3rd person...
Roger
Steve Forrest
Margaret Mikulska <miku...@silvertone.princeton.edu> wrote:
>Richard Schultz wrote:
>> Thus, I stand by my statement that
>> if you want to translate "tollis" as "take" rather than "takes," you
>> have to translate the first phrase as "Thou Lamb of God" or "O Lamb
>> of God."
>
>I've seen both forms, and indeed, they convey the meaning better. As I
>said, I don't know what is the accepted and/or most common translation
>into English.
I think I have figured out the source of the difficulty in translating
the Agnus Dei text. It's not just a matter of applying grammatical
rules; it's also a matter of actual usage (as Richard suggested earlier).
As an example of what I mean by usage, let's translate the French phrase
"le chapeau de l'homme". The way we would say this in English is
"the man's hat", but this kind of phrase is often translated as
"the hat of the man". The latter is not incorrect accorrding to the rules
of grammar, but we just don't normally use that construction in English.
I suggest that the awkwardness of the English Agnus Dei comes from
translating it into a sentence structure which is not idiomatic in ordinary
(modern American) English.
The English A.Dei text has the form:
ProperNoun, "who" verb-phrase, imperative-verb-phrase.
(I assume that is the form of the Latin sentence as well.)
As an example of how un-English this structure is, let's assume
I want Margaret to translate a sentence for me. I could say to her,
"Margaret, who know languages, translate this sentence."
To me, this sounds very wrong, not because it violates a grammatical
rule about agreement between noun and verb (it doesn't), but because it
violates the convention that we just don't make sentences of that
particular form. If I say instead, "Margaret, who _knows_ languages..."
it still sounds wrong, not (just) because of the noun-verb disagreement,
but because of the sentence structure.
There appears to be no logical reason why the form,
{ ProperNoun, "who" verb-phrase, imperative-verb-phrase. }
is excluded or should not be used in English; I suppose it is merely a
contingent fact about the historical (not logical) development
of the language.
(But we do say "Margaret, translate this sentence."
ProperNoun, imp.-verb-ph.
or "You, who know languages, translate this sentence."
2nd.Pers.Pronoun, "who" v-ph., imp.-v.-ph.)
So, I agree with Richard that "Lamb of God, who take away..."
just sounds wrong, although my reasons may be different, as given above.
The problem is not in deciding which form of the verb "take" to use;
the problem is that whether we use "take" or "takes", we still have
a sentence structure which sounds unnatural.
I thought of substituting "O Lamb of God" for "Lamb of God", but
I found this somewhat unsatisfactory, although the "O" is helpful
in indicating the 2nd-person. Again, I think it is the sentence
structure as a whole that makes this awkward.
I'm not sure exactly what the inflection of "Agnus" indicates.
(Margaret, please tell me.) If it indicates 2nd person then there
is a problem with translating it as "Lamb", because the English here
does _not_ indicate 2nd person. Perhaps a good reason for using
"O Lamb" instead.
-Steve
Margaret Mikulska
> I think I have figured out the source of the difficulty in translating
> the Agnus Dei text. It's not just a matter of applying grammatical
> rules; it's also a matter of actual usage (as Richard suggested earlier). [...]
> I suggest that the awkwardness of the English Agnus Dei comes from
> translating it into a sentence structure which is not idiomatic in ordinary
> (modern American) English.
(Or British, I suppose.)
I agree with this, but I would also suggest that such difficulties are
related to the loss of inflection in English. (A few remnants exist, I
know.) In other IE languages, one can usually tell the person and the
number of a verb from its conjugational ending. When translating from
inflected languages into English, one has to use additional clues to
convey the meaning of the original sentence, or else translate the
sentence literally, thus creating ambiguities. Either method has its
problems. So while the Latin "tollis" immediately signals 2nd person
singular, especially in connection with the following imperative, "take"
can indicate any person and number (except for 3rd person singular) in
the present tense indicative, it can be the imperative (2nd person sing.
or plural), the infinitive, or even the subjunctive form. The more
literal and ambiguous "who take away" sounds unidiomatic; "thou/you who
take away" is not ambiguous anymore, but I still find it not entirely
satisfactory. Adding "O" is still another way to indicate the correct
person, but as you say, it is not satisfactory either.
> The English A.Dei text has the form:
>
> ProperNoun, "who" verb-phrase, imperative-verb-phrase.
>
> (I assume that is the form of the Latin sentence as well.)
> As an example of how un-English this structure is, let's assume
> I want Margaret to translate a sentence for me. I could say to her,
> "Margaret, who know languages, translate this sentence."
> To me, this sounds very wrong, not because it violates a grammatical
> rule about agreement between noun and verb (it doesn't), but because it
> violates the convention that we just don't make sentences of that
> particular form.
Agreed; this one is horribly unidiomatic.
> If I say instead, "Margaret, who _knows_ languages..."
> it still sounds wrong, not (just) because of the noun-verb disagreement,
> but because of the sentence structure.
Specifically, I think, because of the mixing of 2nd person (the
imperative "translate") and 3rd person (the indicative "knows"). It
would be like saying (paraphrasing another poster's example), "John, who
is rich, please buy me this". Not just unidiomatic, but plainly wrong.
> There appears to be no logical reason why the form,
> { ProperNoun, "who" verb-phrase, imperative-verb-phrase. }
Or any noun or pronoun: it doesn't have to be a proper noun.
> is excluded or should not be used in English; I suppose it is merely
> a contingent fact about the historical (not logical) development
> of the language.
I believe it's mostly the lost inflection that creates problems.
> (But we do say "Margaret, translate this sentence."
> ProperNoun, imp.-verb-ph.
> or "You, who know languages, translate this sentence."
> 2nd.Pers.Pronoun, "who" v-ph., imp.-v.-ph.)
>
> So, I agree with Richard that "Lamb of God, who take away..."
> just sounds wrong, although my reasons may be different, as given above.
> The problem is not in deciding which form of the verb "take" to use;
> the problem is that whether we use "take" or "takes", we still have
> a sentence structure which sounds unnatural.
I think the problem is in both, because we want to use the verb in the
same person as it is used in the original. More importantly perhaps,
"Lamb of God, [who take away]" is not necessarily recognized as a form
of salutation, invocation, addressing, etc., and thus the following
immperative "grant us peace" seems incorrect.
> I thought of substituting "O Lamb of God" for "Lamb of God", but
> I found this somewhat unsatisfactory, although the "O" is helpful
> in indicating the 2nd-person. Again, I think it is the sentence
> structure as a whole that makes this awkward.
>
> I'm not sure exactly what the inflection of "Agnus" indicates.
> (Margaret, please tell me.) If it indicates 2nd person then there
> is a problem with translating it as "Lamb", because the English here
> does _not_ indicate 2nd person. Perhaps a good reason for using
> "O Lamb" instead.
The 2nd person in this sentence is indicated by both verbs: "tollis"
being 2nd person singular indicative, and "dona" being 2nd person
singular imperative. Therefore I would say that "O Lamb" is appropriate
here. You say it's "somewhat unsatisfactory" - why? It seems OK to me
in such a solemn text. "O" seems to be used in English to indicate that
the following noun or pronoun should be understood as being in the
vocative or at least as functioning as such.
-Margaret
PeterGrimes
Steve Forrest
Margaret Mikulska <miku...@silvertone.princeton.edu> wrote:
>Steve Forrest wrote:
>> Margaret Mikulska corrected my translation:
>> >> Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world: grant us peace.
>> >
>> >Since "tollis" is 2nd person sing., not 3rd, "taketh away" is the proper
>> >translation. (3rd person is "tollit".)
>>
>
>... at which point I realized that although "taketh" seems to be the
>official translation, this is also the 3rd person singular, AFAIK.
>Perhaps "takest" would be more accurate.
Actually, I used "takes" because I was rendering the phrase in
contemporary English. I don't know anyone who uses "taketh" or
"takest" unless they're quoting the Bible, or deliberately trying
to sound archaic. (Although I've heard of some conservative religious
communities where those Biblical inflections, as well as "Thou"
and "Thee", are still used in ordinary speech.)
-Steve
Richard Schultz
: Steve Forrest wrote:
: > Margaret Mikulska corrected my translation:
: > >> Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi: dona nobis pacem.
: > >> Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world: grant us peace.
: > >Since "tollis" is 2nd person sing., not 3rd, "taketh away" is the proper
: > >translation. (3rd person is "tollit".)
: > Oops. Mea culpa!
: ... at which point I realized that although "taketh" seems to be the
: official translation, this is also the 3rd person singular, AFAIK.
: Perhaps "takest" would be more accurate.
"Takest" may be more accurate, but it is grammatically incorrect. In
English, verbs have to agree with their antecedents, and in the phrase
"Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world," the antecedent
of "takes" is "Lamb of God," which is third person singular. Unless
"Agnus Dei" is actually some sort of vocative, which should be
translated "Thou Lamb of God, who takest away. . ." Although frankly,
"Lamb of God, who takes away" sounds to me a *lot* more like English than
any of the other options.
Or, as E. B. White put it when dealing with the issue of Grammar Pedants,
"And would you write 'The worst tennis player around here is I' or
'The worst tennis player around here is me'? The first is good grammar,
the second is good judgment. . ."
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"Life is a blur of Republicans and meat." -- Zippy
Margaret Mikulska
Richard Schultz wrote:
>
> Margaret Mikulska (miku...@silvertone.princeton.edu) wrote:
> : Steve Forrest wrote:
> : > Margaret Mikulska corrected my translation:
>
> : > >> Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi: dona nobis pacem.
> : > >> Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world: grant us peace.
>
> : > >Since "tollis" is 2nd person sing., not 3rd, "taketh away" is the proper
> : > >translation. (3rd person is "tollit".)
>
> : > Oops. Mea culpa!
>
> : ... at which point I realized that although "taketh" seems to be the
> : official translation, this is also the 3rd person singular, AFAIK.
> : Perhaps "takest" would be more accurate.
>
> "Takest" may be more accurate, but it is grammatically incorrect. In
> English, verbs have to agree with their antecedents, and in the phrase
> "Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world," the antecedent
> of "takes" is "Lamb of God," which is third person singular.
"Lamb of God" is a *noun*. It can't have or be third, second, or first
person. *Verbs* can and do. The agreement you have in mind refers to
the number.
> Unless
> "Agnus Dei" is actually some sort of vocative, which should be
> translated "Thou Lamb of God, who takest away. . ."
It is not only "some sort of vocative", but simply vocative. That's why
it is "tollis" (2nd sing.) and not "tollit" (3rd sing.). There is no
ambiguity in the Latin text, not only because of "tollis" as opposed to
"tollit", but also because "dona" is the imperative form, 2nd person
sing. Here you have "Agnus dei ... dona nobis pacem"; compare this with
the words in the Requiem: "Domine ... dona eis requiem". In the latter,
it is more obvious that we have vocative ("Domine"), because the
grammatical form differs from the nominative "Dominus".
> Although frankly,
> "Lamb of God, who takes away" sounds to me a *lot* more like English than
> any of the other options.
Perhaps this is the official English translation, but it is not what the
Latin text says: it is an invocation to the Lamb of God, and not a
statement about Him.
-Margaret
Margaret Mikulska
Richard Schultz wrote:
> Or, as E. B. White put it when dealing with the issue of Grammar Pedants,
> "And would you write 'The worst tennis player around here is I' or
> 'The worst tennis player around here is me'? The first is good grammar,
> the second is good judgment. . ."
Actually, whether the first sentence is indeed good English grammar has
been disputed.
Furthermore, this anecdote is irrelevant to my previous posting.
-Margaret
Noel Stoutenburg
Margaret Mikulska wrote:
> Richard Schultz wrote:
> >
> > Margaret Mikulska (miku...@silvertone.princeton.edu) wrote:
> > : Steve Forrest wrote:
> > : > Margaret Mikulska corrected my translation:
> >
> > : > >> Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi: dona nobis pacem.
> > : > >> Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world: grant us peace.
> >
> > : > >Since "tollis" is 2nd person sing., not 3rd, "taketh away" is the proper
> > : > >translation. (3rd person is "tollit".)
> >
> > : > Oops. Mea culpa!
> >
> > : ... at which point I realized that although "taketh" seems to be the
> > : official translation, this is also the 3rd person singular, AFAIK.
> > : Perhaps "takest" would be more accurate.
> >
> > "Takest" may be more accurate, but it is grammatically incorrect. In
> > English, verbs have to agree with their antecedents, and in the phrase
> > "Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world," the antecedent
> > of "takes" is "Lamb of God," which is third person singular.
>
> "Lamb of God" is a *noun*. It can't have or be third, second, or first
> person. *Verbs* can and do. The agreement you have in mind refers to
> the number.
Nouns--an pronouns--do not have first, second, and third person. First person
refers to the speaker (pronoun: I, first person singular); second person refers to
the one spoken to (pronoun: you), and third person refers to someone spoken about
(pronoun: they). Admittedly it is considered bad form to use a noun as first
person singular, but mixed pronouns and nouns are often used in first person plural
("Joe and I are going to perform the ...")
>
>
> > Unless
> > "Agnus Dei" is actually some sort of vocative, which should be
> > translated "Thou Lamb of God, who takest away. . ."
>
> It is not only "some sort of vocative", but simply vocative. That's why
> it is "tollis" (2nd sing.) and not "tollit" (3rd sing.). There is no
> ambiguity in the Latin text, not only because of "tollis" as opposed to
> "tollit", but also because "dona" is the imperative form, 2nd person
> sing. Here you have "Agnus dei ... dona nobis pacem"; compare this with
> the words in the Requiem: "Domine ... dona eis requiem". In the latter,
> it is more obvious that we have vocative ("Domine"), because the
> grammatical form differs from the nominative "Dominus".
>
> > Although frankly,
> > "Lamb of God, who takes away" sounds to me a *lot* more like English than
> > any of the other options.
>
> Perhaps this is the official English translation,
probably "modern English translations would be a tad more accurate...
> but it is not what the
> Latin text says: it is an invocation to the Lamb of God, and not a
> statement about Him.
IIRC, I think that the phrase "who takes away the sins of the world" is an
appositive. A parallel construction woud be, "John, who has money, go to the
store."
>
>
> -Margaret
Richard Schultz
: Margaret Mikulska wrote:
: > Richard Schultz wrote:
: > > Margaret Mikulska (miku...@silvertone.princeton.edu) wrote:
: > > : Steve Forrest wrote:
: > > : > Margaret Mikulska corrected my translation:
:>>:>>> Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world: grant us peace.
:>>:>> Since "tollis" is 2nd person sing., not 3rd, "taketh away" is the
:>>:>> proper translation. (3rd person is "tollit".)
:>>:> Oops. Mea culpa!
:>>: ... at which point I realized that although "taketh" seems to be the
:>>: official translation, this is also the 3rd person singular, AFAIK.
:>>: Perhaps "takest" would be more accurate.
:>> "Takest" may be more accurate, but it is grammatically incorrect. In
:>> English, verbs have to agree with their antecedents, and in the phrase
:>> "Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world," the antecedent
:>> of "takes" is "Lamb of God," which is third person singular.
:> "Lamb of God" is a *noun*. It can't have or be third, second, or first
:> person. *Verbs* can and do. The agreement you have in mind refers to
:> the number.
: Nouns--an pronouns--do not have first, second, and third person. First
: person refers to the speaker (pronoun: I, first person singular); second
: person refers to the one spoken to (pronoun: you), and third person
: refers to someone spoken about (pronoun: they). Admittedly it is
: considered bad form to use a noun as first person singular, but mixed
: pronouns and nouns are often used in first person plural
: ("Joe and I are going to perform the ...")
I see that the two of you know about as much about English grammar as
Margaret Mikulska does about 18th century symphonies. Pronouns most
certainly do have person and number. "Lamb of God" is actually a noun
phrase, not a noun, but that is nitpicking. Nonetheless, my original
statement stands: a verb must agree with its subject in person and number.
In English, the second person singular verb has the same form as the
first person singular and the third person plural for most verbs
("I give," "You give," "they give," but "he gives"), "to be" being the
obvious exception.
Thus, any verb whose antecedent is "Lamb of God" must take a third person
singular form -- "Lamb of God, who takes," not "Lamb of God, who take."
:>> Unless
:>> "Agnus Dei" is actually some sort of vocative, which should be
:>> translated "Thou Lamb of God, who takest away. . ."
:> It is not only "some sort of vocative", but simply vocative. That's why
:> it is "tollis" (2nd sing.) and not "tollit" (3rd sing.). There is no
:> ambiguity in the Latin text, not only because of "tollis" as opposed to
:> "tollit", but also because "dona" is the imperative form, 2nd person
:> sing. Here you have "Agnus dei ... dona nobis pacem"; compare this with
:> the words in the Requiem: "Domine ... dona eis requiem". In the latter,
:> it is more obvious that we have vocative ("Domine"), because the
:> grammatical form differs from the nominative "Dominus".
Well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I am no expert in
Latin, so I just assumed that the second person singular arose because
"Agnus Dei" was a vocative form. Thus, I stand by my statement that
if you want to translate "tollis" as "take" rather than "takes," you
have to translate the first phrase as "Thou Lamb of God" or "O Lamb
of God." Then we can start arguing about the correct translation of
"pax hominibus bonae voluntatis."
The inverse question actually comes up in translating Hebrew prayers.
The standard Hebrew prayer begins "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, who"
but (due to the rhetorical style) continues in the third person. The
question then becomes whether to translate according to the text or
according to the rules of English grammar. Most translators opt for
correct English rather than word-for-word accuracy.
:>> Although frankly,
:>>"Lamb of God, who takes away" sounds to me a *lot* more like English than
:>> any of the other options.
: > Perhaps this is the official English translation,
: probably "modern English translations would be a tad more accurate...
Why not translate into modern English rather than into a language that
none of us (well, most of us -- I won't presume to speak for Ms. Mikulska)
actually speak?
: > but it is not what the
: > Latin text says: it is an invocation to the Lamb of God, and not a
: > statement about Him.
: IIRC, I think that the phrase "who takes away the sins of the world" is
: an appositive. A parallel construction woud be, "John, who has money,
: go to the store."
Your example is also grammatically incorrect. It should either be
"John, who have money, go to the store" or "John, who has money, goes
to the store." This is what happened when they stopped making people
diagram sentences in elementary school English classes.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
David
miku...@silvertone.princeton.edu (Margaret Mikulska) wrote:
>
> Richard Schultz wrote:
> >
> > Margaret Mikulska (miku...@silvertone.princeton.edu) wrote:
> > : Steve Forrest wrote:
> > : > Margaret Mikulska corrected my translation:
> >
> > : > >> Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi: dona nobis pacem.
> > : > >> Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world: grant us
> > > > peace.
> >
> > : > >Since "tollis" is 2nd person sing., not 3rd, "taketh away" is
> > > the proper
> > : > >translation. (3rd person is "tollit".)
> >
> > : > Oops. Mea culpa!
> >
> > : ... at which point I realized that although "taketh" seems to be the
> > : official translation, this is also the 3rd person singular, AFAIK.
> > : Perhaps "takest" would be more accurate.
> >
> > "Takest" may be more accurate, but it is grammatically incorrect. In
> > English, verbs have to agree with their antecedents, and in the phrase
> > "Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world," the antecedent
> > of "takes" is "Lamb of God," which is third person singular.
>
> "Lamb of God" is a *noun*. It can't have or be third, second, or first
> person. *Verbs* can and do. The agreement you have in mind refers to
> the number.
>
> > Unless
> > "Agnus Dei" is actually some sort of vocative, which should be
> > translated "Thou Lamb of God, who takest away. . ."
>
> It is not only "some sort of vocative", but simply vocative.
It simply isn't. It's nominative.
> That's why
> it is "tollis" (2nd sing.) and not "tollit" (3rd sing.). There is no
> ambiguity in the Latin text, not only because of "tollis" as opposed to
> "tollit", but also because "dona" is the imperative form, 2nd person
> sing. Here you have "Agnus dei ... dona nobis pacem"; compare this with
> the words in the Requiem: "Domine ... dona eis requiem". In the latter,
> it is more obvious that we have vocative ("Domine"), because the
> grammatical form differs from the nominative "Dominus".
Yes, that's what vocatives look like.
David
>
> > Although frankly,
> > "Lamb of God, who takes away" sounds to me a *lot* more like English
> > than
> > any of the other options.
>
> Perhaps this is the official English translation, but it is not what the
> Latin text says: it is an invocation to the Lamb of God, and not a
> statement about Him.
>
> -Margaret
>
>
Noel Stoutenburg
Richard Schultz wrote:
> Noel Stoutenburg (mjo...@ticnet.com) wrote:
> : Margaret Mikulska wrote:
> : > Richard Schultz wrote:
> : > > Margaret Mikulska (miku...@silvertone.princeton.edu) wrote:
> : > > : Steve Forrest wrote:
> : > > : > Margaret Mikulska corrected my translation:
> <snip>...
>
> The inverse question actually comes up in translating Hebrew prayers.
> The standard Hebrew prayer begins "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, who"
> but (due to the rhetorical style) continues in the third person.
In this case, of course, "who" refers back to "thou" and the balance of the
phrase / clause following who is part of the salutation, as an antecedant to with
the actual petition, e.g. [in contemporary usage] "Blessed are You, O Lord King
of the Universe, who gives us the food we eat [Salutation ends here; Petition
begins] help us to honor the gift of the earth you have given us by...[etc]
> The question then becomes whether to translate according to the text or
> according to the rules of English grammar. Most translators opt for
> correct English rather than word-for-word accuracy.
>
> :>> Although frankly,
> :>>"Lamb of God, who takes away" sounds to me a *lot* more like English than
> :>> any of the other options.
>
> : > Perhaps this is the official English translation,
>
> : probably "modern English translations would be a tad more accurate...
>
> Why not translate into modern English rather than into a language that
> none of us (well, most of us -- I won't presume to speak for Ms. Mikulska)
> actually speak?
>
> : > but it is not what the
> : > Latin text says: it is an invocation to the Lamb of God, and not a
> : > statement about Him.
>
> : IIRC, I think that the phrase "who takes away the sins of the world" is
> : an appositive. A parallel construction woud be, "John, who has money,
> : go to the store."
>
> Your example is also grammatically incorrect.
No, it wasn't. My construction was intended as a request to John to go to the
store; the "who has money is a statement of why John should go, and not me.
Elaborating, it would be "John, [you] who have money, [you] go to the store. The
parallel would be "Lamb of God {synonym for Jesus}, [You] who takes away the sins
of the world, [please will you] have mercy upon us." .
> It should either be "John, who have money, go to the store" or "John, who has
> money, goes to the store." This is what happened when they stopped making
> people diagram sentences in elementary school English classes.
FWIW, I they were still diagramming sentences (and I diagrammed my share) when I
was in [as we called it back then] Junior high.
Margaret Mikulska
> Pronouns most
> certainly do have person and number.
Can you read, by any chance? I wrote NOUNS. I wrote that nouns do not
have person. I wrote that nouns do have number. Pay attention if you
bother to reply.
> Thus, any verb whose antecedent is "Lamb of God" must take a third person
> singular form -- "Lamb of God, who takes," not "Lamb of God, who take."
OK, I give up. You have no clue what this text means in Latin. If you
insist on your own, incorrect "translation", that's your loss.
> I am no expert in
> Latin,
Thanks for admitting this, although it was blatantly obvious.
> so I just assumed that the second person singular arose because
> "Agnus Dei" was a vocative form.
Stopped clock phenomenon.
> Thus, I stand by my statement that
> if you want to translate "tollis" as "take" rather than "takes," you
> have to translate the first phrase as "Thou Lamb of God" or "O Lamb
> of God."
I've seen both forms, and indeed, they convey the meaning better. As I
said, I don't know what is the accepted and/or most common translation
into English.
> Most translators opt for
> correct English rather than word-for-word accuracy.
Most translators care about preserving the original meaning. It's
possible to preserve the meaning *and* to use correct grammatical
forms. I know that from my own experience: I have translated two books.
> "You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
A most fitting quotation.
-Margaret
Dr.Matt
Dr.Matt <fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
[punnishment deleted]
>No, wait, that's not quite right.
>The young sheep has been returned and with it a bit of my hair:
> I don't owe lamb; I share my lock.
>If you think that's bad:
> Shhhhh! Ma! Your Sorrel I deny. (A low "hey"..). Nu? I deny. Egad!
What? Not a single top-this to that?
Surely there must be something in Beethoven's 9th or Mahler's 8th
that's good for this treatment! Even if your name's not Shirley...
Steve Forrest
>> There appears to be no logical reason why the form,
>> { ProperNoun, "who" verb-phrase, imperative-verb-phrase. }
>
>Or any noun or pronoun: it doesn't have to be a proper noun.
>
>> is excluded or should not be used in English;
Well, I meant to distinguish between starting that sentence form
(2nd person) with a proper noun and startng it with a pronoun.
"Lamb of God, who take away..." sounds wrong, but if I use a pronoun
instead, "You, who take away..." sounds right.
(I can't think of a parallel sentence that would start with a regular
noun... maybe because I would only use 2nd person imperative to address
a person, using a name or "you".)
[snip]
>> I thought of substituting "O Lamb of God" for "Lamb of God", but
>> I found this somewhat unsatisfactory, although the "O" is helpful
>> in indicating the 2nd-person. Again, I think it is the sentence
>> structure as a whole that makes this awkward.
>>
>> I'm not sure exactly what the inflection of "Agnus" indicates.
>> (Margaret, please tell me.) If it indicates 2nd person then there
>> is a problem with translating it as "Lamb", because the English here
>> does _not_ indicate 2nd person. Perhaps a good reason for using
>> "O Lamb" instead.
>
>The 2nd person in this sentence is indicated by both verbs: "tollis"
>being 2nd person singular indicative, and "dona" being 2nd person
>singular imperative. Therefore I would say that "O Lamb" is appropriate
>here. You say it's "somewhat unsatisfactory" - why?
Hmm, somewhat unsatisfactory. I suppose I say that because that "O Lamb"
type of construction is not something I hear people use in everyday
speech and writing, unless they are trying to sound archaic or
pious. (But see below.) So, while "O Lamb" does make the grammatical
point, I feel unsatisfied with it as a translation into _modern_ English.
>It seems OK to me in such a solemn text.
When you put it that way, yes. This 'solemn text' is in the realm
of archaic and pious speech where 'O' seems appropriate (to me, anyway).
Thanks for your comments Margaret. Even though I am not a student
of Latin I have found this whole discussion fascinating, in large
part because it illuminates some features of English that I might
not have noticed otherwise. I'm always pleasantly surprised when
I learn "new" facts about the language I have been speaking all
my life!
-Steve
David Samuel Barr
>
> Dr. Matt says:
> >She's no relative to Doris Dei, and the lamb is no relative of the
> >divine goldfish, Carpe Diem.
>
> Ted and Alice" we have:
>
> 'Agnus and her sister Doris Dei'
>
> Who are we to believe?
And don't forget the last section of the "Missa Hilarious", "Angus Dei":
"Angus Dei! Angus Dei!
She looks so nice just standin' there all covered with the dew.
Angus Dei! Angus Dei!
She's the prettiest cow I ever seen and I have seen a few."
"Angus Dei! Angus Dei!
I have to make it through the week as best as I know how.
Angus Dei! Angus Dei!
I see her every Sunday morning, she's my sacred cow."
Richard Schultz
: Richard Schultz wrote:
Well, since you deleted your previous posting, we'll never know that,
will we? Actually, the anecdote was completely relevant -- I was
illustrating the point I was making that even if "Lamb of God, who
take away sin" is a more literal word-for-word translation, "Lamb of God,
who takes away sin" *sounds* better (and happens to be grammatically
correct, unlike the first version), and arguably should be preferred on
those grounds alone.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
Richard Schultz
: Richard Schultz wrote:
: > The inverse question actually comes up in translating Hebrew prayers.
: > The standard Hebrew prayer begins "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, who"
: > but (due to the rhetorical style) continues in the third person.
: In this case, of course, "who" refers back to "thou" and the balance of
: the phrase / clause following who is part of the salutation, as an
: antecedant [sic] to with the actual petition, e.g. [in contemporary usage]
: "Blessed are You, O Lord King of the Universe, who gives us the food
Bzzt. But thanks for playing. The antecedent of "who" above is "you,"
and hence the grammatically correct way of saying it is "Blessed are
You. . .who give. . ." (not *gives*). Most English translators opt for
grammatical correctness ("Blessed art Thou. . . who hast sanctified us. . .")
rather than word-for-word literalness.
: > : an appositive. A parallel construction woud be, "John, who has money,
: > : go to the store."
: > Your example is also grammatically incorrect.
: No, it wasn't. My construction was intended as a request to John to go to the
: store; the "who has money is a statement of why John should go, and not me.
: Elaborating, it would be "John, [you] who have money, [you] go to the
: store.
Then you agree with me that your original version was incorrect, as your
second version is not the same.
: The parallel would be "Lamb of God {synonym for Jesus}, [You] who takes
: away the sins of the world, [please will you] have mercy upon us."
"You who takes" is grammatically incorrect. I would ask if English is
your native language, but the mistakes you make are of the type that
native speakers make. (For example, the biggest problem that I notice
in native speakers of Hebrew is difficulty with correct use of the
progressive form.)
: > It should either be "John, who have money, go to the store" or "John,
: > who has money, goes to the store." This is what happened when they
: > stopped making people diagram sentences in elementary school English
: > classes.
: FWIW, I they were still diagramming sentences (and I diagrammed my share)
: when I was in [as we called it back then] Junior high.
Maybe you should review your sentence diagramming skills -- you would
be less likely to make the kinds of grammatical mistakes you keep making.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
Look outside the window, there's a woman being grabbed.
They've dragged her to the bushes, and now she's being stabbed.
Maybe we should call the cops and try to stop the pain.
But Monopoly is so much fun, I'd hate to blow the game.
Richard Schultz
: It's Doe Eee Yii
Yippee yay hee ho.
(Speaking of translations, I once saw a TV show here where for some
reason a character was singing "Git Along, Little Dogies," which the
rather clueless subtitler translated as "Move along, puppies. . .")
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"
Jaime Jean
unless you restructure the sentence to say "You, who are our Father and who
are in heaven, etc.". Isn't this nonsense? A prayer is the vocative form by
excellence and is always on a second person, regardless of how you introduce
it - Our Father, Lamb of God, Virgin Mary, or whatever.
Take this example: in Norwegian, the verb "to be" is conjugated "er" for all
persons. Our Father is translated "Fader vår, du som er himmelen", "Our
Father, you who are in heaven" to emphasize the second-person character of
the prayer since it can't be done by means of a verb conjugation. In the
case of English, Latin, and most other Western languages, the second and
third persons of the verb "to be" have their own conjugation and in prayers
the second person is ALWAYS used.
Jaime
Richard Schultz <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> escribió en el mensaje de
noticias 7hrbvu$g9i$3...@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il...
Jaime Jean
nominative.
Jaime
David <sapp...@cix.co.uk> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
memo.19990518...@sapphire.compulink.co.uk...
David
Jean) wrote:
> No, it's vocative.
> "Agnus" has the same form for the vocative and the
> nominative.
O really? I don't think you got that idea out of a Latin grammar book.
David
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
should lay off a bit?
I find this discussion quite interesting, though. I am told that scholarly
tracts are constantly being written (and tempests brew in teapots) over what
local pronunciation of church Latin a given composer may have had in mind when
composing a certain mass (or something similar), in order to produce
"authentic" performances. I assume the center of the most controversy
involves the pronunciation of the letter "C".
Neal wrote:
> Doh! I shall now proceed to the town square and set myself on fire, humbled
> that I am.
>
> Frank Eggleston wrote in message <373EBE25...@erols.com>...
> >Neal wrote:
> >>
> >> Since Agnus Dei is NOT Latin, the correct pronunciation when singing it
> is
> >> "ah-nyoos day-ee".
> >>
> >
> >Sorry Neal, it <is> Latin. Were you thinking maybe of "kyrie
> >eleison"?
--
Best regards,
Con
--
To reply, please remove anti-spam asterisk from return address
**************************************************************
"Mozart is too easy for beginners and too difficult for artists"
-- Artur Schnabel
**************************************************************
Jaime Jean
is "agne" just because the "Dominus" is "Domine" you're wrong. Latin grammar
is far more complicated than that - but I don't need to tell you that, since
you master the subject. Now tell me, a) why is "Agnus dei" in the nominative
form? b) what is the correct vocative of "agnus"?
Jaime
David <sapp...@cix.co.uk> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
memo.19990520...@sapphire.compulink.co.uk...
David
Jean) wrote:
> Yes, I did. Now quote your sources. If you mean that the vocative of
> "agnus"
> is "agne" just because the "Dominus" is "Domine" you're wrong. Latin
> grammar
> is far more complicated than that - but I don't need to tell you that,
> since
> you master the subject. Now tell me, a) why is "Agnus dei" in the
> nominative
> form?
Because it is
b) what is the correct vocative of "agnus"?
agne
Margaret Mikulska
>
> jj...@data.net.mx (Jaime Jean) wrote:
>
> > No, it's vocative.
> > "Agnus" has the same form for the vocative and the
> > nominative.
>
> O really? I don't think you got that idea out of a Latin grammar book.
At least in Ecclesiastical Latin, the form "agnus" was used as
vocative. Similarly, the form "deus" was used as vocative (both in
Classical and Eccl. Latin), even though the two nouns are masculine
"-us" nouns of 2nd declension, and one would expect a separate form for
the vocative case. You can read about it in primers of Eccl. Latin.
(Or, in the case of "deus", in most Latin grammar books.)
Additionally, there was a tendency among Christian writers to replace
vocative by nominative; some examples of this can be found even earlier,
in Class. Latin (Livy, for example: "audi tu, populus Albanus" - not
"popule" as in "Popule meus, quid feci tibi"). But that's a somewhat
different topic.
-Margaret