Value in (Re-)Translation

There is immense value in adjusting translations, not only for theological and/or linguistic accuracy, but for musical purposes and proper grammar and syntax. As an example of this, let’s take a deeper look at the current introductory stanzas of several ⲁⲇⲁⲙ hymns, ⲁⲙⲱⲓⲛⲓ ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲛⲟⲩⲱϣⲧ and ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ϧⲁ ⲛⲓⲗⲁⲟⲥ.

Coptic Text:

ⲁⲙⲱⲓⲛⲓ ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲛⲟⲩⲱϣⲧ ⳾ ⲛϯⲧⲣⲓⲁⲥ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⳾ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲫⲓⲱⲧ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲓ ⳾ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲡⲓⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⳾

ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ϧⲁ ⲛⲓⲗⲁⲟⲥ ⳾ ⲛⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ ⳾ ⲫⲁⲓ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲛⲛⲟⲩϯ ⳾ ⲛⲁⲗⲏⲑⲓⲛⲟⲥ ⳾

Current [CR] English Text:

O come let us worship, the Holy Trinity, the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

We are the Christian people, for he is, our true God.

There are several issues with the current English translation.

1) The translator splits the two stanzas into two sentences, whereas the Coptic text does not do so. Coptic stanzas are separated for musical purposes, not necessarily for sentence structure—meaning that each stanza is not a sentence on its own and the stanzas build upon each other to form complete thoughts. Without this lens in mind, translators often form incoherent thoughts instead of logical sentences. If we were to translate the second stanza alone, it would result in a fragment and not a complete thought: “we the Christian people for he is our true God”. Viewing each stanza as a separate sentence, the translator is forced to add in the verb “are” in order to make some sense of the text, when in actuality all we really had to do was view both stanzas as a sentence. A more accurate translation of both stanzas together would read, “Come, let us worship the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit—we the Christian peoples—for He is our true God.” Adjusting for syntax more akin to the English language, the translation would look more like this: “Come, let us—we, the Christian peoples—worship the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for He is our true God.”

2) Current English texts use commas to segment musical phrases. This renders the English UNINTELLIGIBLE. Most Psalmody manuscripts (prior to the typewriter/printing press) used the symbol (⳾) to separate musical phrases. When typewriters came into the picture, this symbol was forgone (for the most part) and we began using colons ( : ) because they were the closest thing available to the original symbol. In English, however, colons, commas, and slash marks are all utilized in forming properly constructing sentences. For this reason, the Coptic-English Psalmody project has chosen to use the interpunct (•) a mid-line dot—which is the standard for chanted texts—to indicate musical segmentation, without destroying the grammar and punctuation of the English text. In so doing, it also frees us from the current limitations so that we can use punctuation such as (?), ( ; ), ([ ]) and many others in order to form complete thoughts and make use of all the tools available to us in the English language.

Finally, we must also take into account the music itself of these texts—otherwise, all this other jargon is futile. ⲁⲇⲁⲙ texts and melodies are restricted/constructed to contain a specific number of syllables. Looking at this second stanza in English when translated exactly, there are not enough syllables to sing comfortably, and thus another adjustment is necessary.

A musically inclined translation with more accurate grammar and syntax would more closely align with:

Come, let us worship • the Holy Trinity, • the Father, Son, • and Holy Spirit •

—we, the people(s) • of Christ—• for He is our God • in truth.

Now this isn’t a perfect translation per se, meaning “Christian peoples” is more close to the Coptic than “peoples of Christ”, however, the trade-off may be worth it because we have all had extreme difficulty chanting this stanza based on how it’s written. The same applies to “our true God” versus “our God in truth”. And there are many more options and possibilities as well—any talented translator will have to make “executive” decisions, hence, footnotes (Just one more thing we have lost by using apps).

I share this today, to re-open dialogue that seems to be shut and to address the box that we’ve unknowingly placed ourselves in by cementing and standardizing our liturgical texts without studying them linguistically, academically, and musically!