Is anyone else attempting a side-by-side comparison of the 2002 provisional English translation of the General Instruction with the 2011 final, international translation of the same, together with the Latin original? I am up to Article 90 in this rather exhausting work and I wonder if others are already working on this and will post their insights here.
Comparing GIRMs?
Comments
18 responses to “Comparing GIRMs?”
-
Any examples to share? Things that have been added or removed unexpectedly?
-
The only substantial change I have noticed so far is in para. 160, Paul. The question I have is this: Were we told that the 2002 translation was
un-offiicial and transitional and temporary? I don’t recall being told that, and I find no such indication in the USCCB publication of the 02 edition. And when we given permission and encouragement to implement the GIRM 2002 even though the sacramentary part of the Missal was not ready, were we thus being given permission to implement a document that wasn’t in final, official form? Or is history being rewritten in this instance? -
Sean, there are few differences in substance but many changes in translation that might give the impression of a changes in substance. The passive constructions in the Latin are relentlessly preserved ( 😉 ). The 2011 translation employs a capitalization style that the Chicago Style Manual discourages, e.g., Sacrifice, Celebration, Most Holy. Roman Rite, Death, Resurrection, Priest, Deacon, and the like. I’ll have more to say when I am finished.
David, when I was producing my study edition for my students and those who attend my workshops, I was told by ICEL that the 2002 translation was an interim translation.
-
Paul the issue of the use of Title Case in recent liturgical books is of interest to me and one that I have not seen written about. While using Title Case instead of sentence case may not be “substantive,” it seems to suggest a shift in mind set that is very significant. I will be eager to hear your ideas regarding this. Jim
-
Father Jim, you have exposed my ignorance. Until your entry, I did not know the terms “Title Case” and “Sentence Case.” Can you further remediate my ignorance? I WILL be addressing this matter in my overall assessment.
A reader of this blog sent me a message to tell me that the new translation does not follow the the Catholic News Service‘s Stylebook on Religion, 3rd Edition.
-
“Title Case” and “Sentence Case” are two of the choices in the “Change Case” command in Microsoft Word. The first capitalizes all words in a sentence; the second capitalizes only the first word.
-
-
Most publishers moved during the period 1960s-1970s to a standard of minimum capitalization (and also omitting periods after abbreviations — this ‘Fr’ and ‘St’, not ‘Fr.’ and St.’).
Two main reasons for this:
(1) To save money in hot-metal typesetting, where the more metal you use, the more it costs. Significant savings could be made in the course of a full-length book. Today, of course, it makes little difference except in the cost of additional printer’s ink.
(2) Because excessive use of capital letters is a distinct “noise factor” and interrupts the flow of reading. One reason for this is that the mind subsconsciously goes back to look for a preceding period (full stop) every time it encounters an upper-case letter. Another is the subsconscious tendency to emphasize every capitalized word as having more importance than those around it.
So a sentence like “We proclaim your Death, O Lord, and profess your Resurrection…” or the incessant use of capitals for “the Priest” in the rubrics of the Order of Mass and GIRM in the new translation of the Missal (as opposed to previous incarnations of GIRM, where it was normally lower-case) has the effect of bringing the reader up short every time it happens.
It is also amusing to speculate on how such capitalization can be conveyed in musical settings of texts. Should the composer indicate a sforzando every time s/he encounters a capitalized word or syllable?!
I would like Paul Ford to include versions of GIRM prior to 2002 in his study, starting with the unofficial Moroney translation that appeared in July 2000 and preceding through subsequent drafts until 2002, but it may be that this would be a much larger exercise.
-
Americans kept those inefficient periods, unfortunately (I say this as a former editor).
The ini-capping of nouns is too Germanic for my taste; I have less of a problem with the ini-capping of Divine Pronouns, as it were, however, though it’s not something I force, either.
-
The mind subsconsciously goes back to look for a preceding period (full stop) every time it encounters an upper-case letter.
Really? Do you have more information about this? I’ve never heard of this, and — since you say it’s subconscious — I have never been aware of it. There are times when I consciously go back to look for a period, but that’s because one is actually missing, or I misread the sentence.
-
PI, that would be too much for me to undertake. PF
-
-
I have not noticed any missing periods for abbreviations in American usage… but, it is very common in British usage… I have wondered at this peculiarity: is it really done merely for economy, as you say; or is there something more substantial underlying the periodical habits on opposite shores of the pond.
-
I’ve been recently informed that the US Bishops are issuing another revision of the GIRM with the new Missal. Has anyone had a look at it?
We in Canada will be seeing our ‘new’ GIRM for the first time this fall.
-
Jaye, there is no revision of the GIRM for the US Missal but only a translation adjusted to harmonize with every other English translation of the GIRM.
I am taking a close look at it and will be posting a detailed report on this blog as soon as I am finished.
-
-
Paul,
I have been asked if the “original Latin text” has changed. What is the date of the current Latin upon which this new endeavour is based? If it is new where can one obtain a copy?-
No, the Latin remains the same, as amended in Notitiae from a few years back. Does anyone have the precise bibliographical reference?
-
-
Capitalization of words is part of the ratio translationis prescribed in Liturgiam Authenticam 9. I believe PrayTell linked this leaked document.
Vox Clara is also looking at this piece, and it seems it will be updated at some time in the future. In snark: retrofit the document to adjust to the practice in place–sort of like deep-sixing MR2, then conjuring up LA a few years later to put the justification in writing.
The rewriting of the praenotanda of all the rites is also part of the plan of LA. See section 66ff, if memory serves.
Paul’s commentary about “Priests” is apt, as the leaked ratio translationis is explicit that when speaking generally of a bishop, pope, priest, that capitalization is not appropriate. Again, it’s been a while since I looked at this document, so I may have misremembered it. Otherwise, if the snark fits …
Curious that it’s less of a Latin tradition and more German. It just seems darned fussy to me.
-
… or just darned clericalist!
-
-
Isn’t that what I said?
by
Please leave a reply.