Friday, August 16, 2013

Another post against using faux-archaic language

Before I get into this discussion, I want to clarify that I am not advocating for using a less formal register of English. While archaism has been popular for at least the last 500 years as a method of lending a faux formality to texts in the English language, it is by no means necessary when putting a text into a formal register. cf Sir Thomas More ripping on Tyndale for trying to use the archaic distinction between yes/yea and no/nay and getting it wrong - and Sir Thomas More himself got it wrong! The NRSV is a fully modern biblical translation and I do not think anybody would accuse it of being too informal for any setting (criticism of it is based on certain decisions in the translation, not the register). The Message, however, is a fully modern translation that is far too colloquial for liturgical use. The degree of formality of a text is not related to its level of archaism. Using "you" instead of "thou" does not make a text informal.

Main point: reading aloud in an intelligible manner, even for very intelligent and very literate native speakers of English, can be a challenge. Hearing and processing a read text is also tricky, but nowhere near as hard. However, an archaic translation does not make this any easier. An archaic, and especially a faux-archaic text, is going to be harder for even a literate native speaker to read. Here is a selection from the Coverdale Psalter:

The trees of the LORD also are full of sap; * even the cedars of Lebanon which he hath planted;
Wherein the birds make their nests; * and the firtrees are a dwelling for the stork.
The high hills are a refuge for the wild goats; * and so are the stony rocks for the conies.
He appointed the moon for certain seasons, * and the sun knoweth his going down.
Thou makest darkness that it may be night; * wherein all the beasts of the forest do move.
The lions, roaring after their prey, * do seek their meat from God.
Conies are rabbits, by the way (cf Samwise wanting to cook a "brace of coneys"). This is a truly archaic translation from the 16th century. There are a couple things that may cause a reader to stumble here: odd verb endings, a few uncommon words, some odd syntax. Here is a selection from a faux-archaic translation, I believe it is the Jordanville translation:
The trees of the plain shall be satisfied, the cedars of Lebanon, which Thou hast planted. There will the sparrows make their nests; the house of the heron is chief among them. The high mountains are a refuge for the harts, and so is the rock for the hares. He hath made the moon for seasons; the sun knoweth his going down. Thou appointedst the darkness, and there was the night, wherein all the beasts of the forest will go abroad. Young lions roaring after their prey, and seeking their food from God. The sun ariseth, and they are gathered together, and they lay them down in their dens.
Paying no attention to differences in the text, there are many more things to "snag" on: more unfamiliar verb endings, a few positively clunky words ("appointedst"), and awkward syntax. If this text is placed in front of a reader, I would give good odds that the reader will stumble. Here is a thoroughly modern Orthodox translation from Archimandrite Ephrem:
The trees of the plain will be satisfied, the cedars of Lebanon that you planted. There the sparrows will build their nests; the heron’s dwelling is at their head. The high mountains are for the deer; rocks a refuge for hares. He made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knew the hour of its setting. You appointed darkness, and it was night, in which all the beasts of the forest will prowl; young lions roaring to plunder and to seek their food from God. The sun rose and they were gathered together and they will lie down in their dens.
I would not rate this as completely free of any awkwardness, but I do not see anything a reader would trip on in the first pass. A+. His translations are very good, generally.

Certainly, I have by no means proven that a reader would stumble on these things, but I have observed time and time again literate and intelligent native speakers stumbling when reading aloud faux archaic texts just like this. They even stumble a little on "normal" texts, but nowhere near as much. If native speakers are stumbling, the people hearing are probably having comprehension difficulties, too.

Here is the real problem: every parish I have been in has had a substantial population of non-native speakers. Reading aloud is a difficult task, but it is perhaps manageable with a reasonable text. Using a faux archaic text makes it that much more difficult. Choosing a faux archaic text means that, when given a choice to use a wholly adequate text that more of the congregation could read aloud and which more of the congregation will understand more of when read aloud, you instead chose an obscure text. This is bad.

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Joke: but what would Kierkegaard say in response?

With his legions of sock-puppet accounts?

I think we can take this as suggesting that perhaps Kierkegaard is a libertarian.

Come, ye assembly of those who love the feasts of the Church!

Come, let us form a choir!

Noticed this line in today's hymnography (from the Litya stichera). cf Podoben, pg 20, but the translation is slightly different. It seems to me to be a good sort of motto for a church choir.

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Stupid opinion about tattoos.

Elsewhere on the internet, somebody asked for opinions about getting a tattoo of an icon (as a non-Orthodox). One person people piped up with an argument that was completely stupid: "If you get a tattoo of an icon, the only thing that can happen to it is desecrating it through sin." Right, because that is the only thing that happens to our bodies, one long slow decline from baptism (where we are perfect) to death. It's best to die right after baptism, as your journey to theosis is most complete there. Our bodies can be transfigured through grace, not just defiled by sin. I would agree that sin would desecrate the icon, but this is not the only thing that happens.

Anyway, so I just wrote a short post about what icons are and what they're for and a couple sentences about the human body as icon of Christ to give the guy some context for evaluating whether it sounds like a good idea.

My own personal opinion about tattoos, in general, is that Orthodox should not get them because there's some canon against it, but it's such a weak and silly opinion that I really don't care and would only air it if directly asked. I have a strong opinion that Orthodox should not get tattoos of icons, but that is because they are not "religious art" or "decoration", but tools for use in worship. Icons should not be used in book covers, disposable paper church bulletins, displays of artistic pieces, etc. As for what non-Orthodox do, the Gentiles are a law unto themselves, but, given their meaning and use, if directly asked for my personal advice, I would recommend against getting a tattoo of an icon.

Friday, August 09, 2013

How strength training is going

Because you're all interested. I've been able to make it to the gym a little bit more regularly lately, which is good. I'm not terribly regular, but things are going okay. I'm using a program that's kind of like 5/3/1: basically, one main lift per day plus some assistance.

Anyway, I competed in the Iowa Games Strongman competition and tied for second place - this is not a terribly significant achievement. I also pressed 185# and have a 1245# powerlifting total (465/265/515) (330 Wilks). This is pretty okay. Those are all lifts I've done this week.

Tuesday, August 06, 2013

It should be possible...

It really should be possible to write a script that takes a given stikhera text and a tone and spits out Obikhod sheet music. Perhaps I would be willing to do a little finagling with the text - separating syllables and marking the spots. Those are tricky things to tell a script to figure out. But once you have that, the rest is just a rather simple algorithm.

There exists a program, Lilychant, that interacts with Lilypond, but it seems to require too much specialized human input, so that's not quite what I want. Maybe I'm wrong, I'll take another look maybe.

Again, starting small. Just Obikhod. From a given text.

EDIT: actually, looking at it, it seems Lilychant might do just what I want.