on bizarre terminology

Gabriel referred to somebody else's argument about translating the usual references to the Virgin Mary in Orthodox liturgy. For those unfamiliar, the Greek title most often used to refer to her is "Theotokos" (Θεοτόκος), which roughly glosses as "She who gave birth to the one who is God", if you'll forgive my glossing it as though it were Sanskrit. Most other languages translate this title. Slavonic says "Bogoroditsa", for instance (Богородица). A lot of English Orthodox texts are translated from the Slavonic, so we have the absurd situation of translating from the Slavonic, which was translated from the Greek, not into the target language, but back into Greek. I find it slightly more absurd than using antiquated second person pronouns. Gabriel then goes on to say that he never uses the term when talking with non-Orthodox and rarely even when talking with Orthodox (unless explicitly discussing the third ecumenical council). I find this wise and tactful, because most people have a hard enough time understanding the nonsense we are talking about without our assuming that they know all these crazy big words we're using.

Which brings us to the topic of our conversation. Most people have no idea what the hell other people are talking about, religiously, if they are not a part of your bizarre little religious subculture. This has become more apparent over the last year, since my wife, for some odd reason, has a lot of Protestant friends, and they use common everyday words as though they are imbued with some special meaning that I cannot pretend to decipher and they have all these nonsensical debates which mean literally nothing to me. And they all pretend like they should mean something to me just because the words they are using are all English (imagine if they weren't and they were using hideously outdated German or French).

Of course, this extends beyond religious spheres. Any little coterie is bound to have manners of speaking that become pregnant with meaning, but when outsiders are introduced to them, their reaction is, "You say that as if it should mean something to me, but it doesn't." And, even more insidiously, conformance to these manners of speaking by those inducted can become a substitute for actual understanding. Leaning on the obscure words of others rather than, you know, realizing what you're saying. This isn't too bad if you're just working it out for yourself, but if you're trying to have any influence on other people, I recommend figuring out what you mean before you say it and trying to translate it into something somebody else can understand. This usually means using English words.

As a matter of policy, I pretend not to understand people who don't unless it's clear we know what we're doing. That's part of the motivation behind my post about words that cause me to tune out: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Or at least we may not agree about it.

Pascha: Daytime or Evening?

A serious question came up recently. Is the midnight Paschal liturgy to be considered a daytime event or an evening event for the purposes of dressing? On the one hand, it is midnight after all. On the other, it is, liturgically, day, sort of.

Practically, this is the question of whether one has occasion to bring out the dinner jacket (tails would seem a bit much) or whether one should stick with a suit (no American has formal morning attire, but if one has a black peak lapel jacket and striped/checked trousers, one could sneak something by the unsuspecting masses, while a morning coat would just be too much).

I'm not going to suggest that one hire or purchase such clothes for the occasion if one doesn't have them, except to say that every man should have a suit. Nor am I suggesting that we turn the Paschal vigil into an ostentatious display of finery. This is, largely, academic for me, since I don't have a dinner jacket and don't intend to purchase one. I wouldn't wear one even if it were appropriate because I would typically serve and a black bowtie doesn't work well with a sticharion (nor should altar servers wear ties, in my opinion). I've already detailed my opinion on formal daytime attire. Accordingly, my Easter attire is already chosen for me no matter what: a dark solid-colored suit (striped suits are strictly business attire). I'm going with oxford grey.

Words that cause me to roll my eyes

In religious discussions [particularly Orthodox, so others can tune out], here are some words that cause me to roll my eyes.
1. Ancient.
2. Mystical.
3. Mystery.
4. Tradition.
5. This isn't a word, but, well, most apologetics.
6. Pretty much most other conversations. People don't really talk about anything worthwhile, they talk about shit.

Marital Survey

This is all purely theoretical, but it came up somewhere and was curious what you all might think. I'm asking around all the fora (and fauna) I have and would like your input.

Keep in mind, of course, that I have never asked a question about anything I did not already have a strong opinion on that you could not possibly dissuade me from.

1. How long should a guy go out with a girl before asking her to marry him?

2. How long should an engagement last?

3. How much time should elapse between first date and wedding?

Think of these questions as being about several parameters, like minimum recommended wise time, typical time, maximum recommended wise time barring special circumstance, etc.

I was reading Boundless.org and one of the authors recommended that one should plan for marriage within about a year, which really did seem quite reasonable as an upper bound to plan for, but I thought I would ask your opinions/experiences.

Resolution

I don't typically do new year's resolutions, but I figured I would make a couple and share them.

1. I will not crush my enemies in 2009.
2. Battle cosmic evil.
3. Seek justice.
4. I suppose I should acquire at least 10 more pounds.
5. Get out of this crummy job into a real one.
6. Eat more offal and pack my lunch more often.

I suppose a couple of these are counter-intuitive or obscure. Trust me, though. I'm a trained professional

A few clear thoughts about the second person pronoun: part I

I have been drawn into two internet discussions in the last few weeks on the use of the archaic second person pronoun in (Orthodox) liturgical translations and other (Orthodox) churchly settings. I, naturally, have derided its use on the grounds that it is "lame" and EDIT: REDACTED. Granted, I find these to be fully adequate reasons to switch to real English, but I fear that some people may mistakenly cling to their former delusions. Further, most of the arguments on both sides that I have seen are extremely weak and deserve about as much respect as my arguments above would indicate I give them. Accordingly, I shall try to raise the level of discourse slightly.

But, first, we do have a few things to get out of the way so we all know what we are talking about. There are a number of English translations of Orthodox liturgical texts. The oldest are approximately a century old. Some of them use "Thou/Thee" for every second person singular. Some use "Thou/Thee" only for God. Some exclusively use "You/You". People often cobble together the texts from a variety of sources, so it's not all consistent. There is also the question of what Bible translation to use liturgically – I am not going to address that question. At the very least, we should be consistent, so how should we do this?

One plausible answer is that it does not really matter: we should make a choice and stick with it. If we pick up a text for something which does not conform to the mold, we can either fix it or leave it as it is (if, say, the text is only being used once).

Another plausible answer is that it does not really matter: we should only try not to sound completely ridiculous. This is much like the previous option, except that we do not care so much if some small parts are not the same as the others.

I am not competent to comment on either of these practical approaches and will, thankfully, never be in a position to decide on their implementation at any parish. However, I do feel quite qualified to discuss the theoretical questions in this debate (which the above two approaches neatly sidestep), as I have strong opinions about English style and usage. Fortunately, most people have some real opinion about how things ought to be, even if we all end as pragmatists, and I hope my few thoughts on this matter may help you realize that I am, as always, right.

Before I prove that I am right and you are, if you disagree, wrong, I ought to at least present the arguments of those who disagree with me. Here, then, is the compendium of errors:

1. Thou/Thee is traditional liturgical English.
   The Bible was written in such English. The Book of Common Prayer was written in such English. The Douay-Rheims Bible was written in such English. It was not until recent times that any church used any other sort of language. There are still some pockets in the English-speaking world that insist on using the Authorized Version. Accordingly, we Orthodox should use that idiom to translate our liturgy.
   
2. The language of the liturgy should not be dumbed down like the newspaper or, worse, like casual conversation, text messages, or hip-hop music.
   The liturgy is poetry. We must try to translate it in an idiom similar to that in which it was written. Also, we are serving the Almighty God. Though nothing is worthy of God, we should give what we can. A lot of modern translations of the Bible simply do not sound like they are the Bible because they are so dumbed down. Modern evangelical Protestant “praise and worship” music sounds like it could just as easily be about some girl you just fell for rather than the Almighty God. We must avoid this.
   
3. Thou/Thee has the potential to be more theologically accurate.
   There are some notable passages in Scripture where using the generic second person pronoun leads to some ambiguity where a distinction between singular and plural would yield clarity. Further, the use of the singular for God emphasizes the oneness of God: definitive proof for the Musulmans that we are not tritheists.
   
4. Complete sets of liturgical texts exist in Thou/Thee, but they do not exist in real English.
   Though this is a practical matter, rather than a theoretical matter, it is salient. If satisfactory texts already exist, why bother with all the work of ditching them just because they say Thou instead of You? Making yet another translation of the Horologion, for example, would mean a few thousand man hours, and to what end?

Please let me know if I am missing any major arguments for the use of “Thou/Thee” in liturgical translations or if these arguments can be made stronger. My next post will be my case and a rebuttal of these silly arguments.