Why can't "got" have a perfect tense?

Glory ...
It either is a salutation in direct address (no verb), or a sentence (with verb) in a uncommon mood. This is all probably clear in the Greek.

I think that Dr. Tkacz makes good points on highlighted syllables. (I don't like accents on prepositions; I don't get your IN heaven example.) and matching the text and melodic contour. The finest example of the latter, I think, is in "Messiah" - "and every mountain and hill made low). The mountain towers, the hills roll then fall low. But this integration doesn't happen everywhere even in this masterpiece. The opening line climbs to peaks on valley and declines on exalted.

The Cantor institute has a lot of settings to produce. I think that she is right in her suggestion that they use a seemingly automated approach is accurate - but the approach is understandable at least for now with so much work to do. The problem is that it doesn't allow for modest variations that add musicality and allow a better mesh of text and music. I think tone 2 settings are a good example. The beginning of all phrases tends to be rigidly the same; rising to "la" before the end of the phrase is absent, etc. I think that in common practice of the tone, however, interesting little variations are incorporated that are, in conjunction with the text, intutitive; they solve problems of position of accents, for example. Removing these variations and sticking to a rigid template, does not make the chant simpler; it makes it more difficult, because the variations solve awkward situations; without them the awkward features remain in the settings. (And what on earth was the rationale for departing from the established - already in the Slavonic - practice of having "The noble Joseph" as a whole phrase, and replacing it with an initial phrase characterized by monotony?)

I think there will be an evolution of these settings. It is almost unavoidable; variations will creep back and be exchanged among singers. There will be a natural selection of what works best.

I agree.

I posted the link to this article in another thread, but it fits here as well:

"Jesus, Son of Humankind?" by Fr. Paul Mankowski, S.J.

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Interesting that so much of the criticism of Dr. Tkacz's article focuses on musical questions. From that I shall abstain, at least for the moment, since I seldom use Prostopinije - my one criticism is that it's not always clear whether the author is using "Byzantine" to mean Byzantine, or whether she is using "Byzantine" to mean "Ruthenian". Prostopinije is emphatically NOT Byzantine chant.

The discussion of the translations themselves is far more interesting to your humble servant. While there is plenty I might disagree with, Dr. Tkacz has written a major contribution to the discussion and I earnestly hope that as many people as possible will read it carefully.

One caveat: do not, repeat not, print the article without first correcting the formatting - which is not easy; I've done my best and still missed a few points which could be important. If a PDF file can be obtained, that will be a vast improvement.

Incognitus

Thanks for the link, Apotheoun. The article makes some good points, but misses widely on others, IMO. From my reading, the author would not like "mankind" however, but would prefer "man".

I think the issue is that "got" is like "spoke." So, I spoke, I got. I have spoken, I have gotten. I have spoke is wrong, so should I have got.

If not, what is the issue?

While Ameican heritage at Deictionary.com does give "gotten", it also gives these uses:


To have current possession of. Used in the present perfect form with the meaning of the present: We've got plenty of cash.
Nonstandard. To have current possession of. Used in the past tense form with the meaning of the present: They got a nice house in town.
To have as an obligation. Used in the present perfect form with the meaning of the present: I have got to leave early. You've got to do the dishes.
Nonstandard. To have as an obligation. Used in the past tense with the meaning of the present: I got to git me a huntin' dog

Well, if this is so, why did they change the license plates in PA over this "You've got a friend in PA" business?

I haven't lived in PA for 30 years, but here's a guess:

There were those who found this construction to be an innovation, and determined that it was driven by the modernist agenda of unfriendlies. Others feared that the possesive nature of the construction could be misunderstood - without extensive education - and as endorsing a return to slave-holding. Still others considered this as a crypto-quaker heresy. Many vowed to move out of state if this were not reversed - for example to New York where this phrase would never be used (the friend part, that is). Given the continuing decline in the state's population, and fearing further losses, the offending clause was removed.

Feel free to elaborate on where he misses the mark so widely.

Though 'local custom' has become the norm in combining got and have, I think there is a difference. "To have" is different from "to get." One means "I already possess something" whereas the other means "I recently attained something." Just a technicality.

To say "I've got a house" is poor English. I either "have" a house (already in my possession) or I just "got" a house (just purchased and closed on it yesterday or last month). "I've got a house" literally means "I have got a house." This is confusing. Just a pondering.

But back to the doxology.

Are we talking about God receiving glory and/or praise from us or are we talking about God's being? Worship or essence? Or are we telling God to receive our glory and/or praise like we tell a child to "be still."

Tony and others mention rightfully how some of our hymns do not have "be" in it. If they can stand alone without it then we have to ask from whence did the inclusion of "be" came from? Latin?

Joe

djs,

Your reply made more sense after a Guinness and watching Madagascar.

Joe

Apotheoun,

The article you cited http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/14.8docs/14-8pg33.html , entitled "Jesus, Son of Humankind?" and subtitled as "The Necessary Failure of Inclusive-Language Translations" is excellent and is very appropriate for our discussion regarding the revision of the Liturgy.

Thanks for the link!

Here is one answer to why the Latins removed the "be" in their doxology.

-------

When the prayers were revised after the Second Vatican Council, newer translations were adapted which were MORE FAITHFUL [emphasis mine] to the Latin texts. In 1971, this prayer was updated and no longer has the "BE" in it.

Reference:
http://www.blessedsacrament.com/theology/q100.html

-------

The English translation of the Latin:

Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto,
Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit,

sicut erat in principio
as it was in the beginning,

et nunc et semper
is now,

et in sæcula sæculorum. Amen.
and will be forever. Amen.

Joe

Joe,

The first part of the Gloria Patri might be more accurate, but the second part is lacking. I think the text would more accurately be rendered as:

Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always

et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
and unto ages of ages. Amen.

CHRIST IS RISEN! "I've got friends in Pennsylvania and I've got friends in New York" is a) true, and b) perfectly good spoken American English. In writing English, the preferred form would be "I have friends in . . ." Almost every living language has slightly different forms in some instances for speaking and for writing.

Incognitus