Edward Yong
posted 07-11-2006 11:59AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Elitoft:

The Greek monk who explained the Kai...Kai construction to me said that one is either masculine and neuter and the other is either feminine or neuter and that the context would indicate the gender. He is inclined to the translation that would render both words as neuter with one emphasizing the collective sense of "all" and the other indicating the individuation of the elements in "all" and so he was in agreement with the Latin rendering.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CIX!

With all due respect to the Greek monk and to you, it is possible that the Greek monk's statement got slightly garbled in the expression it found in your post, as you did mention that you have not studied Greek.

πάντων could either be masculine or neuter.

πασῶν could only be feminine - no other translation is possible.

If we take πάντων as neuter, we then have 'for everything and all women', which would be a bit odd. However, there is a tradition that if a grammatical form can be translated either as masculine or neuter, the default translation is masculine, unless context explicitly requires a neuter - this tradition is also found in Latin and a number of other languages.

Hence, πάντων as masculine is the most logical - 'for (both) all men and all women'.

'for each and all' is found in some translations, I concede, but it's clearly not a translation - it's an interpretation.

Oddly, the GOARCH's infamous Green Book for the DL in English, translates this phrase as 'and all Your people', but this is minor compared to the other hideous mistranslations in that book...

Dear Edward,

Sorry I let things get confused in terms of where to be discussing this. I appreciate your willingness to offer responses.

I think you've hit upon what I was interested in here with this phrase.

As a literary devise, it does allow for some latitude in terms of interpretative translation and I am aware of the "each and all" translations and find them to be the most doctrinally and theologically accurate.

Just a couple of minor points: I realize that you did not call these constructions pronouns, but they were referred to as pronouns which would then require parallel gender construction.

They are not pronouns but collective nouns which are gendered just as "sophia" is gendered for example, but Sophia being femenine does not make for a Divine Ladyship, as has been discussed over and over again in response to theological feminists.

So that the gendering of a collective noun such as "all" may make intuitive sense to us now, but is not inherently commanded by either the lexicon or the grammar. The gender can indeed remain open, neither male, nor female, nor neuter, necessarily.

That lexical and grammatical fact would then leave one free to exercise translational choices without offering grave offense to the parent text.

Eli

CIX!

Let's try this again...

It is most certainly *not* a literary device, and it does *not* allow for latitude in translation. The 'each and all' translations may be doctrinally and theologically correct (note, 'correct', not 'accurate'), but they're simply not a translation of the Greek.

Your plea for a 'latitude of translation' simply means that you want it to mean what it cannot possibly mean. What *you* find to be 'most doctrinally and theologically accurate' is entirely irrelevant - we are discussing here what the Greek means, not somebody's re-interpretation of the Liturgy.

They are not Collective Nouns. They aren't Pronouns either. They are Adjectives, whose gender goes to fit the gender of the subject matter. To be even more precise, they are what we Greek teachers call Substantives, which is to say, an Adjective being used as a Noun. In this case, they actually *DO* require parallel gender construction - hence the 'for all men and all women' translation.

With all respect: NO. It is clearly commanded by both the lexicon (check Liddell & Scott if you don't believe me) AND the grammar (Goodwin, which is available online as a pdf).

This is not a lexical and grammatical fact, and to translate it in any way, barring phrasing choices, other than 'both for all (men) and all (women)', is to multilate the text.

Greek is a highly precise language. kai pantwn kai paswn in this context can only mean 'both for all men and for all women'. If the Fathers had intended 'for each and all', there are many ways of saying this in Greek.

'For all men and for all women' is clearly the only possible translation - any other will get marked wrong in any Greek exam at any level.

Being brutally honest, I don't see why this is being discussed at all - the Greek is simple on this and the meaning is both clear and incapable of any other interpretation.

I don't mean to be immodest, but I would urge you, since you don't read Greek, to trust me on this. I'm far from being infallible, but as a postgraduate student in the Classics, able to read Classical Greek with fair fluency, and having taught Classical Greek to beginners for some years now, I suggest that I might possibly know, with some precision, what I'm talking about.

in Domino,

Edward

Apparently I am caught between "experts," Edward.

Thankfully I am not in a position to have to choose.

I don't think your tone was necessary.

I am grateful that you saw fit to waste your time.

At least I am clear now on the points of disagreements where I find them, even if I cannot resolve them.

Eli

Elitoft you would try the patience of saint with your bloomin questions. Never mind his tone look to your own.

Saints are the ones who generally understand and appreciate me. It's the sinner who gets annoyed or takes offense.

Eli

I don't know if Mr. Yong will bother coming back here to look at this.

I do yield to his greater precision in naming the parts of speech here. I was trying to make a point about ambiguity in referents but made it too strongly by claiming a nominal status for the root word that is not fully accurate and so that effort did fall flat, on one side at least.

However there is still the problem of ambiguity of referent, and gendered nouns, and words used as nouns.

Just to carry this one more step, I am curious to know if there are other ways to say "both for all men and all women" in Greek?

Or is there some way to say "for all males and all females"?

Which then leads to another question which is whether or not "all males and all females" and "all men and all women" are equivalent in the precision of the Greek lexicon?

I suppose one might wonder in that beautiful precision of the Greek liturgical usage of pantwn and paswn...Where are the children, and infants?

Is there anything at all in the construction of "pantwn" and "paswn" that might lead one to possibly translate one as all and the other as each in all?

Or is the only way to translate the root word for pantwn and paswn as "all"? No other possible translations?

And if there are other possible translations besides "all", are there differences in how the word is formed to indicate a meaning outside of "all"?

Could someone tell me the Greek root for "pantwn" and "paswn"?

Eli

Dear Eli,

Now Greek was my first language, (didn't know English 'till kindergarten), but that certainly does not make me an expert, actually I'm an idiot in Greek, (as well as in English), but it does help facilitate me in understanding Greek concepts. What I do know is that the modern Greek word for 'always' is 'pantote'. So 'panton' in Church Greek means always. So I gather 'pason' (person?), must mean everybody. The word 'kai' in Greek means 'and'.

So translating that within my limited comprehension, it would have to be: 'and always and everyone'. At least that's how I understand it.

Sometimes a direct translation is the best...even from Greek.

Zenovia

Well you've added a whole new wrinkle to things, I am happy to say.

What hieratic Greek meant when Greek churchmen added that phrase to the liturgy, in earlier centuries, is a curious thing to us today, and I don't think it is an idle pursuit given the various translations that are NOT given to us as "all men and all women."

Especially since some of those oddities come from Greek monks and churchmen and not student's of a foreign language, but who am I to question professional linguists?

Eli...of course

Am back - Greek is a language I love, and I defend her integrity when I see her mangled.

There is no ambiguity here.

There is no problem here.

τῶν πάντων ἀνδρῶν καὶ τῶν πασῶν γυναικῶν.

τῶν πάντων ἀνδρῶν καὶ τῶν πασῶν γυναικῶν. Exactly the same (though for stylistic reasons, one may decide to omit τῶν)

They are the same thing. 'males' in this context means 'male persons, and hence 'men'. Ditto for 'females'.

They're included in pantwn and paswn. Also included are rabbits, conies, fireflies, faeries, pixies, elves, wombats, yetis, sasquatches, heffalumps, oopmaloompas, grinches and snuffleupaguses. Yes, even the little ladybug.

Impossible.

The alternatives are 'the whole' and 'every'. 'Each' is simply impossible - there is no way around this.

None at all.

πᾶς, πᾶσα, πᾶν: all, every; whole

Those are the Masculine, Feminine and Neuter Nominative Singular forms.

Now, coming back to 'kai pantwn kai paswn'.

The Slavonic has 'и всѣхъ и вся', which works out exactly as does the Greek. 'both for all men and for all women' - no other translation possible for 'и всѣхъ и вся'.

The Romanian has 'Şi pe toţi şi pe toate'. which works out exactly as does the Greek. 'both for all men and for all women' - no other translation possible for 'Şi pe toţi şi pe toate'.

While we're at it, just to complete the survey, the Chinese text has '并请垂念天下万民', which literally means 'and remember all the people under heaven'. More idiomatically, 'and all people', which really is quite acceptable.

All these agree with the translation of the Greek, which I have reiterated. Your idea of a concept of individuality or 'each' is completely unwarranted by the Greek text. kai pantwn kai paswn can NOT, at any time, in any dialect, mean 'for each and all'. 'each and all' is a mistranslation and wrong. No reliable Greek lexicon, used correctly, will translate the phrase as 'for each and all'.

It means 'for all men and all women', or more simply 'and for all'.

A Greek ecclesiastic might not be the best source of information about Greek words- most of them only learned enough Greek to serve Liturgy, and can't read the Fathers without the help of a cribbed translation either into Modern Greek or some other modern language. This is not a slur on the Greek Church - most RC priests in the old days couldn't translate Latin fluently either.

It appears quite obvious that you have a pet mistranslation which you like so much that you are unwilling to be corrected, even after you ASKED what the correct translation should be. If you are already sure of the most theologically and doctrinally correct answer, why do you bother asking?

If you find a way to make 'kai pantwn kai paswn' mean 'for each and all', and manage to back it up with a competent authority (a professor of Greek anywhere will do), then will you have my congratulations, for with that you will have managed to single-handedly destroy the paradigm and meaning of the Greek word 'pas' as every Greek speaker, writer and scholar has known it, from the time of Homer to the present day.

===

Zenovia,

With all respect, I submit that 'and always and everyone' is incorrect.

True, 'pantote' as you are accustomed to in Modern Greek, means 'always'. This is also what 'always' is in Old Greek. Hence 'pantote, nun kai aei kai eis tous aiwnas twn aiwnwn', which you are no doubt familiar with.

'panton', is not 'panton' as you think, but pantwn (with an omega, not an omicron). Completely unrelated to 'pantote'. This makes them two very different words.

As you know, Koinê and Modern Greek are very different creatures, the Koinê word for 'table' now means 'bank', for example.

Apologies for that. Latitude of translation permits 'snuffleupagoi' and 'snuffleupagi' as alternative plurals of 'snuffleupagus', I am informed.

'kai pantwn kai paswn' also therefore includes the master, the dame, and the little boy who lives down the lane.

Even if a Patriarch of Constantinople should tell us 'kai pantwn kai paswn' means 'for each and all', this would merely mean His All-Holiness needs to revise his Greek.

Am back - Greek is a language I love, and I defend her integrity when I see her mangled.

There is no ambiguity here.

There is no problem here.

τῶν πάντων ἀνδρῶν καὶ τῶν πασῶν γυναικῶν.

τῶν πάντων ἀνδρῶν καὶ τῶν πασῶν γυναικῶν. Exactly the same (though for stylistic reasons, one may decide to omit τῶν)

They are the same thing. 'males' in this context means 'male persons, and hence 'men'. Ditto for 'females'.

They're included in pantwn and paswn. Also included are rabbits, conies, fireflies, faeries, pixies, elves, wombats, yetis, sasquatches, heffalumps, oopmaloompas, grinches and snuffleupaguses (or snuffleupagoi, or snuffleupagi if you prefer). Yes, even the little ladybug, as well as the master, the dame, and the little boy who lives down the lane.

Impossible.

The alternatives are 'the whole' and 'every'. 'Each' is simply impossible - there is no way around this.

None at all.

πᾶς, πᾶσα, πᾶν: all, every; whole

Those are the Masculine, Feminine and Neuter Nominative Singular forms.

Now, coming back to 'kai pantwn kai paswn'.

The Slavonic has 'и всѣхъ и вся', which works out exactly as does the Greek. 'both for all men and for all women' - no other translation possible for 'и всѣхъ и вся'.

The Romanian has 'Şi pe toţi şi pe toate'. which works out exactly as does the Greek. 'both for all men and for all women' - no other translation possible for 'Şi pe toţi şi pe toate'.

While we're at it, just to complete the survey, the Chinese text has '并请垂念天下万民', which literally means 'and remember all the people under heaven'. More idiomatically, 'and all people', which really is quite acceptable.

All these agree with the translation of the Greek, which I have reiterated. Your idea of a concept of individuality or 'each' is completely unwarranted by the Greek text. kai pantwn kai paswn can NOT, at any time, in any dialect, mean 'for each and all'. 'each and all' is a mistranslation and wrong. No reliable Greek lexicon, used correctly, will translate the phrase as 'for each and all'.

It means 'for all men and all women', or more simply 'and for all'.

A Greek ecclesiastic might not be the best source of information about Greek words- most of them only learned enough Greek to serve Liturgy, and can't read the Fathers without the help of a cribbed translation either into Modern Greek or some other modern language. This is not a slur on the Greek Church - most RC priests in the old days couldn't translate Latin fluently either. Even if the Patriarch of Constantinople told you 'kai pantwn kai paswn' meant 'for each and all', it would only mean the Patriarch needs to revise his Greek grammar.

It appears quite obvious that you have a pet mistranslation which you like so much that you are unwilling to be corrected, even after you ASKED what the correct translation should be. If you are already sure of the most theologically and doctrinally correct answer, why do you bother asking?

If you find a way to make 'kai pantwn kai paswn' mean 'for each and all', and manage to back it up with a competent authority (a professor of Greek anywhere will do), then will you have my congratulations, for with that you will have managed to single-handedly destroy the paradigm and meaning of the Greek word 'pas' as every Greek speaker, writer and scholar has known it, from the time of Homer to the present day.

Dear Friends

Edward has asked me to post for him

That evil Mr Gates has caused Edward enormous problems today.

Edward asks me to say that he did not intend to post and have 3 further copies of the post appear - honestly he didn't .

Edward refuses to post his apology himself in case Mr Gates wreaks revenge once more on him .

Edward promises he will use a proper computer [ ] in future

Edward - don't feel too bad; it happened to me only yesterday!

Fr Serge

Wonderful idea!

Wonderful idea!

Wonderful idea!

I've been too busy laughing to actually read so I'll go back and do that and try to see if there is any other silly thing I can ask.

Oh BTW--asking questions, even if they are couched as assertions, even bad assertions, is not necessarily a malignant act.

I do not believe I have maligned the Greek language. Not if one knows the true meaning of malign...in English, of course.

I tried to add emoticons to indicate that I am serious here but not angry and the durn thing won't allow it so please do not condemn me for asserting that I am not malign.

Eli

Repeat after me: MANGLED not MALIGNED; MANGLED not MALIGNED; MANGLED not MALIGNED



What a morning!

Later,

Eli

This is rather aside from the subject matter, but clearly I am corresponding elsewhere with Greek monks, who are Greeks, native Greek speakers and scholars, who disagree with your strict translation of classical Greek in this context, and insist upon a different handling of the liturgical translation and treatment of the Greek of that period, in this context as a hieratic language.

As I said earlier, I am the messenger and a poor one indeed, as I scramble and mangle the messages and suggestions. I pursue the matter because of the source of the question and small challenge to your's and clearly an accepted translation.

If I were dealing with my own pet translation, then I'd be in a better position to express things as I see them. As it is I am in the middle seeking some reconciliation or some source for such disparate conclusions. You see the difficulty.

But I go no further with it by bringing my source data closer to the Forum because I see no reason to subject holy men, and learned men to the kinds of comments found above.

If I have further substantial inquiry about this or the other translations, I'll be back.

Eli

As the term "native" is pejorative in most English speaking countries (outside the USA) and this is an International forum and not all of us are of European decent, is it really necessary to describe the Greeks as "native" speakers and scholars.

Originally posted by Pavel:

Native (adj.): belonging to one by birth; “my native land,” “one’s native language.”

( http://www.wordreference.com/definition/native )

As a matter of curiosity, which specific Politically Correct term(s) are you suggesting be used as an alternative?


~Isaac

If Greek is their first language, then say so. The other term has it's own baggage and history much of which is quiet racist.

Originally posted by Pavel:

In Australia perhaps. Such is certainly not the case in my neck of the woods. I know several self-styled “Native-Hawaiians” who speak “native Hawaiian” (as opposed to pidgin English) and would be quite offended by your personal view of their use of the word.


~Isaac

In most of the Non American English speaking world actually. It is not my private view of the term either. It is quiet ignorant of you to suggest so. You need to get out more into the world. Dont be so provincial, there many dialects of English in the world and not all usages in one are acceptable in the others. This is an international forum and the request was for some consideration of others.

In the wider world people described as the "natives" were regarded and treated for a very long time as lesser beings.

Originally posted by Pavel:

Actually, I have traveled (and lived abroad) a fair amount – 13 countries and counting (six of which were native English speaking nations). For you to falsely assume that I have not traveled the ‘wider world’ without any factual basis one way or the other and then labeling me as “provincial” in turn strikes me as being rather “ignorant” on your part.

If you want to be Politically Correct, then do so, but please refrain from imposing your PC views on others.


~Isaac

No one was imposing anything but you. A request ot be considerate of others is not an imposition. Being aware of different usuages in English will save the more aware from having to apologise to people with the line "you have excuse my American friend the offending word means something else over there".

Anyway you have a problem with this so I leave it with you. There are many more people on the forum who are seasonsed international travellers who are well aware of what I was referring to and to whom it is not such a big deal.

Merely because someone is a 'native Greek speaker' doesn't make them an authority on Ancient of Koinê Greek. There are no native speakers of Koinê Greek left in this world. Try asking the average American to translate Beowulf, or even The Canterbury Tales - being a 'native speaker' of a modern form (or sub-form even) of English doesn't mean a thing.

There exists no Greek institution of study (aside from the Universities of Athens and Thessaloniki) where the level of excellence in the Classical and Koinê forms of the language comes close to that of Oxford, Cambridge, University College London and King's College London. I have a First-Class Bachelor of Arts degree in Classics from King's College London, and I say this not as a boast, but as proof of academic credentials to show that I *do* know what I'm talking about and will engage in scholarly debate any who wishes to dispute the meaning of πᾶς.

Ancient and Koinê Greek has a perfectly good word for 'each'. It happens to be ἑκάστος ἑκάστη ἑκάστον - and it means the direct opposite of πᾶς πᾶσα πᾶν. λέυκος means white, and can never mean black, no matter how many holy Greek scholars, monks and clerics say so.


Koinê Greek is Koinê Greek - we are talking about a simple adjective here, not a complex concept such as προσοπον, εὐλόγια or πνεύμα. It's not a matter of Hieratic Greek - the Holy Spirit did not invent a special form of Greek where the adjective 'all' means 'all' in some places and 'each/individual' in others.

You don't have to - simply provide me with a quote (with reference to author, edition, page and column numbers) from any academic work or lexicon which permits 'each/individual' as a possible translation of πᾶς. You are not limited to English for these academic works. Lexica and grammars in Modern Greek, Russian, French, Italian, German, Latin, Spanish, Ukrainian, Hungarian and Dutch are admissible - as I can also check quotes works in those languages. A reference to a single Greek quote, from Linear A to modern Greek, where πᾶς is used in a context such that the meaning is clearly 'each' will also do. If you have no access to such works, I'm sure your monastic and scholarly sources will. No need to name your monastic and scholarly sources - a simple verbatim statement of their explanation of when and how πᾶς may be translated as 'each' will do.

πᾶς has never, ever meant 'each'. Not in any extant Greek literature or writing. Nowhere was it ever translated as 'each' until some American Greeks in the 1960s decided to mangle the language in producing a liturgy book.

Please forgive me. I was not suggesting that you do not know what you are talking about.

I was merely suggesting that for someone like myself, there is a certain credibility projected by a Greek monk with equal and even more advanced credentials from schools which you obviously approve [I can say that now since I know what your's are], who suggests that the meaning of the phrase is to say that "all" is expressed by one as all in its wholeness, and "all" in the other is expressed as all as it appears in its each or every individual part.

So you see it is a bit more detailed an explanation than to simply say "each." They are both all, but all seen in two different ways.

In fact another priest who knows the Slavonic says that the Slavonic translation supports the understanding offered by the Greek monk.

Now I see no reason for anyone to get terribly upset over it.

I simply find my sources to be just as credible as I might find you to be as a source, and that, and I speak only for myself, mind you, is bolstered by the fact that it expresses very well the Church's understanding of the Body of Christ. So that lends an added element of credibility to the translations that would express the idea as I mentioned it.

What I do appreciate is your careful explanations and willingness to tell me, or us, what you know. And I thank you for that and appreciate your input and detailed explanations.

Eli

Not that I'm upset, but this is quite fascinating. This is obviously a meaning I've never heard of before - would you be so kind then, as to add to my knowledge, by asking your other sources to supply references to support this meaning?

Again, any lexica, grammars or articles on this topic and explaining this further will be gratefully received. I've provided references to books - I'm certain kind Greek monks and the priest who knows Slavonic can support their explanations with references, and will be more than glad to share knowledge.

As I mentioned earlier:
[QUOTE]provide me with a quote (with reference to author, edition, page and column numbers) from any academic work or lexicon which permits 'each/individual' as a possible translation of πᾶς. You are not limited to English for these academic works. Lexica and grammars in Modern Greek, Russian, French, Italian, German, Latin, Spanish, Ukrainian, Hungarian and Dutch are admissible - as I can also check quotes works in those languages. A reference to a single Greek quote, from Linear A to modern Greek, where πᾶς is used in a context such that the meaning is clearly 'each' will also do. If you have no access to such works, I'm sure your monastic and scholarly sources will. No need to name your monastic and scholarly sources - a simple verbatim statement of their explanation of when and how πᾶς may be translated as 'each' will do. [QUOTE]

Please do ask them, as I'd really like to know. I just got off the phone with the Professor of Greek at King's College London, who nearly choked on afternoon Gin & Tonic, and he'd like to know too. When he is back in the office tomorrow, he is going to dash emails to the Regius Professors of Greek at Cambridge, Oxford and Trinity (Dublin) to see if this is an exciting new discovery hitherto unknown to any of us.

Obviously, the Great Liddell & Scott, the standard scholarly Lexicon of the Greek Language needs revising.

O heavens! I am quite surprised you'd go to all this trouble. Don't worry. I am sure Oxford and Trinity would trump all old monks, each and every time.

I am sure that "on behalf of all and for all" will do just fine as a liturgical translation for an additional few more hundred years or so.

Eli

Dear Edward:
I have a word file:
"THE DIVINE LITURGY OF OUR FATHER AMONG THE SAINTS JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
Diocese of Sourozh 1999
http://www.sourozh.org/liturgy/Chrysostom.htm"

The link doesn't seem to work. But the text has:

"Amongst the first, remember, O Lord, his holiness, Alexis, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and our bishop, Anthony, Metropolitan of Sourozh, and grant that, for thy holy churches in peace, safety, honour, health and length of days, they may rightly proclaim the word of thy truth.

People: And each and all."

You may know folks involved in that translation; it would be interesting to find out what they think.

Probably like the holy Metropolitan in heaven, where they do all liturgy right all the time.

I was wondering, do you happen to have their contact info? Maybe a name or two to get my foot in the door? Maybe you'd put in a good word for old Eli!! You know, the usual.

Eli

My Swiss bank details to be forwarded to you later.

I've been mulling over trying to figure out why anybody might translate 'kai pantwn kai paswn' as 'and each and all'. Come to think of it, there *may* be a practical reason for translating 'kai pantwn kai paswn' or 'i vsiekh i vsya' as 'and each and all'.

The reason *may* be pre-existing musical settings which already have a certain harmonic structure or melody which can only be modified so far before sounding silly.

'kai pantwn kai paswn' is 6 syllables.

'i vsiekh i vsya' is 4 syllables.

'şi pe toţi şi pe toate' is 8, but since Romanian musical settings are very rarely used, they are not hugely influential.

'and each and all' is 4 syllables, a perfect fit for the Slavonic musical settings.

'and all your people' which is also used in some places, is 5 syllables, which is simple enough to tweak both the 6 and 4 syllable melodies to fit. 'and for all your people' similarly is 6 syllables, making it fit the 6 syllable Greek melodies, even if the word-stresses are awkward in relation to the melody (but that doesn't seem to bother many translations from the Greek).

'and for all', which is grammatically the most accurate, happens to be 3 syllables - both the Greek 6 syllable and Slavonic 4 syllable melodies would require very major tweaking to fit 3 syllables.

My guess is that in those places where 'and each and all' is used, musical considerations of beloved Slavonic melodies came before strict accuracy of translation, and a 'close enough' paraphrase was felt to be acceptable.

Since the Sourozh translation was mentioned - I'm now extremely curious, as I sing in that cathedral choir. I'll have a word with Fr Michael Fortunatto, who was maestro di cappella there for a very long time. He might be able to shed some light on the matter!

What does the Ruthenian metropolia's translation have?

Edward, not only does Sourozh have it, they are the only ones to use it, that I've seen. Ruthenians use: "And all your people", but the 1965 translation of 1941/2 liturgikon has "And all men and women". I don't think that that rendering has had any traction among us or elsewhere.

The OCA has "and all mankind" - four syllables. But the Obikhod isn't so grand that anyone would be concerned about making adjustments.

In prostopinije, that's another story. In more recent pew books there is something simple like the tune of "And with your spirit". In the old books (pg 178 Bokshaj), however, the setting is extended and highly melismatic. It has a dozen or so notes and could accommodate any text. I found that it fits beatifully with the prostopinije "Mourn not for Me, O my Mother" for Great Saturday - both sung melody and ison; the simple settings for "And all..." don't work after the Byzantine sound of "Mourn not for me" (same tone as Da molčít vsjákaja plóť, on this page .

Ooooh the prostopinije sounds lovely.

Sourozh's cathedral doesn't usually use Obikhod for responses and anaphora - they tend to use something like Kastalsky or Kedrov, and these are usually a bit grander. I've usually been there singing Feastdays (where Slavonic is used for the Anaphora) and Vigils, so I've never noticed the 'each and all' used there.

Pavel Ivanovith writes:

Well, if people must be racist, it's nice that they are at least quiet about it!

Fr Serge

Ah now - poor Pavel - he keeps saying he needs a spell check

Language is fascinating.

For many years I did health care research and educational research for Indian tribal councils in both the U.S. and Canada and the real fight was between the use of "Indian" and "Native."

"First Peoples" won out in Canada. "Native Americans" won out in the United States because some American Indians are quite proud of the fact that they were NOT here precisely first.

I also taught ESL for many years and it was and is commonplace to speak of "native speakers" of a language, using native in its proper manner as a form of natal, or the language of the birth mother.

That gets a tad trickier when the mother and father both spoke two different languages and English is not a persons second language but their third, fourth or fifth language. But we all managed to stumble along without anyone labeling anyone as a racist.

I've traveled and lived and worked in Africa and those situations are even more interesting in terms of the language of the colonizer and the language of the colonized. If one is accepted or adopted into a people there is much more latitude for using all kinds of constructions to communicate, but then one must remember to change as the company changes.

In the United States my brown skinned daughter does that quite easily. It is called code shifting.

Be careful when you start trying to teach an old hand about racism.

Eli

Dear Pavel,

You have essentially started a thread which has labeled my behavior as racist by innuendo.

I want a public apology and a retraction.

This Forum is too public for me to tolerate that kind of accusation without some redress.

Eli

OK everyone, let us stand back and take a deep breath!

In reviewing the thread, some how a few things have happened. First, it has got way off topic. The next thing to be noticed is how it has got way off topic, by implications of racism.

In reading the different posts, I do not perceive anyone being a racist here. I do believe that either someone has read into something that is really not there or has taken something said the wrong way. One should know that this issue is unChristian and is not tolerated here on the forum. If in any way I percieved the post to be of a racist nature the post would have been deleted and the poster warned.

I want the issue of racism to be dropped immediately, and all parties concerned that if it is believed to be an issue to contact me via PM. I will address your concerns.

This section from the outset was known to be emotionally volatile due to the nature of the subject it is dedicated to. I do not want such issues introduced that are of the nature of the last 10+ posts again, i.e. accusations of racism. I do also want this matter resolved immediately and if there are any apologies, they are to be posted in Town Hall.

There is a lot of beneficial information and ideas being shed here, let us not cloud it up by these off-topic tangents. If this can not be resolved, then issues will have to be taken into the administrators' hands and dealt with accordingly. Again, as I have stated before, let's stop reading into things that are not there.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Thank you, Father. This is actually quite sufficient as far as I am concerned.

Eli