Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
which does not flow or chant well in English.
I'm not seeing this at all.
The order is not natural English for one. Maybe you have to hear it chanted live. The old one flowed, the new one not so much.
It's not the expected bland, flat-footed prose, and I'd say more "natural" than a lot of English poetry that is understood and appreciate for its beauty. Lofty thoughts sometimes demand lofty words and expression. I've infrequently heard both new and old versions chanted in English and a difference did not stand out to me but they were not heard side-by-side for comparison, and the voice of the priest not factored in.
But what is the source language, here Latin but the same for Slavonic and Greek etc., saying in its fullest sense, and to what extent is the translator required to, and responsible for, conveying that precise meaning and emphasis? The link I gave was rightly concerned about direct address, for instance. Based on the final product, the modern-progressive (versus modern-traditional) approach cares little of details, nuances and subtleties. For instance, Latin, an inflected language, word order is more flexible than English and consequently choice of word order is making a statement. Consider again:
1. Per ipsum et cum ipso et in ipso
2. est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti,
3. in unitate Spritus Sancti,
4. omnis honor et gloria,
5. per omnia sæcula sæculorum.
The Father as the recipient is mentioned in the dative not the vocative immediately after the Him
, the Son. Is that important to convey? Can English do it without sounding awkward, a subjective evaluation? The Holy Spirit is mentioned next. So what I would want a translation true to the source's presumed intent to convey is:
1. a stylized reference to Him
, the Son, with an intended rhetorical repetitious use of and
2. to whom the prayer is directed but not
as a direct address
3. completing the Trinitarian formula and ecclesial epiklesis-type statement, in the unity of the Holy Spirit
4. the expression of the doxology
5. the customary completion.
, in 2.is too awkward there in English. Working through the Latin with those considerations I get, except for 5.and dropping the O
that can imply direct address, the 2008 recognitio
version in the link I provided:
1 Through Him, and with Him, and in Him,
2 to You, God almighty Father,
3 in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
4 is all honor and glory,
5 through all (the) ages of ages.
in 4 is not newspaper English, true, but for me not jolting, especially if chanted as it should be. I haven't found present settings in English or Latin online. In the old Latin missal only 5 was chanted as the ekphonesis; 1975 Latin versions are in a publication Ordo Missae
by the monks of Solesmes. That chant seems flexible enough to accommodate a variety of English renderings.