|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary?
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
of course as a musician if the service was in Latin I'd understand every word of the responses ...
Ugh. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Amo, amas, amant ... (or something like that!) I'm thankful that there were linguists who realised that the people needed the Bible in English. There are many today who could value learning from their example methinks ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
of course as a musician if the service was in Latin I'd understand every word of the responses ...
Ah yes.
Domine vobiscum
Allegro non troppo
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Is it fair to expect English to be a universal language, though? (Very convenient for us).
I must admit, I like the idea of people being able to go to any church in the world and be able to understand and take part. But it would only work if everyone is taught that language (or church vocabulary at least). When does inclusive become exclusive or exclusive become inclusive?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But the words for "body" and "bread" and "wine" are not jargon or technical language here, they are the ordinary words for body and bread and wine . The symbols aren't the words, they are the bread and wine themselves.
But they don't just mean the literal though do they? If they did, we'd be guilty of canabalism!
I think what I meant is that the symbol in the Eucharist is the bread itself, not the word "bread".
quote:
quote:
The original words would have been as mystifying to the ancients as they are to us now.
Would they? I've no idea, Ken, because I'm totally ignorant of Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic (whichever language these particular words would have been spoken in). So I just don't know. Was symbolism more a fundamental aspect of language in Biblical times than today?
But all language is inherently 100% symbolic. Asking "was language more symbolic then?" is like asking "was the water wetter then?"
Whyat I was getting at is that the bread and wine were the symbols and that would have been mystifying.
Jesus: "This is my body"
James [aside, to Philip]: "No its not! its a lump of bread...."
And a generation later, when the Apostles in Rome speaking Greek to a load of Gaulish slaves told them to "take and eat" and that this was the Lord's boody and blood, their first thought would surely have been "what's he going on about?"
Changing the language to make it more obvious to a casual in-droppe may be a good thing, but its not going to automatically mean they understand more. They might even understand less (or think they understand less) because if you express something starkly and simply it will confuse them, whereas somethign dressed up in fancy ceremony might just get filed away in a "religious language" drawer, where it isn't expected to make sense and can safely not be thought about.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Is it fair to expect English to be a universal language, though?
No, its not fair.
But it is true.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Is it fair to expect English to be a universal language, though? (Very convenient for us).
I must admit, I like the idea of people being able to go to any church in the world and be able to understand and take part. But it would only work if everyone is taught that language (or church vocabulary at least). When does inclusive become exclusive or exclusive become inclusive?
Well, here in England the national (if not official) language is English. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that the language spoken in English churches is going to be English. Given this, it makes sense that those whose native language is something other than English may struggle when they attend a church in England (they may not of course). I simply think it is a welcoming (inclusive) thing to do to try where possible to make English as accessible as possible, and therefore the church service as accessible as possible. It would be nice that the same thing happened in churches the world over - language specific, of course.
I'm not sure from the other part of your post whether you thought I was somehow inferring that churches in other countries should speak English. If this was the case then I was misunderstood. I value all languages equally and certainly don't believe English should be imposed upon anyone. That it is currently the global lingua franca does not upset or worry me, as perhaps it bothers yourself and Ken (based on your posts). Lingua francas have come and gone - French, Dutch, etc - and English will go one day, to be replaced by another, no doubt. Where there is a multiplicity of languages spoken, it is useful to have one in common, when doing business or getting around. However, as someone who enjoys sociolinguistics, I find the diversity of languages around the world fascinating - and I find my native language equally fascinating. Sitting on a bus here in Sheffield sometimes can be a real joy: just listening to all the continents represented in the conversations around me. I may not understand a word of anything, but it's great to hear anyway!
I think my point is that as English speakers in England (or the US or Australia or NZ or wherever English is the native language) it seems an inclusive thing to do to enable as many as people as possible to access the language of the church in the language used. Of course, in certain parts of England, it may be more appropriate to use another language - and I know many Chinese churches are bilingual, for instance. This is another way of including as many people as possible.
Is this the kind of thing you meant?
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Changing the language to make it more obvious to a casual in-droppe may be a good thing, but its not going to automatically mean they understand more ...
You have a point. I suppose it would depend on the language being replaced and what replaced it. Perhaps 'obvious' isn't the word I would use; rather, 'relevant'.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
This has made me think - at the back of church (because we get lots of visitors) - there are portable boards about the history of the church and things to find while looking round. These are printed in about 10 different languages.
And yet the service booklets are only printed in English. If it is possible to get the guide boards translated, it should surely be possible to get the liturgy translated as well. I'm sure our foreign visitors would welcome this extra sign of inclusiveness, as they don't just visit churches to learn about the past.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The original words would have been as mystifying to the ancients as they are to us now.
Would they? I've no idea, Ken, because I'm totally ignorant of Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic (whichever language these particular words would have been spoken in). So I just don't know. Was symbolism more a fundamental aspect of language in Biblical times than today? It would seem so based on the English translations of the Bible, but again, I don't know.
The historical evidence is that there was confusion in the ancient world about the church. Non-believers left the service before the communion part began - only believers were admitted to the communion service itself. A mixture of garbled rumour and scapegoating led to some believing that the christians practised cannibalism. Similarly the ancient world found it hard to understand a religion which did not (apparently) sacrifice, and whose God was not visibly represented in its places of worship.
There is potentially a whole new thread on this issue, but given that communal worship is for many an unfamiliar activity it is too much (IMHO) to expect that it will be instantly accessible to those who have no previous experience or very little knowledge/understanding of the belief systems which undergird it. Where people are expected to take a more individual part in the service (e.g. marriage, baptism etc.) they should be coached in it. It is unreasonable to expect people to instantly understand it - any more than I can instantly use UBB (or indeed ever in my case! ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Changing the language to make it more obvious to a casual in-droppe may be a good thing, but its not going to automatically mean they understand more ...
You have a point. I suppose it would depend on the language being replaced and what replaced it. Perhaps 'obvious' isn't the word I would use; rather, 'relevant'.
Well yes, but the actual symbols are the bread and the wine. In what way are they less relevant now than a twenty or two hundred or two thousand years ago?
People still need to eat and drink, and still meet together to do it. People still need other people to be themselves. People still sing and talk together.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Well yes, but the actual symbols are the bread and the wine. In what way are they less relevant now than a twenty or two hundred or two thousand years ago?
I wasn't taking issue with the sybmol, but the language Ken. Although, having said that, I'm not sure wine is seen in the UK as representative of anything but a good night out! It was the words 'body and blood' that I was referring to (hence the mention of cannabalism).
I'm not calling into question communion or the notion of eating or getting together. I was only referring to the language used in church, that's all.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
And yet the service booklets are only printed in English. If it is possible to get the guide boards translated, it should surely be possible to get the liturgy translated as well. I'm sure our foreign visitors would welcome this extra sign of inclusiveness, as they don't just visit churches to learn about the past.
Great stuff Chorister! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Something similar could be done in areas where there is a high resident population speaking another language as their mother tongue. It all helps people to feel like they are being noticed and included.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
[Where people are expected to take a more individual part in the service (e.g. marriage, baptism etc.) they should be coached in it. It is unreasonable to expect people to instantly understand it - any more than I can instantly use UBB
I appreciate your point, BroJames. What I was thinking, really, was more to do with accessibility than understanding. I know that sounds pedantic or that I'm playing semantics! But I'm trying to clarify, I suppose. An access road leads to a particular place, it isn't the place in itself. Language is an access road. It can also act to increase confidence or decrease it; heighten curiosity or deaden it. I suppose my hope would be that more churches get creative in giving people access to the knowledge of Christianity through the language used in churches (since it is one of the vital tools of learning, as well as expressing).
Thank you, BroJames, for the insight into symbolism. It doesn't look like much has changed! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
