Comments on: Is the vocative now largely hidden in many recent translations?

By: tc robinson

tc robinson — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:15:05 +0000

Jeff, removal of the “O” was one thing I noticed too. But it’s all a language thing. Guess what? They might come back in style. Language could be so funny.
Stefan, you’re right about the Greek.

By: Scripture Zealot

Scripture Zealot — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:49:56 +0000

Obviously I hadn't put a lot of thought into this.

Brother Esteban, thanks for the explanation. I now see what Dr. Stek means by the pathetic O and I can see how leaving it out isn't really leaving anything out. It's kind of like what the word awesome has become. Young people reading or singing about God being awesome may think he's just a cool guy which is a lament of mine.

Damian, I also never thought about how using a proper noun functions as vocative. If I actually say it, I can see how it's something added that we don't normally say in certain constructions anyway.

Jeff

By: Damian

Damian — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 03:55:46 +0000

I’ve always understood that proper nouns can serve the function of the vocative in English, hence leaving out the ‘O’ is still a correct translation. I don’t remember where I learnt this, though – my guess is that it came up in first year linguistics or Latin.

By: Esteban Vázquez

Esteban Vázquez — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 03:04:14 +0000

To be fair, the vocative isn’t “now largely hidden in many recent translations,” not is it left “untranslated.” It’s right there in the TNIV’s Psalm 5:3 — albeit without the (now largely antiquated) English interjection “O.” The plain “Lord” there is a perfectly good vocative.
Now, while you don’t often encounter the “O+vocative” in spoken English (but witness expressions like “O [my] God!”), the same is not true when it comes formulaic liturgical texts (such as the Psalms!) and prayers modeled after them. For that reason, I wish they’d left the vocatives in the TNIV Psalms alone — but again, the verse you quote above sounds perfectly natural to me as it stands.
As for the Greek ὦ, one of my teacher’s teachers in Madrid (I believe it was Galiano, but I’m not certain) was always adamant that it should be left untranslated because it was the article of the vocative case, and translating it with “O” would be like rendering ὁ Ἰησοῦς as “the Jesus.” I have never been entirely convinced by this, but it always gives me pause whenever I’m translating a text. The point is, however, that the English “O” is not the equivalent of the Greek vocative’s ὦ, and a translation is leaving nothing untranslated by not using it.