CC BY
15ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКИЕ АСПЕКТЫ ПЕРЕВОДА БИБЛИИ
Interference from mediating languages in translation: The case of the Lord's Prayer in Chechen and Ingush Влияние языка-посредника при переводе (на примере переводов «Отче наш» на чеченский и ингушский языки)
Komen E. R.
Bugenhagen R. D.
Комен Э. Р.
Бугенхаген Р. Д.
This paper presents the translation of the Lord's Prayer into Chechen, as published in the 2012 edition of the whole Bible, and the translation into Ingush, which has not yet been published. Both translations were drafted on the basis of a Russian translation, and then corrected by a translation team to ensure they correctly convey the meaning of the original Greek. This paper provides an analysis of the translation, focusing in particular on how grammatically implied participants in Greek passive-voice verbs have been handled in the Caucasian languages that lack a passive.
Key words: Chechen, Ingush, intermediate language, Bible translation, grammatical voice
В статье представлены переводы молитвы «Отче наш» на чеченский язык из издания полной Библии (2012) и на ингушский язык (не опубликовано). Черновики этих переводов были сделаны на основе русского перевода Библии. После этого переводческая группа отредактировала их на основании греческого оригинала. В статье дается анализ двух переводов, особое внимание уделяется
тому, как грамматически подразумеваемые участники пассивной конструкции в греческом языке были переданы в северокавказских языках, в которых страдательный залог отсутствует.
Ключевые слова: чеченский язык, ингушский язык, язык посредника, перевод Библии, грамматический залог
1. Introduction
This article presents the Chechen and Ingush1 translations of the Lord's Prayer, addressing one vital aspect of translation in particular: possible interference due to mismatches between the voice systems of the languages that are involved. By 'voice' we mean the regular encoding in the verbal morphology of the mapping of semantic arguments onto syntactic functions [Kulikov 2013].
The Greek text of Matthew 6:9-13 contains nine verbs [Aland et al. 1983]. Two of these are in the passive voice, where the patient participants are overtly expressed, but the agents are implied. The Chechen and Ingush translations of these verbs use intransitives, which have only a single argument. This observation might lead one to conclude that the reflexives in the Russian translation have been interpreted as intransitives by the translation team. In order to test this hypothesis, we look at all main verbs in the Lord's Prayer, and examine the places where a difference in the encoding of participants occurs. Are these cases where the receptor language uses different constructions but gets the same underlying meaning across? Or are these situations where the grammatical voice system of Russian, the intermediate language in the translation process, influenced the Chechen and the Ingush translations?
1 The authors would like to express their appreciation to Aleksandr Migunov for graciously providing Ingush data and some bibliographic references.
2. A comparison of the voice systems
This section briefly reviews the voice systems of the languages involved: Greek, Russian and the two Caucasian languages Chechen and Ingush. This is the background information that we need to have in order to evaluate the source text, the intermediate translation and the receptor translations.
2.1. The Greek voice system
The Greek source language has active, passive and middle voice, which are all marked morphologically on the verb forms (both finite as well as non-finite). Wallace [1996: 408] characterizes the basic functions of these forms as: "In general, the voice of the verb may indicate that the subject is doing the action (active), receiving the action (passive) or both doing and receiving (at least the results of) the action (middle)."
Active voice verbs typically have subjects exhibiting agent, experiencer, or causer semantic roles. Or, in descriptive and equative stative clauses, the Subject functions as the theme/topic about which the state or quality is predicated [Ibid: 411-413].
Middle voice verbs are more precisely characterized by Wallace in the following manner: "In general, in the middle voice the subject performs or experiences the action expressed by the verb in such a way that emphasizes the subject's participation... [Ibid: 414], citing Robertson [1923: 804] "The middle calls special attention to the subject.. .the subject is acting in relation to himself somehow." Wallace identifies a number of different uses of the middle voice in Greek:
1. Direct Middle / Reflexive / Direct Reflexive — where "the subject acts on himself or herself." ans^Brov an^ycaxo 'he went away and hanged himself' (Mt 27:5) [Wallace 1996: 416]. This use of the middle voice was more common in classical Greek, but is quite rare in the Greek of New Testament times, when it was largely replaced by the use of an active voice verb plus a reflexive pronoun. Wallace
notes that even in classical Greek, the active verb plus reflexive pronoun construction was more common.
2. Redundant Middle—the use of the middle voice in a reflexive manner along with an overt reflexive pronoun [Ibid: 418]. A clear example of this sort of double reflexive marking is up.sig Xoyi^soGs sauxouc [sivai] vsKpouc ^sv xfi afjapxia 'consider yourselves dead to sin' (Romans 6:11).
3. Indirect Middle / Indirect Reflexive /Benefactive / Intensive / Dynamic Middle — Here, "the subject acts for (or sometimes by) himself or herself, or in his or her own interest" [Ibid: 419]. Acts 25:11 — Kaioapa sniKa^ou^ai 'I call upon Caesar [to judge my case]', where the verb is present tense middle voice, is a good example of this kind of benefactive meaning for the middle voice. Neglecting the deponent middle verbs, this is the most common use of middle voice in the New Testament [Ibid].
4. Causative / Permissive Middle — the subject causes or allows something to be done for/to himself [Ibid: 423-426]: avaoxaq Panxioai Kai ano^ouoai xaq a^apxiaq oou 'arise, be baptized and have your sins washed away (Acts 22:16).
5. Reciprocal Middle — This is used with subjects whose referents are plural in number and indicates that they interact among themselves or somehow act on each other. ftou/.s'oavxo Ss oi apxispsic iva Kai xov Aa^apov anoKxsivffloiv 'So the chief priests planned together among themselves to also kill Lazarus' (John 12:10).
6. Deponent Middle — "A deponent middle is a middle voice verb that has no active form but is active in meaning" [Ibid: 428]. These are the most common type of middle voice verbs in the New Testament, because some of the most common verbs fall into this category: anoKpivo^ai 'answer, reply', PouXopai 'wish, be willing', yivopai 'become, happen', Suvapai 'can, be able', spydZopai
'work, do, accomplish', spxo^ai 'come, go', nopeuo^ai 'go, proceed, travel', npooeuxo^ai 'pray', xapiZo^ai 'give/ grant as a favour, show oneself to be gracious, remit/ forgive, pardon'.
Passive voice verbs in Greek have subjects but no objects and are used to express situations where "the subject is acted upon or receives the action expressed by the verb." [Ibid: 431]. Passive constructions in Greek can leave the agent bringing about the situation unexpressed, or identify him or her via various types of prepositional phrases. The individual ultimately responsible for the situation is expressed via a prepositional phrase headed by the preposition uno 'by': ¿PanxiZovxo tin' ш'ноГ) sv хф 'IopSavn похацф '.. .they were baptized by him in the Jordan river' (Mk 1:5). An intermediate agent, through whom the ultimate agent acts, is expressed by a prepositional phrase headed by the preposition Sia 'through': iva то pr|9sv 5ia 'Hoaiou xou проф^хои 'so that
which was spoken [by God] through the prophet Isaiah was fulfilled' (Matthew 4:14). An impersonal means/instrument used by an agent to cause something to happen may be expressed in several ways:
1. preposition sv plus dative case: oxeSov sv ai'^axt navxa Ka9apiZexai Kaxa xov vo^ov 'according to the law almost everything was cleansed by blood' (Hebrews 9:22).
2. the dative case by itself with no preposition: A,oyiZo^e9a yap 5iKaiouo9ai nioxei avBpranov x©pt? epyrav vo^ou 'we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law (Romans 3:28 NIV).
3. rarely other prepositional phrases headed by other prepositions like sk 'from, out of, away from, by' (Ga 4:4, Ja 2:22), and ало 'from, away from, off of' (2 Cor 3:18).
2.2. The Russian voice system
The Russian intermediate language also has active, passive and middle voice, but not all are expressed by inflections occurring on finite verbs.
The Russian verbal system distinguishes person and number of the Subject for non-past tenses, number and gender of the Subject for past tenses, aspect—imperfective versus imperfective—and voice. The voice system distinguishes active, middle/reflexive, and passive voices. Active voice is the most unmarked morphologically. Middle/Reflexive voice is marked via the addition of the derivational 'reflexive' verbal suffix -ся. Middle/Reflexive verbs have a wide range of functions. Some of the principal ones identified by Timberlake [2004: 345-349] are:
1. Reflexive tantum (verbs like бояться 'fear', смеяться 'laugh', and надеяться 'to hope', which only occur as formally reflexive forms with no corresponding nonreflexive forms).
2. 'True' reflexives/Middle constructions, where an actor acts upon himself/herself (verbs like мыться 'wash (oneself)', бриться 'shave (oneself)', одеваться 'dress oneself/get dressed').
3. Reciprocal reflexives, where a number of different individuals act on each other, for example: драться 'fight (each other), мириться 'become reconciled with each other'.
4. Habitual reflexives, where the reflexive expresses a habitual/ characteristic tendency, for example Собака кусается 'The dog bites / has a tendency to bite (people).'
5. Somewhat similar to # 4 are modal impersonal reflexives expressing desire or inclination: Мне не спится 'I.dat don't feel like sleeping.'
6. Intransitivized reflexives, where the actor argument of a transitive predication has been removed. Compare Он начал работу 'He.NOM began the work.Acc'/ Работа началась 'The work.NOM began.' According to Timberlake [2004: 347], this is the most productive function of this suffix.
Russian has three different constructions that functionally
correspond to passives in other languages:
1. Generic third person plural verbs with a fronted Obj ect may be used when the actor is unknown or to avoid assigning responsibility for some action. Его убили вчера 'He was murdered yesterday.' (Literally, 'Him.Acc they-killed yesterday.') In such constructions, the object is normally highly topical.
2. Intransitivized reflexives (i. e. #6 above).
3. Past and present participles, for example Всё будет сделано 'Everything.nom will.be done.' Собрание было организовано студентами 'The meeting.NOM was organized by students.ins' Она любима всеми She.nom [is] loved [by] everyone.ins.'
2.3. The Chechen and Ingush voice systems
The two Northeast Caucasian receptor languages, Chechen and Ingush, have a different voice system. Basically, they have active voice, direct causative voice and indirect causative voice. They do not have a morphological inflection for a passive voice, but there is something like a middle voice for a restricted number of verbs.2
Since Chechen and Ingush are morphologically ergative languages there is agreement between the transitive verb and the direct object. The languages do not have any agreement marking on the transitive verb that links to the subject.
Ingush has a construction in which a suffix homophonous with the verb dala 'to give' is added to a verb yielding a new predicate whose exact function is somewhat disputed. It has been variously interpreted as a potential, inceptive or decausative construction. Such derived predicates do not take ergative subjects. Frequently the actor is omitted, but if one is present it will be in the dative case. For discussions of this construction see Nichols [2011:484, 491-496] and BapaxoeBa et al [2012: 271-275].
2
(1) a. [DOfia:Ja] novq'a-v-«q:-ira [SBJ as] [Maciev 1961: 317] guest road.on-v-bring-PST is.erg
'I accompanied the guest on his way.'
b. [DO k'ant] dyeJutfyra juq'ax-v-«q:-ina [Maciev 1961: 534]
boy learn.PTC.PRS.ABL back-v-bring-PST
'[Someone] tore the boy from learning // The boy was taken away from learning.'
Consider the simple sentence in (1a). This uses the transitive verb novq'adaq:a 'put someone on the way'. Chechen and Ingush have noun class agreement, comparable to gender agreement, which is why the noun class prefix in the verb changes from default d- to v- so as to show agreement with the direct object.3 The verb in (1a) is transitive, and in this case both the ergative case subject as '1s. erg' as well as the nominative case direct object fia:Ja 'guest' are visible in the sentence.
The sentence in (1b) uses the same transitive verb stem daq:a 'bring', though with a different preverb juq'ax 'backwards.' But this sentence only has one verbal argument specified, the direct object k'ant 'boy/son'. The subject is not overtly specified. There is no need to do so, grammatically speaking, since the only agreement is that between the verb and the direct object. But since the verb is transitive (this is visible from the verb form), the reader or hearer knows that some sort of subject/agent (the person or persons tearing the boy away from the learning) is implied.
In sum, while Chechen and Ingush do not have a separate morphological form of the verb to express passive voice, sentences like (1b) functionally resemble the passive in languages like Greek, Russian and English in that they allow
Each noun belongs to a particular noun class (comparable to masculine, feminine, neuter gender, except that Chechen and Ingush have six classes instead of three).
3
grammatically implying that there is an agent of an event, without needing to overtly identify that agent.4
(2) a. [SBJ cuo] [DO tfietar] diliira [Maciev 1961: 139]
3s.erg umbrella D.open.PST
'He opened the umbrella.'
b. [SBJ tfietar] dieladela [Maciev 1961: 139]
umbrella open.DECAUS.PST
'The umbrella opened up.'
As for the middle voice, consider the examples in (2). The regular verb dielia 'open' is transitive; it requires an ergative subject and a nominative direct object, as in (2a). The verb is one of a limited number of verbs that allows suffixing a verb stem dala, which as a separate verb would mean 'give'. But in this particular combination the suffixed verb stem functions as a decausativizer: it turns the transitive verb into an intransitive one. So (2b) is a situation where the umbrella opened up by itself. No agent for that event is in any way implied.
This, then, is the 'hint of a middle voice' that is present in Chechen and Ingush. It occurs with a limited number of verbs: aj?a 'increase', a:ta 'crush', dielia 'open', lovsa 'mix', q'ovla 'close'.5
3. Analyzing the translations
This section analyzes the Chechen and Ingush translations. Consider the side-by-side translation of the two versions (the word order has been adjusted to accommodate English).
The similarity stops when the 'long passive' is considered, e.g: The boy was taken from class [ by his teacher]. The long passive allows expressing the agent in a PP. Nothing similar to this exists in either Chechen or Ingush.
The verb stem dala can be attached as suffix to other verbs, but then its meaning is either inceptive or potential.
4
Chechen Ingush
[9] Our.EXC Father from heaven! Let Your name be holy! [10] May Your Lordship come. May Your will happen in heavens just as on earth. [11] Please give us.exc today food that suffices to eat! [12] Please forgive us.exc, just as we.EXC forgive those who are in debt to us.exc. [13] Please do not allow us.exc to give in to forbidden desire and protect us.exc against the devil. [9] Our.EXC Father from heaven! Let Your name be holy and honorable among the people! [10] May Your Kingdom come. May Your will happen in heavens just as on earth. [11] Please give us.exc today food that suffices to eat! [12] Please forgive our.EXC sins, just as we.EXC forgive those who are in debt to us. [13] Please do not allow us.exc to give in to forbidden desire for the sake of testing and protect us against the devil.
The subsections below present the nine clauses in the prayer. Each of the clauses is structured around a verb. This verb has a particular grammatical voice in the original Greek and it has associated explicit and implicit arguments. We show how this has been conveyed in Russian, and then we look at how the resulting Chechen has conveyed the same clause. While there are many interesting things going on from a linguistic and exegetical point of view, the discussion focuses on the grammatical voice system, the associated argument structure and on the question of whether the Russian translation as the intermediate source text has influenced the resulting Chechen or Ingush in these areas.
3.1. When we pray
The first part of verse nine is not, strictly speaking, part of the prayer as such. It is the introduction that Jesus uses for the prayer as a whole. The text provides a Chechen (1a) and Ingush (1b) translation of Ouxwq ouv npoo£ux£o0£ u^eiq 'Pray, then, like this' (Russian Молитесь же так 'Pray then this way').6
6 The Chechen and Ingush translations use a phonemic spelling based on the IPA.
(1) a. bunde:la JaeJ doia
therefore 2p.rfl prayer
hoqu dieJnaJna t'e
this.OBL word.PL.DAT on
b. Joai la:mazaba
2p.rfl.gen prayer
detfu
do.PTCP.OBL
tidam
attention
iJt:a
thus
Xe:nafi
time.LOC
baxi:ta
go.CAUS.INF
diexa
call/ask
Jesus uses the imperative of the verb npoaeuxo^ai 'to pray'. This is a deponent intransitive verb, which means that morphologically, it lacks an active form and instead exhibits middle/passive inflection, but it is interpreted as being active in meaning. The verb can take a prepositional phrase as an optional argument. Someone (the agent) 'prays' or 'requests' something (the patient) to or from someone else (God). The Russian Synodal translation, too, uses an imperative. Here the verb молиться 'request' morphologically exhibits middle voice (signalled by the reflexive suffix -ся), but it does not appear to convey any kind of reflexive meaning. The Chechen translation uses doia dan 'make a prayer', which consists of the noun doia 'prayer' and the transitive verb dan 'do/make'. Likewise, the Ingush translation uses an active construction la:mazatea diexa 'call/ask with a prayer'.
This introductory clause, then, is a good example of a situation where the receptor translations (Chechen and Ingush) are not influenced by the morphological voice of the intermediate translation (Russian). The reason for this may be that the verb молиться is a high frequency one in Russian, which means that Russian L2 speakers will have had numerous examples of its use and meaning, so that they understand that the verb is not to be understood as a reflexive 'request something of oneself.' Besides, such a meaning would make no sense in the context.
3.2. To honour the name of the Father
The actual prayer starts in the second half of verse nine. The first words form a vocative Noun Phrase ndxep n^&v o ev Toiq oupavoiq 'our Father who is in the heavens'. The NP expresses to whom this prayer is directed.
(2) a. Txan stigalara Da:!
1p.exc.gen heaven.ABL father
b. Txa Siglara Da:!
1p.exc.gen heaven.ABL father
The renderings in Chechen (2a) and Ingush (2b) are relatively straightforward. One interesting phenomenon here is how 'heavenly' is formed: the ablative case of the nouns stigal 'heaven' (Chechen) and sigal 'heaven' (Ingush) functions as a suffix that transforms the noun into an adjective.7 Should the NP as a whole be inflected, an additional affix -tfu will be added that is otherwise used for adjectives in any inflected (oblique) case.
What then follows is a series of three desires: may Your name be hallowed, may Your kingdom come and may Your will be done. The first of these desires is the last part of verse 9: ayiaoGhTw to ovo^a aou 'may Your name be hallowed'. Its rendering in Chechen and Ingush is in (3).
(3) a. fian b'e si:la"h xylda!
2s.gen name honorable be.oPT b. fia b'i jeza a loarahaj a xi:la
2s.gen name valuable & honorable & be.oPT na:xa juq'e! people.DAT among
The Greek uses ayiaa9nTw is a third person imperative passive voice of the verb ayiaZw 'to sanctify/make holy.' This is a transitive verb and occurs in the active voice in places such as Matthew 23:19 (the altar makes a gift sacred/holy). The object of the sanctification here is 'the name' of the Father. Newman & Stine [1988] explain in the UBS Translator's Handbook that the name is a way of referring to God himself. This being the case, God
Nichols [2011: 230] calls this class of words 'dephrasal adjectives'. These adjectives retain their ablative meaning.
7
the Father is the recipient of the action expressed by ayiaZw. The action of the verb is not, in this case, to 'make someone holy', but to 'treat someone as holy' [Gaebelein et al. 1984: 170] . The third person passive imperative, then, is a Greek way of expressing the desire that God would make sure people treat him as 'holy', that is recognizing Him as God.
The Chechen translation in (3a) appears to be much more literal, retaining 'your name', and it appears to be a petition that God's name be (intransitive) 'honorable'. There is no explicit mention of other participants. This may, at first glance, seem like a reduction of the original meaning, and one might argue that the Russian intermediate translation has functioned as a filter here: Да святится имя твоё 'may your name be sanctified'. The Russian uses a 3rd person reflexive form of святить 'make holy/ sanctify.' Could it be that the translators have simply understood this reflexive form as a middle voice that effectively conveys an intransitive idea, 'to be holy'?
This is not the whole picture. Maciev [1961] tells us that Chechen fe'e has two senses. The first sense is the literal 'name', used for instance in naming someone. When used of sentient beings, concepts like 'popular' and 'famous' include semantic components like: "Many people know about this person. Many people think/consider this person to be good or desirable." Such semantic components presuppose a situation where people are knowing and thinking. These presupposed people are made overt in the Ingush translation in (3b), which adds na:xa juq'e 'among people'. The Ingush translators were somewhat puzzled by the Russian translations да святится имя Твое (Synodal), пусть прославится Твое имя! (NRT), because they had difficulty understanding how God's name could become holy, when it is already in itself perfectly holy [personal communication, August 20, 2019]. To convey the meaning 'treat/regard as being holy', it was necessary to add an actor. For this reason, the phrase 'among people' was added.
It appears, then, that the meaning of the original is conveyed, but it is done in a different way than one might expect. Culture and language combine in the expression of ideas.
3.3. The coming kingdom
The second of the three desires is е^Ветю ^ Paailsia aou 'may your kingdom come'. Its translation is in (4) (for the optative, see 13.5.9 in Nichols [2011]).
(4) a. fian o:lal:a t'eqo:tfi:la.
2s.gen lordship come.PRS.oPT
b. fia patf:afialqe t'aqoatfi:la.
2s.gen kingdom come.PRS.oPT
The Greek verb's voice is active (it is a middle deponent verb; it conjugates like a middle voice, but its meaning is active). The verb used in the Russian intermediate translation да приидет Царствие Твое 'May Your Kingship come' is in the active voice. The Chechen and Ingush verbs literally mean 'reach', as in 'arrive'. They are both actives and it is clear that their active voice has not been changed in translation from the Greek, nor has a change in argument structure taken place in that process.
The difference between Chechen and Ingush is in the choice of how to translate 'kingdom'. Chechen focuses more on the 'ruling' aspect of God's kingdom, while Ingush focuses more on its similarity with earthly kingdoms (compare the kingdom referred to in the Old Testament book of Daniel, chapters 7-8).
3.4. Do the Father's will
The third of the three desires focuses on the 'will' of the Father: Y£vn9nTW то ЭёЛп^а oou, wq ¿v oupavw ка! ¿n'l ynq 'may your will be done/happen/be fulfilled, as in heaven, so on earth'. Here the passive verb form yevnOhTw is used to express the desire that the Father's will 'be done' or 'happen'. Davies and Allison, in their
commentary on Matthew observe 'Thy will be done' seems to be the passive formulation for noiew 'do' + 0£An^a oou 'your will', noting that "In the NT the passive of noiew is very rare." [Davies & Allison 2004: 605]. This implies that there is an agent that needs to carry out the Father's will.8 The most likely candidate for this agent can be derived from the immediate context 'on earth as it is in heaven.' Those who need to carry out the Father's will on earth are the people.
(5) a. Stigaljkafi sania, laetiafi a fian la?am qoitfuJxyliila heaven.PL.LOC like earth.LOC & 2s.gen will fulfill.PRS.oPT b. Siglenajkafi sania, laetia a fian la?am qoatfaJxyliila heaven.PL.LOC like earth.LOC & 2s.gen will fulfill.PRS.oPT
While the Greek yev^^x® 'may be fulfilled' uses the passive voice, the Russian Synodal translation uses a simple auxiliary да будет 'may (it) be', that is, an intransitive (and existential) verb. There is no grammatical implication of others doing the Father's will in the Chechen and Ingush renderings in (5a,b) either. The verb that is used is a simple intransitive one that builds on the auxilary xila 'be/happen.' The transitive variant of this verb would have been qo:tfuJ + dan 'do/make.'
8 One of the authors has had extensive translation experience with several languages in Papua New Guinea, and there the implicit actor(s) in this petition have been made explicit:
'2S.cause people 3P.follow 2S.GEN. insides/will/desires on earth as 3P-follow it in heaven.' Like Chechen and Ingush, these languages of Papua New Guinea lack passive constructions, and there is no verb having the meaning 'fulfill'. A third person plural form of the verb can function somewhat similarly to a passive, expressing a generic agent whose precise identity is not particularly relevant in the given context. Typically, however, such unexpressed agents are understood as being plural in number, and therefore such a construction was not appropriate where the actor is a single individual: God.
Like the honoring of God's name in 2.2, this, too, may be a place where the filtering influence of the Russian translation surfaces.
3.5. Providing for our needs
The second part of the prayer consists of three requests. The first request (verse 11) acknowledges that even the simplest things in life originate from the Father: tov apTov n^wv tov ¿niouoiov 5oq n^iv on^epov 'Give us the food that we need today'. Its translation is in (6).
(6) a. Taxana da?:al napxa luofia txu:na! today eat.ASMA food give.POL 2s.dat
b. Taxan da?:al napa^a da txo:na!
today eat.ASMA food give.POL 2s.dat
Greek is a nominative-accusative language, and the Caucasian ones are morphologically ergative, but other than that, there is no difference in argument structure or voice between the Greek and the Caucasian translations.9 Both use a ditransitive 'give' in the active voice. The Russian Synodal has хлеб наш насущный дай нам на сей день 'give us our necessary bread for this day'. Russian too uses a ditransitive 'give' in the active voice.
Linguistically interesting is the form of da?:al 'eat.asma' (similar to Ingush da?al). This form derives from the infinitive da?a 'eat' combined with the suffix redup+-I 'as much as'.10 Chechen and Ingush have a range of suffixes occurring
9
The language-system differences are visible in the cases of the direct object: Greek, being nominative-accusative, has the direct object dpxov 'food' in the accusative, whereas the two Caucasian translations have the corresponding napxa/napaua in the nominative case (some label this the 'absolutive' case). What is reduplicated (redup) is the last consonant of the verb stem. In this case the stem is da?-, so that the glottal stop that ends the
stem gets reduplicated when the ending -l is added to the infinitive form da?a, resulting in da?:al.
10
on verb forms that turn them into converbs. These can be adverbial or, as in this case, adjectival (attributive) in nature.11 Some of these suffixes combine with an obligatory duplication of the last stem consonant (as the glottal stop here). For a fuller treatment, see Good [2003].
3.6. Receiving and granting forgiveness
The second request consists of two clauses, where we ask God to forgive us (7), just as we forgive others (8): Kai n^iv xa o^EiAn^aia n^&v, wq Kai n^£lq a$r|Ka^Ev Toiq o^EiAEiaiq n^&v 'And forgive us our sins/offenses, as we, too, forgive our debtors/ offenders'.
(7) a. Diefia txu:na getf,
f0rgive.P0L.2S 1P.EXC.DAT RP
b. Txa q'inojta getfde Ça,
1p.exc.gen sin.PL forgive.iMV.2s 2S.ERG
(8) a. txajna dieqari:lafi boltfa:rna o:xa
lP.EXC.RFL.DAT debt.LOC REL.PL.DAT 1P.EXC.ERG
ma-getfdar:a
forgive. JUST.AS
b. txoajta de:qari:la boltfa:rna oaxa gejt
1P.EXC.RFL.DAT debt.LOC REL.PL.DAT 1P.EXC.ERG forgive.RP ma dar:a. JUST.AS do.PRS
Both times the Greek uses the active and ditransitive verb a^in^i 'forgive'. The Russian Synodal also uses a ditransitive verb. The Chechen and Ingush verbs are transitive. The Chechen verb getfdan 'forgive' combines a preverb getf with a main verb dan 'do/make',
11 These suffixes include: -tfa 'when', -lc 'until', -lie 'before', -tfuofi 'during'.
and it treats the preverb as if it were an object of this main verb.12 This is why Chechen only has room for an ergative subject and a dative object. This dative object can be either (a) the thing that is being forgiven (e.g. 'sins') or (b) it can be the recipient of the forgiveness. But it cannot be both at the same time.
In sum, there is no difference in grammatical voice between the source, the intermediate and the receptor translations: all three use an active voice. But there is a difference in the verbal arguments. Greek stipulates the recipient of the forgiveness as well as the thing that is forgiven in the first clause, as does the Russian Synodal translation (прости нам долги наши 'forgive us our sins'). Chechen makes the recipient of the forgiveness (txu:na 'us') explicit, while it does not specify what exactly is forgiven. Ingush expresses the thing that is forgiven (txa q'inojta 'our sins'), but it does not make the recipient explicit (though the recipient can be implied from the possessive pronoun txa 'our').
3.7. No falling into temptation
The penultimate request is for the Father to protect us from everything that might cause us to stray from being faithful to His will—either our own sinful desires or difficult circumstances that test our faith: ка! цп eloeveyKriq h^aq elq neipao^ov 'and do not lead us into temptation'.
(9) a. fia:ram la?amna k'el a ma daxi:tafia:ra Afi
sinful desire.DAT under & neg.prt go.CAUS.oPT 2s.erg
12 While syntax is not the topic of this paper, note what happens to the preverb getf: it takes up a position in the clause on its own, while the verb to which it belongs ends up clause-initially. This kind of separation of preverb from its main verb (the technical term for this is 'tmesis') is reminiscent of Germanic, verb-second, languages. The separation of the preverb getf from its main verb is attested in numerous texts in Chechen, e.g. san q'uonal:a dojla fiu:na getf a 'may my youth forgive you.' [Curuev 2013].
b. Txo zera dyfia fia:ramtfa loiama k'ala ma
1p testing for.sake sinful desire.DAT under neg.prt
daxi:talafi ia txo
go.CAUS.IMV 2s.erg 1p
The Greek verb used is е1оферш 'lead into.' This is a transitive verb used in the active voice (though morphologically in subjunctive mood). The Russian Synodal translates this as не введи нас в искушение 'do not lead us into temptation', using the verb ввести 'lead into', which semantically is a direct causative ('lead' = 'make someone go'). The Chechen has a different rendering, one that is closer to NRT Не дай нам поддаться искушению 'Don't allow us to give into temptation.' This presupposes an indirect causative ('allow someone to go'). Instead of the Synodal's plain transitive or the NRT's causative + middle voice, Chechen and Ingush use an indirect causative. The verb k'eldaxi:tafia:ra 'please cause to save' combines the intransitive k'eldaxa 'go under = become subjected to' with an indirect causative suffix -i:t and the suffix -fia:ra, which expresses a desire (Ingush has opted to use a more straightforward imperative suffix -lafi). The combination means something like 'would that you cause us not to become subjected to.'
In sum, the original Greek active voice is conveyed in the Caucasian languages with an indirect causative voice. No arguments are added or removed.
3.8. Keep us from evil
The final request is for the Father to keep us from the influence of the evil one: aAAa puoai n^aq йпо тои novripou 'but save/rescue us from the evil one'.13 The Greek verb puo^ai
There is ambiguity in interpreting the Greek tou novnpou: it can be taken to mean 'evil' (generic) or 'the evil one' (specific, personal). The Russian, Chechen and Ingush translations have all opted for the specific meaning.
may, as the Translator's Handbook says, either be translated as 'rescue from' or as 'protect against' (Newman & Stine 1988). The Russian Synodal uses the former: но избавь нас от лукавого 'but deliver us from the evil one'. The Chechen and Ingush translations in (10) use the latter.
(10) a. iblisax a lardafia:ra
devil.ABL & guard.2s.0PT
b. iblisax a lorade ia txo
devil.ABL & guard.2s.iMV 2s.erg 1p
Here, the Greek text has an active transitive construction with three arguments: a deliverer (the Father), someone that needs deliverance or protection (the person praying), and that from which the person needs to be delivered (the Evil one). This model remains the same both in the Russian Synodal as in the receptor language translations (Chechen and Ingush). No filtering effects of the intermediate language are seen here.
4. The global picture
This section summarizes the way in which the different voices of the Greek verbs in the passage have been translated. Table 1 offers a simplistic comparison between voices. It compares the grammatical voices used in the source (Greek) and the receptor (Chechen and Ingush) with the 'filters' that may have played a role in the translation (Russian Synodal, New Russian Translation).14 One English translation (the New English Translation of 2008) is added for comparison.
14 We use the term 'grammatical voice' in a wider sense here: the pattern of the verb's argument structure [Williams 1981].
Table 1 Grammatical voice and transitivity for the verbs in Matthew 6:9-13
SOURCE FILTERS POSSIBLE RECEPTOR ENGLISH
# vs Greek SYN NRT CHE ING NET08
1 6:9 npooeúxo^ai MP (dep) M M A A A pray
2 6:9 àyiàÇra P M M A A P sanctify
3 6:10 epxo^ai M(dep) A A A A A come
4 6:10 yívo^ai P A M A A P do
5 6:11 SíSram A A A A A A give
6 6:12 A A A A A A forgive
7 6:12 A A A A A A forgive
8 6:13 е^офёрю A A M C C A lead
9 6:13 púo^ai M(dep) A A A A A deliver
Legend. SYN - Russian Synodal translation, NRT - New Russian Translation, CHE - Chechen translation, ING - Ingush translation, NET08 - New English Translation 2008. Voice: A - Active, M - Middle, M - Middle, MP (dep) - Middle/Passive (deponent), P - Passive, P (dep) -Passive deponent, C - Causative.
What Table 1 reveals first of all, is that there are quite a few differences between the voices used in the source and the receptor languages. Part of the reason why some changes are inevitable is that the different languages have different voice systems. Greek has active, middle and passive, and some of its verbs are deponent (morphologically middle or passive, but active in meaning). Russian has a similar system, though the borders between the divisions are different. Chechen and Ingush, being Northeast Caucasian languages are morphologically ergative, hence they lack a proper passive voice. They do have a rich system of causatives, however, with a number of simple verb roots being inherently intransitive [Nichols 2011: 11]. Thus, a verb like ela^epw 'lead', is translated in
both Chechen and Ingush with derived causative verb stems that literally mean 'cause to go.' And English (NET08), taken up for comparison, does not have a morphologically marked middle voice.
While voice alterations are, as it seems, inevitable when a translation is being done, the translator should be aware of the semantic implications of the choice of one particular voice in the source language, and these should be reflected in the receptor language. There is one component of grammatical voice in particular that this paper focuses on, and that is the number of the original participants and their thematic roles.
Table 2 Verbal arguments in Matthew 6:9-13
SOURCE FILTERS POSSIBLE RECEPTOR ENGLISH
# vs Greek SYN NRT CHE ING NET08
1 6:9 лроаейхоца1 A [P] [Ad] [A] [P] [A] [P] A P A P [A] [P] pray
2 6:9 àyiàÇra [A] P (A) P (A) P P [App ] [A] P sanctify
3 6:10 êpxo^ai A A A A A A come
4 6:10 yívo^ai [A] P P (A) P P P [A] P do
5 6:11 SíSram [A] P [R] [A] P R [A] P R [A] P R [A] P R [A] P R give
б 6:12 [A] R P [A] R P [A] R P [A] R [P] A] R [P] [A] R P forgive
7 6:12 A R P A R [P] A R [P] A R [P] A R [P] A R [P] forgive
8 6:13 е^афёрю [A] P G [A] P G [C] P G C P G C P G [A] P G lead
9 6:13 púo^ai [A] P O [A] P O [A] P O [A] P O [A] P O [A] P O deliver
Legend. SYN - Russian Synodal translation, NRT - New Russian Translation, CHE - Chechen translation, ING - Ingush translation, NET08 - New English Translation 2008. A - explicit agent, [A] - grammatically implied agent, [Ad] - grammatically implied addressee, [App] - implied agent introduced as postpositional adjunct, (A) optional agent, C - explicit causer, [C] - grammatically implied causer, G - explicit goal, O - origin, P - explicit patient, [P] - grammatically implied patient, R - explicit recipient, [R] - grammatically implied recipient.
The data in Table 2 show that there is a high agreement in the numbers and roles of the participants between the source, the intermediate and the receptor languages, provided the unexpressed participants are taken into account that are grammatically implied. The first row in the table, for example, shows that the Greek has participants A [P] [Ad], the Russian Synodal [A] [P] and the receptor language translations both have A P. All three languages have an agent and a patient—although some have them grammatically implied. The Greek проаеихеоЭе ицщ 'pray you' specifies the agent 'you', but not the object of 'pray'. The Russian Synodal Молитесь 'pray' only specifies the action 'pray', but it does not make the agent more explicit than the verbal ending (the verbal ending is 2p). And the recipient languages make explicit both the agent JaeJ 'you' and the object doia 'prayer, as shown in (1).
There are only two places (#2, #4) where there is a clear reduction in the number of participants, and there is one place (#8) where the grammatical role of one of the participants has changed.
5. Conclusions
This article has provided insight into the way the Lord's Prayer has been translated from Greek into two Northeast Caucasian languages, Chechen and Ingush. It has also shown that there are some traces of using a Russian translation (the Synodal) as an intermediate. We have looked at how the translation of grammatical voices in the Greek original has been 'filtered' by Russian, resulting in change or loss of originally implied participants. Two of the nine verbs have, indeed, lost their originally implied Agentive argument. While the meaning of the original is still derivable from the larger context, our findings do show that translations need to take the filtering influence of the intermediate language seriously, especially where the grammatical voice systems differ between the source, intermediate and receptor languages.
72 Komen E. R., Bugenhagen R. D.
Abbreviations
Abbreviation Meaning
1p first person plural
2p second person plural
2s second person singular
ABL ablative case
ASMA as much as
CAUS causative
DAT dative case
EXC exclusive
GEN genitive case
IMV simple imperative
INF infinitive
JUST.AS just as
LOC locative case
NEG negation
OBL oblique (non-nominative case)
OPT optative
pL plural
pOL polite imperative
PRS present tense
PRT particle
pTCp participial
REL relativizer
RFL reflexive
Rp preverb
References
AlandK., BlackM., Martini C. M., Metzger B. M., Wikgren A. (eds.) The Greek New Testament. Third (corrected) edition. Stuttgart, 1983.
Barakhoeva, N. M., Ilieva F. M., Kieva Z. Kh., Ozdoeva F. G., Sultygova M. M., Tarieva L. U., Khairova R. R. Sovremennyi ingushskii yazyk. Morfologiya. Nal'chik, 2012. (Барахоева Н. М., Илиева Ф. М., Киева З. Х., Оздоева Ф. Г., Султыгова М. М., Тариева Л. У., Хайрова Р. Р. Современный ингушский язык. Морфология. Нальчик, 2012.) (In Russ.)
Curuev Sh. Noxchiin muott. Orga zhurnal, 2013. Online version: [http://orga-journal.ru/index.php? view=article& id=66:2013-02-21-09-55-47.] (accessed 10.10.2019.)
Davies W. D., Allison D. C. A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Vol. 1. London, New York, 2004.
Gaebelein F. E., Carson D. A., Wessel W. W, Liefeld W. L. The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Volume 8: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Grand Rapids, 1984.
Good J. C. Clause combining in Chechen. Studies in language,
2003, 27(1), 113-170.
Kulikov L. Voice typology // Jae Jung Song (ed.) The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology. Oxford, 2013, 368-398
Maciev Ah. G. Chechensko-russkij slovar (Chechen-Russian dictionary). Moscow, 1961. (Мациев А. Г. Чеченско-русский словарь. Москва, 1961.) (In Russ.)
Newman B. M., Stine Ph. C. A handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. New York, 1988.
Nichols J. Ingush grammar. Berkeley, 2011. Robertson A. T. A grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research. New York, 1923.
Timberlake A. A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge,
2004.
Wallace D. B. Greek grammar beyond the basics: An exegetical syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, 1996.
Williams Ed. Argument structure and morphology. The linguistic review 1981, 1(1), 81-114.
Komen Erwin R. SIL International
Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands Комен Эрвин Р. SIL International
Радбоуд Университет Неймеген, Нидерланды erwin_komen@sil.org
Bugenhagen Robert D. SIL International Бугенхаген Роберт Д. SIL International robert.bugenhagen@svk.fi
