www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy kai pantwn....kai paswn

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, Koin� and Modern Greek are very different creatures, the Koin� 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