On Saturday, July 13, 2002, at 12:09 , Elliott Lash wrote:

> In a message dated Sat, 13 Jul 2002 09:48:22 +1000, [log in to unmask]
> writes:
>> On Sat, 2002-07-13 at 16:20, Joe wrote:
>>> Our Father in Heaven
>>> May your name be called holy

'called holy'?   That's not what I understand by the verb "to hallow" or
the Greek
verb _hagizein_.

"To hallow" surely means 'to make [something] sacred/holy', 'to consecrate'
?  That is
certainly what the Greek verb means and, in the pagan religion, it
referred especially
to the process of making something sacred by _sacrificing_ it.

That too is what the Latin 'sanctificare' means; and that is the the verb
used in the
traditional Latin  form:
'Sanctificetur nomen tuum'

>>> May your Kingdom come
>>> May your will be done
>> Too stilted for me.

Yes, the repetitions of 'may' are infelicitous.

>>        May your name be called holy,
>>        Your Kingdom come,
>>        (And) your will be done
>> Is better, IMHO
> yes, good.

Yes, but 'may' still seems to me to imply 'wish' which is rather more
than the imperatives of the Greek.   We seem to have lost in our language
differences between what Greek could distinguish with optative, subjunctive
and imperative.   I suppose this is the best we can do in modern English.

>>> On Earth as it is in heaven
>>> Give us today our daily bread
>>> And forgive us our sins
>>> As we forgive those who sin against us

Yep, most versions seem to perpetuate the present tense of the Latin:
'sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris'

The best Greek texts however use the _present perfect_ :
ho:s ka he:mes aph:kamen tos opheiltais he:m:n

The old Greek perfect denoted a current or present state resulting from a
action: 'we have already forgiven those who owe us anything and now bear no
grudges against them nor have any claims on them'.

The Latin 'perfect' _demisimus_ could just mean "we forgave them"/ "we've
forgiven them" [but they have since offended us, so still owe us something]
, i.e.
it does not make any implicit statement about the _present_ situation.
That, I
guess, is why the Latin versions have always AFAIK had _dimittimus_.

But the Greek does seem to put a greater commitment on those saying the
prayer than does the sort of generic present 'dimittimus' of the Latin
which all
the English versions proposed so far on this list stick with.

>>> Lead us not into temptation,
> Don't lead us into temptation   (?)
>  (I find _lead us not_ a bit odd, at least if you're trying to modernize
> it)

Indeed so.

>>> But deliver us from evil
>>> For ever and ever, Amen
>>> Modern Version.

Where does "for ever and ever" come from?   It ain't there in the Greek
(nor the Latin).

So 'ap to pone:ro' is definitely 'from evil' and not 'from the evil one'

On Saturday, July 13, 2002, at 12:13 , Nik Taylor wrote:

> Elliott Lash wrote:
>>  (I find _lead us not_ a bit odd, at least if you're trying to modernize
>> it)
> Postposed "not" is still occasionally used, as in JFK's famous "Ask not
> what your country can do for you ..."

True - but outside of rhetorical and similar styles it is not normal.  If
we accept
postponed "not" because it's still occasionally used in rhetoric, verse
etc., then
there is surely reason not to allow the simple:
"Your name be hallowed;
  your kingdom come;
  you will be done....etc"

All the above seems to show me is why, although a modern version was
proposed for
public worship some 30 or so years back, congregations still prefer to
stick with
traditional forms.

In any case, whatever we say on Conlang will not change one whit what
people do
in public worship.

if translating the Paternoster is of interest, shouldn't the proper
concern of this
list be translating it into one's conlang?