(getting) ready for our journey

It’s that time again. Time to leave one place and move to a new one. We’ve waited eagerly for three and a half years to get back to the Central African Republic. And we’ve been in this current home in Yaoundé for two whole years—the longest we’ve lived anywhere in our married lives (in fact, the longest I’ve lived anywhere since I left MN to begin my linguistics study in 2004).

The other night I got hit with a burst of excitement at the thought of getting back to CAR and seeing, and hugging, friends I haven’t seen since the morning of Christmas Eve 2012 when we left Berbérati all too quickly. The happy part of moving is the going—especially going towards a place that is familiar and people who we love.

Happy as we are about heading eastwards a week from tomorrow, there are the inevitable pains of departure. And in spite of how long we’ve been waiting, there just isn’t enough of anything—too few days to pack, too few evenings to spend hanging out with friends, not enough space for packing our stuff.

The last week will be busy—as full as possible of packing things up, saying goodbyes, spending a little more time in this city and with the many people here we have come to love. The going is exciting, but the leaving—as always—will be sad. Since I’ll probably be too busy to get on here again before we go, here’s something by Rabindranath Tagore to mark the event:

I have got my leave. Bid me farewell, my brothers! I bow to you all and take my departure.

Here I give back the keys off my door—and I give up all claims to my house, I only ask for last kind words from you.

We were neighbours for long, but I received more than I could give. Now the day has dawned and the lamp that lit my dark corner is out. A summons has come and I am ready for my journey.

David, Yahweh’s Anointed Sorcerer?

I blame my parents.  Of course, it’s a common thing to do in our culture to find a cause for all our woes in those who reared us at great cost.  But, in my own defense, I really do think that I can objectively trace it to them. 

Those in similar situations know my plight.  The sticks clacking together in mortal combat with your children intoning the light saber’s “Woahn! Woahn!”  Your curly-haired two year old humming “the imperial march” while coloring.  Your seven- and six-year-olds pointing and counterpointing  at the dinner table about who was the most powerful Jedi.  Yes, it’s Star Wars sickness.  An acute fever that never seems to abate except by deep sleep.  Since we have been living in Yaoundé, my parents have access to “the shipment” where they can send over gifts to their grandchildren via boat. It takes about three months but it works.   Light sabers and Star Wars books came on the last shipment.  Thus my blame-casting. 

Because of the time it takes to ship, my parents are already planning to send Christmas presents.  They asked what the kids would like for a gift.  Our children responded with joy that they wanted full Darth Vader costumes.  Both Ruth and I both promptly (and definitively) said no to their request.  Although one can grow tired of Star Wars, that’s not the reason we denied their wish.

Now, we are actually leaving the country in less than a month from our more affluent urban African context to a poorer rural village setting.  We live now in a walled compound where our children play with other Western children who speak English.  The rural village will be filled only with Central African children who speak Gbaya and Sango and who have never seen Star Wars at all.   To western children, Darth Vader costumes may provide a way to relive a fun, exciting, and familiar story.  It would not be experienced that way with the children where we’re moving.  The black mask would likely be a terrifying thing and probably associated with some evil spirit.  To have it would likely do badly for our children’s and our family’s reputations as Christians, not to mention scaring the daylights out of our neighbors.

We explained to the kids, “Darth Vader would be just fine in your culture, but in theirs it would be a bad thing.  It’s just not worth it if we want to love our neighbors.”

The boys seemed to understand, but were coming up with a solution.  Sam asked, “What if we show all our neighbors the movie then they can understand?”

We said, “We likely won’t get all of our neighbors to watch Star Wars, and it probably wouldn’t change their reaction to you running around in the suit, because we don’t change quickly from things we believe deep down.”

Darth Vader would have too much baggage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baggage is the word for this episode of translation Tuesday. 

We were reviewing a translation in 1 Samuel 16:1-13.  It’s a well-known and interesting passage.  God sends the prophet Samuel to the house of Jesse in Bethlehem where God will make the choice of his king because he has rejected Saul.  There, Jesse brings all his sons (except the youngest David who is watching the sheep) before Samuel.  Samuel thinks that Eliab will certainly be God’s choice of the next king because he’s so tall (people were impressed by Saul’s height).  The Lord famously responds, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart."

After all of the important older sons have been brought before Samuel and God doesn’t choose them Samuel sent for the youngest son, David, to be brought.  It’s revealed to Samuel that David is God’s choice.  Then the story ends on verse 13 when it says,

“Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers. And the Spirit of the LORD rushed upon David from that day forward. And Samuel rose up and went to Ramah.”

In my preparation for checking this verse I did a lot of study on the word “anoint” with ideas how to help the translators come up with a good translation of this key term.  I assumed that there was no word for it Gbaya.  Boy, was I wrong.  They did have a perfectly fine word that means ‘to anoint/put oil on someone’: “honga.”

Wow, cool.  Since they have a word that means ‘to anoint’ then we can move on to the next verse, right?

Well…remember that word baggage?  I just wanted to see how this word was used in the culture to see what other meanings are associated with this word to make sure that it somewhat matches the situation of David being anointed.

So I asked the translator, “When do you use ‘honga’ (to anoint) in normal life?”  After some discussion he ended up writing these three situations in normal life where the word is used:

1. To put oil on one’s skin as a moisturizer.

2. To put oil on someone a transfer of power ritual from one village chief to another.  After the new chief is anointed, local powerful evil spirits enter into the chief at this time to give special discernment to the chief to lead wisely when the anointing is done.

3. To describe the act of the transfer of “witchcraft power” from a female witch through the umbilical cord just after the witch’s baby is born. Or the process of transferring witchcraft power from a wizard to his son (through pronouncing certain words and transferring the power through clasped hands).

Read numbers 2 and 3 carefully again.

Now read  1 Samuel 16:13 again.

See the similarities in how anoint (honga) is used in modern Gbaya culture and in the Biblical text?

Both (#2) involve transfer of power rituals: village chief in Gbaya and David as the King of Israel.

Both involve spirit possession/control/influence (#2, #3) to empower the leader’s new position.

Now….STOP!

What should we do?

Should we leave the word or change it somehow?

This is a good word in one sense, but will people be confused that David is possessed by the same local spirit(s) or by ‘witchcraft power’?

Will ‘the spirit of the LORD’ be confused with the local evil spirits from this?

If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard Gbaya church folks equate witchcraft power as the source of the Apostle’s power to heal, then I could buy my family a hearty breakfast of beignets.

Does David’s blessing by being able to escape Saul due to the secret wisdom given by the spirits just like the wisdom the village chief has from the rite performed by the anointing?

What should we do?

Is this a word that could be changed in understanding through teaching to fit the Biblical spiritual worldview…

Or does it, like Darth Vader, have too much baggage to change much in the community’s ears?

Goliath Kilikiting-Thing

All languages have words that are fairly boring,with little precision, having equivalents in almost every language (your standard vanilla and chocolate flavor words): ho-hum vocab fodder that you have to memorize to learn.

However, every language also has amazing words with have precise definitions, words that aren't found in most other languages (your chocolate-fudge-rippled-with-amphetamine-dipped-bacon-bits-enrobed-in-dark-chocolate flavor words).

Gbaya is no exception.  For example, they don't have a general word for "to choose".  They have a word meaning choosing the best out of something but not just something generally meaning "to choose"(chocolate and vanilla).  

They do, like many other African languages, have a special kind of word called "ideophones."  I know when one hears that word "ideophone" for the first time, one might think of phones that should be programmed to administer grave electric shocks to the idiots who are using them while driving.  But ideophones are not that (unfortunately.)

Ideophones are words that evoke an idea in sound, often a vivid impression of certain sensations or sensory perceptions, e.g. sound, movement, color, shape, or action. Ideophones are found in many of the world's languages, though they are relatively uncommon in Western languages.(Wikipedia)

These words usually are usually onomatopoeic and often have very specific situations in which they occur.  In Gbaya they always are all high tones and often have consonants that don't occur in "normal" words (like the very rare "v" sound in Gbaya).

I first really came in contact with these words when Alexis and I were doing a check of 1 Samuel 17 (the famous David and Goliath story).  Now, ideophones don't occur in Hebrew, yet these words are used to match the particular situations in the story.  And the feedback on these words in the Bible translation was that they make the story "better" and "really Gbaya".  Here's just a couple of words used in the story...words to which there is certainly no equivalent in English (at least that I can figure out). 

 I went through each word with Alexis and it was impossible for him to give a Sango or French one-word equivalent.  He described the situations in which they were used and we came up with a definition from there.

Veng- The way in which something separates from something quickly.  Like the way a rock flies out of a sling.  This was used in 17:51 Describing how Goliath’s head came off after David's swipe of his sword.  (Did it come off with a swipe or did he hack it off?....we don't know)

Kilikiting- The state of something big and heavy that has fallen down that does not move anymore.  But it has the connotation of someone looking at this “fallen big thing” and saying mockingly “You’re not so big now!”.  Used in 1 Samuel 17:50 describing Goliath being killed by David.

Tondolo-  The state of something either asleep or dead that doesn’t seem to have any muscle control. Alexis said, "Imagine if you saw someone who is immediately killed by a bullet in the head, how does their body position look after it has fallen?  That's tondolo."  Used to describe the dead bodies of the Philistines on the road from the battlefield to Ekron in 1 Samuel 17:51. 

Degbele-degbele- The movement of fat jiggling or swaying from side to side on someone. Usually referring to a fat belly or a fat backside swaying from side to side when a person is walking slowly.  Pragmatically used to say that someone is fat in sort of a silly and joking way (African cultures aren't sensitive about being fat as Western cultures are).  This was discussed as being used to describe Eli in God's accusation of him not taking the sacrifices seriously but instead just "fattening" himself in 1 Samuel 2:29.  However, this was later abandoned because it was too comical of a word to be used in such a serious situation.  No really, everybody just was dying laughing every time we read it and became weeks long of puns with this word at every opportunity followed by 15 seconds of good laughing.  So.... no go on this one.

These kinds of words are peppered all over the Gbaya New and Old Testament translations.  Because a Bible translation is not a true Bible translation until it sounds like your language.  Or, in our case, it sounds like "real Gbaya."  Like God speaking to you personally where you are.  Because that's what the Bible is.  

The curious case of the unflipped phrase

The translator read clearly Genesis 1:27 so the back translator could hear:

“Sɔ dea wi nɛ zizitɛ wa. Nɛ zizitɛ wa, Sɔ dea wi.”

The back translator faithfully translated back in French:

 “God made mankind in his image…[now hesitates] In his image, God made them.”

I asked the back translator, 

“I hear your translation, but is there anything unusual about the Gbaya here?  Is there anything that doesn’t sound right?”

He said, “The first sentence makes sense, ‘God made people to be like Him somehow.’  

The second sentence doesn’t make any sense at all.  I know all the words, but…it makes no sense.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When someone says about a Scripture draft in their native tongue, “I know all the words, but it makes no sense.”  Suddenly, little alarms go off in my head and little khaki-trousered and plaid-shirted (the garb of most translation consultants I know) firefighters go sliding down poles, frantically putting on gear and roaring out of the station ready to embattle some theological inferno.  Something has gone wrong.

Of course, this was very useful information that the back translator was providing as we tested whether the Gbaya translation of Genesis was accurate and natural.  Now, the back translator is a native speaker of the language who has not been involved in the translation of the text. Ideally, the back translator has little prior knowledge of the Bible. This way, we can be sure that the translation itself is being evaluated and not the back translator’s prior Bible trivia prowess.  During the checking of the passage, the translator reads out the passage and the back translator (hearing it for the first time) translates it back into French on the spot.   Then the consultant asks further questions to the back translator in order to find out what the passage really is or isn’t communicating.  It’s a pretty good way of testing if you do it right.

Now, from my previous study of Gbaya, I anticipated that this would happen from when I read the draft before the checking session.

But I’m getting ahead of myself… to understand the problem here, we must have a little grammar lesson.

A grammar lesson?

Now, I know that grammar comes to some like a walk in the countryside and to others like a kick in the teeth. I, myself, lie (or is it ‘lay’ hmmmm…) somewhere between these two.  No matter where the foot lies for you on this issue, however, I beg you to continue reading, as this won't hurt a bit if you keep still.

Word Order

English has a standard sentence word order.  It’s Subject, Verb, Object, Indirect Object.

For example,

1. Papa         wants    meat    in his belly.

    Subject     Verb      Object  Indirect Object

However, in English, this word order is not set in stone.  In certain situations English grammar allows this order to be switched.  In #2 the indirect object is put at the beginning of the phrase.  For example:

2. Where does papa want his meat?

(pointing) In his belly is where Papa       wants his meat.

                Indirect Object        Subject    Verb        Object

Here “in his belly” is put in prominence as the place where he wants his meat.

Simple, huh?

Now here’s how Gbaya word order works (even simpler).

Gbaya Word Order

Gbaya word order is similar to English in that it, too, is Subject Verb Object Indirect Object.  Yet, it is different from English in that its grammar does not allow any of the parts to be put in a different order.  If you do put the parts in a different order, it doesn’t work.  It doesn’t make any sense.

The Problem Revealed (well….at least the first bit)

Now you see the first part of the problem with the translation.  In the second part of Genesis 1:27, the translators copied the form of a French version (which copied the form of the Hebrew original) in their translation.  They translated “In the image of God, he created them.”  They put the indirect object “in the image” before the subject.  A big no-no in in Gbaya.  Thus it sounded weird and must be rejected.  But now we confirmed the translation’s wonkiness, we now make it a good translation.  How did we proceed?

Working towards a (good) solution

We could quickly just solve the problem by switching the word order back to what the Gbaya grammar allows, right? Just put that object at the end where it belongs.  Well…. This is what you’d get.

God made man in his own image
God made man in his own image

Hmmmm…  Doesn’t really roll off the tongue, does it?  Repeating the phrase doesn’t seem right, and it certainly isn’t what the original Hebrew wants us to do. 
Which leads us to our next lesson

Hebrew chiasmus anyone?

Hebrew (the language that Genesis 1:27 was originally written in) often uses a literary device called chiasmus.  Chiasmus is a literary device where words are repeated in a certain way to give prominence to an element.  In fact Genesis 1:27 is a chiasmus.  Here it is showing the original word order with A, A’ and B, B’ marking the structure:

God made man A

in his image B

In his image B’

He made them A’

You see how the B sentences are both in the middle?  They are placed in the middle to make them prominent.  So, in other words, the author wanted to make sure that the fact that people are made in God’s image is emphasized.  But how do we reflect this emphasis in Gbaya?

Working towards a (good) solution

At this point, I explained the last three lessons to the team and asked the question,

“How do we emphasize that they were made in God’s image in good Gbaya without just repeating the phrase?”

The translators discussed a solution and came up with this.

Sɔ dea wi nɛ zizitɛ wa.

nɛ mbwa baa may nɛ tɛ̂ zizitɛ Sɔ.

God made man in his image.

And they truly were taken together in God’s image.

We further checked this solution with the back translator and he said that made sense.  We also continued talking about what it means to be made in God’s image and how that influences the choices of our daily lives.

Lesson?

Is there a lesson from this little Scripture checking session?

Yes, mainly that nerds are needed.  Specifically linguistic nerds.

Bible translators need to have a self-awareness of how their language is different from the language they're translating from.  Just because someone knows their language doesn’t mean they know how their language works.  And in translation that makes a big difference.  And if no one is analyzing the languages how can this important information help translators? It can't.  More nerds are needed.

Why? Because God’s truth is too important to leave it at

“I understand all the words but it makes no sense.”

mango season

I love mango season.

Mango tree laden with fruit...

spices ready to be mixed up with mangoes for mango chutney...

spicy, delicious finished chutney...

and mango butter too (because there are oh-so-many mangoes...)

Sam and Lo, cooling off in the mini swimming pool:

Anaphora Nefarious

Here's a story from a linguist colleague in Nigeria describing how linguistic research has made a big difference in seeing how Bible translators can mistranslate a text because they are not aware of certain differences between the source language (here English) and their mother tongue (here Tugbiri). Knowing these differences can be used to help train translators to resolve current problems and avoid mis communications in future translations.

"One of the things we have uncovered is a major difference in the use of pronouns and zero anaphors between Tugbiri and English. (A zero anaphor is when there is no word for one of the text participants, and the identity of the participant is understood from the context.) An example of this problem is found in the Tugbiri translation of Luke 14:1-4. Unaware of the differences, the translators replicated the English pronouns and zero anaphora faithfully, exactly as found in the English text, but this had the effect of completely changing the meaning in Tugbiri! On the right below, I have written out the words for the participants in full, so that you can see what the Tugbiri translation was (mis)communicating.

Tugbiri speakers understood from this incorrect translation that Jesus was rebuking the Pharisees
for wanting to heal ‘their man’ on the Sabbath, and that the man with dropsy healed the Pharisee
by means of witchcraft. Thankfully, our analysis of Tugbiri texts helps us not only to identify
problems, but also to make considerable headway in resolving them. It is a slow process, however..."

happy birth day!

Frieda Joyce - the sweetest gift from God, born into this world on March 24, 2016 in Yaoundé. We were blessed with a wonderful doctor and clinic. Our first three babies are Texans, and we now have a little American-Cameroonian baby. We are so thankful that she has joined our family. Welcome to the world, little one!