Zambezia (1979), VII (i).SHONA BIBLE TRANSLATIONTHE WORK OF THE REVD MICHAEL HANNAN, S.J.S. C. KUMBIRAIDepartment of African Languages, University of RhodesiaTHE PURPOSE OF this article is to evaluate Fr Hannan as a translator, thedifficulties that he faced in his work, and the contribution that he made tothe New Union Shona Bible. I shall confine my evaluation of this translationto the New Testament, as I have not read his translation of the Deutero-canonical books; but I will also quote some comments that he made on theNew Union Shona Bible.When Fr Hannan died, scholars knew that a great colleague had passedaway. It is not only his magnum opus, the Standard Shona Dictionary, thathe has bequeathed as a legacy to the Shona literary world but also a treasurefor which the Shona Christian community will ever be thankful Š histranslation of the New Testament and the Deutero-canonical books. He alsomade a valuable contribution to the New Union Shona Bible that will soonbe in circulation.I visited Fr Hannan a month before his death and discussed with himthe mechanics and problems involved in translation, particularly of the Bible.Fr Hannan told me that his difficulties in translating the New Testamenthad been numerous: the Shona people spoke many dialects and he had,therefore, to take cognizance of this fact in his translation; that about halfof the translation was entirely by himself and might therefore be discountedby native Shona speakers as 'ChiBaba' (which can be freely interpreted asthe 'Shona spoken by missionaries'); and that some missionaries who knewGreek, Hebrew and Aramaic maintained that some of his translation didnot do justice to the original, and, therefore, did not measure up to theworld's standard of translation (and for this reason some Catholic missiona-ries even preferred to use the Dutch Reformed Church (Morgenster) trans-lation). Indeed so strong were such feelings that as I left Fr Hannan's room,the passage from Wordsworth (Epitaphs and Elegaic Pieces IV) echoed in mymind:There never breathed a man who, when his lifeWas closing, might not of that life relateToils long and hard. The warrior will reportOf wounds, and bright swords flashing in the field,And blast of trumpets. He who hath been doomedTo bow his forehead in the courts of kings,Will tell of fraud and never-ceasing hate,Envy and heart-inquietude, derivedFrom intricate cabals of treacherous friends.6162 SHtJ.NA BIBLE TRANSLATIONFr Hannan also told me how he wished that he had been a nativespeaker so that he could have rendered his translation more intelligibleand meaningful. In entertaining thoughts like these, Fr Hannan was pro-bably not sufficiently aware of his literary capabilities and what the academicworld thought of him. In the words of Seneca in Thyestes, 'He was toowell known to all, but to himself unknown.' He was humble, not puffedup with pride. The Shona sages say, 'Nyanzvi haizviridziri mupururu' (Anexpert never blows his own trumpet).However, it must be admitted that his apprehensions were not altogethergroundless; for translating from one language to another is a difficultoperation, particularly when one is not a native speaker of both the sourceand receptor languages. In assessing Fr Hannan as a translator, there aresome general aspects of translation that need to be borne in mind. Transla-tion can be horizontal, from one contemporary language into anotheT, assay, from English into Shona. It can be vertical, from a language of the pastinto a language of today as say, from ancient Hebrew into French. Trans-lating the Bible seems to be a blending of both horizontal and verticaltranslations.Nida' gives three principal methods in translation: literal translation;translation of ideas; and translation based upon the closest equivalents.Literal translation is word for word translation which cannot be used tomuch advantage; for no two languages correspond throughout in their phrases,idioms, grammatical usages and words. Such a literal type of translationmay distort the facts of a language, and sometimes make what is beingtranslated meaningless. The following English examples are quite unintel-ligible when literally rendered into Shona: My father-in-law (Baba wangumumutemo); I question the wisdom of such an action (Ndinovhunza ungwa-ru hwechiito chakadaro).In translating ideas, a Shona translating from the Hebrew would askhimself this question: 'What would the author have said if he had beenusing Shona instead of the Hebrew?' This method of rendition cannot betotally rejected; it can be useful sometimes, but according to Nida such amethod suffers from some serious handicaps. He says that in 'the transla-tion of ideas' method, the translator tends to give an interpretation ratherthan a translation that is close to the original.Nida advocates that a translation based upon the closest equivalent inthe two languages strikes the via media between two extremes of literaltranslation and translation of ideas; for the method of closest equivalenceis intended to check over-literalness on the one hand and unjustified inter-pretation on the other.' E. A. Nida, Bible Translating (New York, American Bible Society, 1947) andtoward a Science of Translating (Leiden, Brill, 1964).J. C. KUMBIRAI 63According to Nida, there are three basic requirements a translatorneeds to satisfy in order to obtain the closest equivalent in translation:1. The translation must represent the customary usage of thenatural language; in other words, the translator must not concoctphrases, idioms and sentence structures that are foreign to the nativespeaker. The choice of words should, as far as possible, be basedon two factors, the cultural significance of the item to which theword refers and the linguistic status of such a word.Nida warns that in what is called the 'equivalence' method there israrely exact equivalence. For as already pointed out, two correspondingwords in different languages rarely enjoy the privilege of identical inter-pretation.2. The translation must make sense, because it is not just a trans- jlation of words from one language into another, but the transla- ;tion of a communication from one language into another. That iswhy a translator must know the precise meaning of the messagein the source language so that he can accurately express that mean-ing in the receptor language. All translators need, therefore, tohave a good knowledge of the linguistic structures of the two lang-guages. According to Nida, this means that the translator must knowhow the language in question 'generates' sentences and how the \structures so generated are related to one another: without that Iknowledge he cannot manipulate the structures readily and effec- jtively. It is also absolutely vital that the translator be versed in the !knowledge of the meanings of syntactic structures. Lack of this !knowledge is often the translator's weak spot because, in conse-quence, he will lack not only an understanding of the meaning of ;individual words and phrases, but also a fundamental appreciationof the meanings of constructions.Thus, it is obvious that the translator must have a complete under-standing of lexical elements whether endocentric or exocentric. It is alsoimperative that the translator be sensitive to, and capable of producing, anappropriate style. A language like Shona which has only recently beenreduced to writing will present innumerable difficulties, for it is a languagethat has consecrated expressions which it is desirable to use in certain con-texts, proverbs and idioms in which the translator must be versed.3. The translation must conform to the meaning of the original.This is particularly so in the case of the Bible, which Christiansbelieve is the heritage of the entire Christian world, and whichshould not be made a vehicle of one's own cherished theories ofinterpretation.This is not so easy to achieve, since every translation does to some extentrepresent the theological views of the translator. Nida says that the com-plete avoidance of bias in translation is impossible, but the bias can bekept to a minimum.64 SHONA BIBLE TRANSLATIONFELICITOUS RENDERINGSIn the light of what I have said, I shall now closely examine FrHannan's role as a translator of the New Testament. Of course, Fr Hannanwas not a native speaker of the source and receptor languages; and Nidasays that, from a theoretical point of view, only the person, who knowsboth the source and receptor languages and both cultural backgrounds asa member of such linguistic and cultural groups, is able to understand thecomplete denotative and connotative values of the material he handles inhis work of translation. Fr. Hannan was a man who had studied his Shona ex-tremely well and had acquired an enormous vocabulary and a deep know-ledge of Shona linguistic and syntactic structures; and it was the accumula-tion of such knowledge that enabled him to produce a first-class Shonadictionary. Equipped with such knowledge, he was also able to leave be-hind him a translation of the New Testament that is treasured by many: atranslation that is in the living language of the people. For if a translationis to be any good, it must be addressed to the times in which it is written.Grant says that one of the main reasons why the Revised Version of 1881-5failed, and along with it the American Standard Edition of the RevisedVersion in 1901, was that it did not address the world in which men lived.*Fr Hannan tried to obviate this difficulty by trying to use the Shona thathas been handed down from generation to generation and by the use offormulaic expressions, idioms, phrases that are familiar.Let me illustrate what I am saying by examples taken from Fr Hannan'sChitenderano Chitsvcf compared with the version in the Jerusalem Bible*1. Kuzoti kwapera mazuva anenge a- When he returned to Capernaumkati, wakapindazve muKafanaum some time later ....... (Mark 2:1). ... (Mark 2:1).Mazuva anenge akati is an idiomatic expression that is used in everydaylanguage, and is also used by Shona authors, particularly Chakaipa.2. Zvaakanga achhaparidzira Dama, 2. He was preaching the word tokwakauyiswa kwaari munhu aka- them, when some people camenge akaoma mitezo, akaitwa deka- bringing him a paralytic carriedmuteka navanhu vana (Mark 2:2) by four men.Akaitwa dekamuteka, also, is an idiomatic expression, familiar to adultanona-speakers but one which the Shona would hardly expect a non-Shonaspeaker to use. It is too polished a phrase to be used even by an ordinaryahona speaker."? Bjbte (Edinburgh, T. Nelson, 1961).^**^ M H (Gl MbUen^rano cS? ? j (g, , ).The JeZZem B ? iV*^**^ M" Hannan (Gwel°' Mambo Press, 1966).DWte (London, Darton, Longman and Todd, 1966).J. C. KUMBIRAI OB3. Farai imi kana muchitukwa noku- Happy are you when people abuseshushwa nokureverwa nhema dziri you and persecute you and speakdzose pamusana pangu. Farai mufa- all kinds of calumny against yourise kwazvo, nokuti mubayiro we- on my account. Rejoice and benyu mukuru kudenga (Matt. 5:11- glad, for your reward will be12). great in heaven.The grammar of this passage is faultless and the sentence structure is verywell formed. It sounds quite natural to a Mushona; and Farai mufarise is abeautiful piece of good linkage and parallelism.4. Kuzoti ava mangwana, zvaakanga As he was returning to the cityodzokera kuguta akati onzwa nzara. in the early morning, he feltNdokuona mukuyu uri munyasi hungry. Seeing a fig tree by themenzira, ndokuchitsaukira kwauri, road, he went up to it and foundasi akauwana uchingova mashizha nothing on it but leaves. And hechete. Akachibva auti 'Usambozo- said to it, 'May you never bearfazve wakabereka michero narini' fruit again'.(Matt. 21:28).The sentences in this passage are constructed in a good natural order. Theadverbial clauses, Kuzoti ava mangwana and zvaakanga odzokera, are usedin everyday language; and so are the consecutive clauses, akati onzwa nzaraand ndokutsaukira kwauri. The negative imperative Usazomboja is almosta formulaic expression.5. Houno mumwe muenzaniso waaka- He spoke the following parabletaura achinanga vamwe vaizvifunga to some people who prided them-kuti isu ndisu takarurama, vachi- selves on being virtuous and des-shora vamwe (Luke 18:9-10). pised everyone else.As in the other passages, the Shona in this passage is faultless. It containsgood Shona expressions: houno; achinanga; isu ndisu. It also contains thedirect speech characteristics of Shona: vaizvifunga kuti isu ndisu takarurama.The indirect speech is foreign to Shona, although writers of novels under theinfluence of English use it now.6. Kwaiva nomumwe murume woku- A man of noble birth went to ambahuru wakaenda kuneimwe nyi- distant country to be appointedka yokurekure kuti andopiwa uma- king and afterwards returnmho, achizodzoka (Luke 19:12).Anybody who is familiar with Shona traditional literature, will recognizeat once as one of the conventional beginnings of the ngano (folklore):kwaiva nomumwe murume. The passage is so well translated that it doesnot sound like a translation but as an ordinary piece of folklore.7. Kudai wanga uchiziva nhai kuti If you only knew what God ischaunopiwa naMwari chii, nokudai offering and who it is that is say-wanga uchiziva kuti iyeyi uyu ari ing to you: 'Give me a drink'.kukuti ndipeiwo chokunwa ndiani, you would have been the one to66 SHONA BIBLE TRANSLATIONungadai uri'we watenge watomuku- ask, and he would have givenmbira, iye achidai akupa mvura you living water.mhenyu (John 4:10).This is a beautiful piece of rendition and few Shona would be able to expressthemselves so succinctly and so well. Kudai wanga, ungadai, and achidaiakupa are parts of the complicated machinery of the expression of hypothe-tical conditions and consequences which feature eminently in this passage.8. Kuzoti zuva rodoka vadzidzi vake That evening the disciples wentvakaburuka kugungwa, ndokukwi- down to the shore of the lakera rnugwa, vonanga mhiri ku and got into a boat to make forKafanaumu. Kwakatenge kwasviba, Capernaum on the other side offesu wakanga achigere kuuya kwa- the lake. It was getting dark byvari, gungwa ndokuchitanga kuiti- now and Jesus had still not re-swa mafungu nedutu rakanga ro- joined them. The wind wasvhuvhuta. Pavakati vakwasva igwa strong, and the sea was gettingkwemaira dzinenge nhatu kana ina, rough. They had rowed three orndipo pavakaona Jesu achiswedera four miles when they saw Jesuskugwa, achifamba napamusoro pe- walking on the lake and comingmvura (John 6:16-20). towards the boat.This passage is again so beautifully translated that it does not sound like atranslation. It is very natural. The translator, as he has done in a numberof passages in the four gospels, exploits idioms effectively. If one reads thispassage to a group of non-Christian Shona they would understand what wasbeing said without any difficulty, because that is the way the Shona speak.iNida speaking of 'Bible translating', has this to say about the criterion ofgood_translation: 'The real test of the translation is its intelligibility to thenon-Chnstian who should be reached by its message' (p.21).ine eight passages I have cited reflect, as a whole, the beauty of theverbal art in the Chitenderano chitsva. The three versions of the parable ofwe sower m Matthew, Mark and Luke are masterpieces. They reflect bothme verbal art and the skill of the traditional sarungano (story-teller).CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM OF THE NEW UNION SHONA BIBLEHannan's general good translation of the four gospelsBibl h- u Ł "~^ *he contribution he made to the New Union Shonabeen' uvu 'S & revision of the previous Shona Bible which has recentlydecidedIt ri by thC BibIe Society of Rhodesia. The Catholic Bishopsown entire im ^ version rather than cherish the idea of producing theirment, Chitende S° ^^ Ff Hannan had finished translating the New Testa-latioti of the ^"°chltsva> they stopped him from proceeding with the trans-they asked him s*ament- Instead, in agreement with the other churches,read through the New Union Shona Bible which the BibleJ. C. KUMBIRAI 87Society had just completed translating, in order to propose suggestions andamendments in the translations that would make it acceptable to theCatholics. This task he performed thoroughly and earned renown among thenon-Catholic translators.Before writing this article I paid a visit in August 1978 to Fr J. M.Samupindi, who is in charge of the New Union Shona Bible team of trans-lators, and asked him: 'To what extent has Fr Hannan been helpful to youin your translation?' He rejoined: 'He polished the language, improved thegrammar and the spelling'. I asked further, 'Did you accept many of hissuggestions?' He answered promptly, 'Father Hannan went through thewhole of our translation line by line and made suggestions and rejectedcertain words; we accepted most of his suggestions. Whenever we turneddown some of his suggestions, we did so with good reasons.' I pursued myquestions. 'Could you elaborate a little more on Fr Hannan's contributionto the work of your team?' He observed:Well, I can do so but it will sound like repetition. Fr Hannan knewhis Shona grammar and we did not know it; so he helped us outwhen we got stuck in matters of grammar. His knowledge of Shonawas unparalleled. He was knowledgeable and knew what he wasdoing. I appreciated his critical ability, which enabled us to im-prove very much the present New Union Shona Bible. His dictionarywas also very useful for our translation work. His knowledge ofthe various dialects helped us tremendously, as our goal was toproduce a multi-dialect Bible. In short, I can say that he added cer-tainty to uncertainty. After he had read, made suggestions, andapproved of what we had done, we felt confident.Is this not ironical? Here is a man who thought towards the closing daysof his life that he had misspent his time and here is a priest who lauds himfor his good work!I persisted with my questions. 'How much of his Chitenderano chitsvadid you adopt?' Fr Samupindi answered, 'Our team did not use his Chite-nderano chitsva'. When I asked why, he replied that Fr Hannan's Chitende-rano chitsva was based on one dialect whereas their translation of the NewUnion Shona Bible was a fusion of nearly all Shona dialects, being intendedfor the whole of Mashonalond. This obviously raises the question: Was FrHannan's translation designed for the Zezuru-speech community or for thewhole Mashonaland-speech community? The dialect is certainly Zezuru!To put what Fr Samupindi says in perspective let me cite some ofFr Hannan's comments to the New Union Shona Bible team which areretained in Bible House, Salisbury:Mavambo (Genesis)It is not with a hope of changing your policy but because myconscience obliges me to make a formal objection I have to statethat the use of doro to translate 'wine' is not acceptable; thereasons are not dogmatic, but because this goes beyond the limits68 SHQNA BIBLE TRANSLATIONof dynamic equivalence and amounts to wrong translation. Thesame must be said for the translation of 'sacrifice' by diramhambain Gen. 31:54; 46:1.Just for the record, it seems to me that the use of pre-1966orthography, for the spelling of proper names only, may prejudicethe use of the Shona Bible as a school reader.Chapter 2:2 1 A river flowed from Eden to water the garden etc: rwizihas wider dialect distribution than rukova.The river does not go to the East of Assiriya, it flowsroughly from N.W. to S.E. and divides the country ofAssiriya in two etc.Chapter 3.14 5 1: Uchakweya: is the equivalent to 'crawl'? Would notkuzvova or kugwesha or simply kufamba be better?\l % VJL Would ivhu be a bette*" equivalent than nyika?18 2 3 + 4 is miti yomusango equivalent to 'plants of the field'?Why not zvinomera musango?2 2: Aine Š this suggests that the cherubim held a sword.All commentaries I have consulted say that theflaming sword was a separate thing, in addition to,and joined to the cherubim.2 2 5; ChipoŠVery many informants tell me that Chipo isnot the equivalent of an offering from an inferior toa superior, but only the free gift from a superior toan inferior. If this be true, Chipo should not be usedtor an offering by man to God, either here orverses 4 and 5.2 2: nehwayana Š Most translators describe Abel asbringing of his firstlings, not all his firstlings; manyalso make the offering a double one: of his firstlingsand of their fat portions. Only the New AmericanBible has one of the best firstlings of his flock'.Hence I suggest a small change: Aberi akauyawoyakakorl) yam **** dzamatan8we akakora <orExodus/Kubuda Chapter 3:2 2 4: 3h£K iS PCCnliar to ChiKaranga; suggest rimiTathuH? COmmOn- to aU ****** = muriSi romotoraibuda mugwenzi.11 3 1. n^l^anunure kuvaljipH?1816 1/l.w. Ndin°°budlsa^ot"dinoLdisa).the2Sna2 t0 Which Hebrew words do3-1 w-Thi Words co"espond?2$5 KL18 ,fficuIt to understod - *»».°W a Łtranslation » free thaturiJ. C. KUMB1RAIMupiro/LeviticusGeneral Comment:Only by overcoming an extreme repugnance was I able to readthrough the whole of this book.Two usages are found extremely repugnant:1. The usage of the Shona word chipo to translate 'offering madeto God'. In Shona ritual the word chipo is not used for 'anoffering made to the mudzimu', still less could it be used for'an offering made to God'. The correct word would seem tobe the word chosen for the name of the book, that is MUPIRO.2. The insistance on the use of the Shona word diramhamba asequivalent to 'sacrificial victim' or/and 'offering made to God'.Such combination of Shona words as diramhamba rezitadzoand njiva yava diramhamba are forced substitutions of Shonawords for English words, the Shona having meanings of theEnglish words in Hebrew ritual. In Shona ritual diramhambais not a sacrificial victim, it is an animal dedicated to a spiritelder and symbolises the presence of that elder among the livingmembers of the family; this spirit elder's permission is askedbefore the diramhamba is slaughtered.The following is a schematic presentation of the differentkinds of offerings and suggested Shona equivalents:SACRIFICE (offering RSV and NEB)MUPIROANIMAL CEREAL (RSV: grain NEB)woupfudrink offerirlg^. incense offeringmuteuro wewaini ^^^ mupiro worusenziwhole burnt (whole offering NEB; burnt offering RSV) ^"^ partly burntwechipfuwo chinopiswa chose wechipfuwo chinopiswaunopiswa ^^-^ unopiswaPEACE (Shared NEB communion JB) ATONEMENTwokuwadzanisa _^-Š wokuchenuraGUILT SIN (NEB)wokupodza Mwari wokuchenura nyakunyoreswa70 SHONA BIBLE TRANSLATIONKuverengwa/NumbersGeneral Comments:In the book of Numbers, among the words in English for whichShona equivalents are difficult to find are: ark, bdellium, coriander,ephah, hin, log, priest, sacrifice and tent.There seems to be no intrinsic reason why the already acceptedshonalized borrowed words for the words underlined in the abovelist are rejected, since the words bdellium, coriander, ephah, hinand log have been shonalized by the translators.What is the extrinsic reason? It cannot be just the principle,'if you use a borrowed word you are not translating' becauseborrowed words are used for bdellium etc. The translators seem tohave been compelled to substitute other words, borrowed or not,in place of the words that have been used in previous translationsand are already familiar to at least half of the Shona-speakingpopulation.Bhokisi is used to replace areka; for most Shona speakersthe word bhokisi denotes coffin, an unfortunate choice for theark of the Covenant.Dumba is used in place of tende/tente, as if no Shona-speakersever used the word tende, or that a tent was quite unknown tothem. It is true, and therefore worth bringing out, that familiaritywith tents is a distinguishing mark between nomads, such as theIsraelites, and peasants, such as the Shona. How could the Israelitesbuild temporary shelters (matumba) in the arid deserts? How canthe translators use the word for 'temporary shelter' for a structureso elaborate and so precisely described as the 'tent of meeting'?Dumba rokusangana is the translation of 'tent of meeting'.Apart from dumba being not acceptable in place of tende, thequalifying word rokusangana is neither adequate nor free fromassociations that are inappropriate for the place where God meetsthe people of God. For the qualifying word, rokusanganiranawould be more acceptable.Diramhamba: the way in which this word is used indiscri-minately suggests that the translators used a concordance andslapped down diramhamba wherever 'sacrifice' or even 'offering*occurs in the concordance, whether the object offered be livingor material, e.g. gold plates, waggons etc. In Shona ritual dira-,mhamba is not a beast of sacrifice; it is a beast dedicated to a spiritelder and symbolic of his presence among the living.These few examples of the detailed comments that Fr Hannan madeon the translation of the New Union Shona Bible show how meticulouslyhe went through it, line by line. For a man like Fr Hannan, the Shonawould use the proverb: Mbavarira inoda vane nharo (Perseverance callsfor impetuous people). Despite this he was unable to persuade the teamnot to use svikiro for prophet, and bokisi rechitenderano chitsva for arkot the covenant etc.1 J. C. KUMBIRAI 71' LAPSES IN THE TRANSLATIONI have indicated the strength of Fr Hannan's translation, I now turn to/ what I consider one of his weak points. He sometimes uses unnatural> sentence constructions which a mature native speaker of Shona would notuse. I shall draw a few examples from his Chitenderano Chitsva.(Ł 1. Kwaiva nomunhu wakatumwa A man came, sent by God. His} naMwari, wainzi zita rake name was John (John 1.6).Yowane.' The words of this sentence are not in the normal Shona order. Peoplewould understand it, but no mature Mushona would speak in this way.We would either say: Kwaiva nomunhu akatumwa naMwari ainzi Yowaneor Kwaiva nomunhu wakatumwa naMwari ane zita rainzi Yowane.2. Kukura kunofanira kuva kwake, He must grow greater. I mustkuderera kuve kwangu grow smaller (John 3.30).The sentence 'He must grow greater', as spoken by John the Baptist, refersto the growth of Christ's influence whereas the word kukura should be usedto refer only to physical growth.3. Zuva rePentekoste rakazosvika, When Pentecost day came round,' rikawana vose vakaungana, vari they had all met in one room,pamwechete. when suddenly they heard whatsounded like a powerful windfrom heaven (Acts 2:1).Rikawana vose vakaungana may be a good English or Hebrew or Greekconstruction, but it is certainly not a construction acceptable to the nativeShona-speaker. We just do not use such an expression as zuva rakawanain this context.4. Varume valsrael. You Israelites (Acts 3:12).Unless this is a misprint, it means 'The husbands of Israel'!5. Imi ndimi vana vavaProfita ne- You are the heirs of the pro-, vechitenderano chakaita Mwari, phets, the heirs of the covenant(achitenderana) nemadzitateguru God made with our ancestorsedu. (Acts 3:24).The word 'heirs' is not translated by vana (children), but by something> much more specific such as vagari venhaka. Further the translation seemsto require a passive, chakaitwa naMwari, rather than the active inverted form' chakaita.6. Zita rake rinoera. Holy is his name, and his mercyAnonzwira tsitsi kuna avo vano- reaches from age to age for those' mutya. who fear him (Luke 1:48).1 The applied extended verb stem nzwira (feel for) requires the use of twoobject complements, tsitsi (mercy) and avo vanomutya (those who fear Him),not an object and an adverbial locative phrase kuna avo vanomutya (lit.where those who fear Him are).72 SHONA BIBLE TRANSLATION7. Zita remhandara iyo ainzi Maria. Angere akamuti, 'kwaziwaiMambo anemi' pakunzwezvi, zvakaisvomukangaidza Angere ndo-kumuti, 'Musatye, VaMaria.'The singular and the plural are used interchangeably; for example(Luke 1:26-46):Such a mixture of registers is not characteristic of Shona. In Shona novels,if the narrator is talking about VaMarumbeni, he will keep on using theplural of respect. Obviously, registers are changed but not in such a capriciousway. As Fr Hannan was a Catholic, his translation of this passage mighthave been influenced by his respect for Mary and hence the plural of respect.8. Zvaaifamba munyasi megungwa As he was walking by the SeareGaririya, Jesu wakaona muko- of Galilee he saw two brothers,ma nomununguna vari vaviri, Simon, who was called Peter, andSimoni anonzi Petrosi, nomunu- his brother Andrew (Matt. 4:18).ngurta wake Andreya.This syntax is unnatural in Shona and would not come from a native Shona-speaker. In Shona, once one says, Mukoma nomununguna, it is alreadyimplied that they are two, and the use of vaviri is not only redundant butinappropriate.9. Ngwarai kuti murege kuita uru- Be careful not to parade yourrami hwenyu pamberi pavanhu good deeds before men to attractnokuda kuti muonekwe navo. their notice (Matt. 6:1).An abstract noun such as ururami is not a proper object for the verb kuita(to do, make, etc.)10. Regai kuzviifa utongi hwezvava- Do not judge, and you will notmwe. be judged (Matt 7:1).This is not the way the Shona speak! We would simply say, 'Musatongavamwe', or more clumsily, 'Musazviita vatongi vavamwe'. Utongi is anabstract noun like judgement. How then can one be utongi?11. Bouno munhu aiva namapere- After he had come down frommbudzi akauya kwaari, akamu- the mountain large crowds fol-pfugamira. lowed him. A leper now cameup and bowed low in front ofhim. (Matt. 8:2).The form houno (here is one) is used to indicate the present tense: hencecannot be used of past actions or states.12. Ndiro Dama rakanaka raMwana- This news is about the Son ofkomana wake, wakazozvarwa God who, according to the humanan wedzinza raDavidi nezvou- nature he took, was a descendantmunhu hwake. of David (Romans 1:3).The phrase nezvoumunhu hwake appears to be a translation of the JerusalemBible's version 'according to the human nature he took'. The phrase sezvino-Hwa vanhu is a far more natural and idiomatic way of conveying this ideawhich is beyond human experience.J. C. KUMBIRAI 7313. Ndinokukwazisai mose, vadika- To you all, then, who are God'snwi vaMwari, munogara Roma, beloved in Rome, called to beimi makadanwa kuti muve vanhu saints, may God our Father andvaakazviitira vake. the Lord Jesus Christ send graceand peace (Romans 1:7).The phrase vaakazviitira vake involves the use of the reflexive J-zvi-J inthe applied extended verb phrase -itira vake: a combination which soundsextremely contrived. The rendering vaakasarudza kuti vave vanhu vakesounds preferable and much more natural.14. Ndinogarokumbirisa kuti zvi- The God I worship spirituallymwe, zvichida, nokuda kwa- by preaching the Good News ofMwari, ndigozowaniswa pandi- his son knows that I never failngaerekane ndazosvikawoko to mention you in my prayers,kwamuri. and to ask to be allowed at longlast the opportunity to visit you,if he so wills (Romans 1:10-11).This is a needlessly involved rendering. The whole of the consecutive clausefrom ndigozowaniswa onwards would be far more simply translated asndibvumidzwewo kusvikako kwamuri.The fourteen examples cited show that the weakness of Fr Hannan'stranslations lies in sentence structure and, to a lesser extent, in syntax.Nida points out that in a translation, all the words of a language may becorrect, and yet the translation may not be understood by the native speakersbecause of the sentence structure employed. He comments on the unintel-ligibility to native speakers of certain translations: 'In several instances nativeshave been observed to read a translation in their own language quite welland yet fail to understand the meaning because the grammatical structurewas so unnatural and complicated that they could not follow.' Nida furtherobserves: 'Not only must the length of the clauses and their subordinationbe adjusted in many instances, but the order of the words and phrases mustbe carefully considered.'Fr Hannan's translation is often disappointing in this regard. Was hetoo anxious to keep close to the original tex,t of the Bible? I remembersuggesting this to him, and his answer was, 'Our translation must keep asclose as possible to what the Bible means.' Unfortunately, if keeping as closeas possible to the original text means generating the type of sentences thatI have cited, then the translation would defeat its own purpose; it wouldfail to deliver the meaning and message.The question that springs to mind is whether Fr Hannan had notsufficiently internalized the linguistic and syntactic structures so that hecould generate sentences that are acceptable to the native speaker; but thegood sentences that we cited earlier, the remarks made by Fr Samupindi,and Fr Hannan's own fame as a good Shona-speaker would tend to refute174 SHONA BIBLE TRANSLATIONthis idea. What then is the explanation? Was the good translation in Chite-nderano Chitsva done by somebody else or in collaboration with him andthe bad translation by him alone? This is difficult to decide; but as oneof his colleagues in the work of translation and from contact with his co-workers, I can only surmise that the lapses in his work were due to anincomplete grasp of the whole range of Shona idiom. He found it difficultto abandon certain habits and usages even where these were found deficientor misleading by native speakers. There was also a certain obstinancy attimes in his response to corrections and criticisms and this may go someway towards explaining why certain passages do not succeed. Furthermore,certain parts of the New Testament, notably from Acts to Revelation in-clusive, did not receive the same attention from others as the Gospels did.Obviously, it might be due to a number of other causes, for I do not pretendfor one moment that I have exhausted all the possibilities.CONCLUSIONNotwithstanding all that I have said, Fr Hannan was definitely a verbalartist. It is rare that a man's artistic achievement is sufficiently appreciatedin his lifetime or ever fully appreciated at all. Although his outstandingcontribution to Shona literature and culture was acknowledged by an honorarydegree of D. Litt. from the University of Rhodesia, posterity may yet dis-cover much that we have missed in him. The Shona have a proverb whichsuccintly endorses my suggestion: 'Muchero unokurumbira wakuva' (Thedeliciousness of a fruit is highly praised when the fruit is out of season).Finally, this article should not be misconstrued as an attempt to mini-mize Fr Hannan's gigantic intellectual stature but rather seen as an endeavourto pay tribute to the greatness of his achievement, especially in view of thefact that he was a native speaker of neither the source nor the receptorlanguage that he worked on.