In Greek the word in “Behold the man” was clearly male: Ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος. In Vulgate Latin too: ecce homo. In several German translations I find “der Mensch”, which has a male gender but can refer to humans in general. The Norwegian menneske is always neuter. In an older Norwegian translation it was Se det menneske! (Det Norsk Bibelselskap 1930). But in a newer one, it was Se denne mann!» (En Levende Bok), which renders the Greek better.
Anthropos (I can't do Greek letters on my phone) is masculine only in the grammatical sense. It means human person and can refer to a man or woman. The ancient Greek for man in the masculine sense was aner (long e). So menneske is actually the perfect translation. It's English that confuses the issue because man used to mean mankind in general, but now only means a male.
And at least 10 lesson groups earlier, we learned "man" is used for "one" (as in "man kan betaler").10jul17
Because in this context you want the connotation of "mankind/humankind," not just "adult male human."
The point is that students of language should try to use gender-neutral translations. Menneske is gender neutral, man is not. So if the student did not understand the cultural literary reference, which is usually translated from the Latin as, "Behold the Man", the correct translation would be "see the person." "See the "human being" ,"see the human", or "see him/her" are possible but seem more stilted.
Why should students try to use gender neutral translations? I can understand being sensitive of gendered language in your own speech but if you are translating someone else's words shouldn't your aim to to confer what they are saying as precisely as possible?
yes. isnt "menneske" and gender-neutral word? (maybe i am wrong here, but i thought it meant "person", whereas "man" would be "mann). then, in order to stay true to the words you are translating, "menneske" should be translated as "person" and not as "man" or "woman". correct me if i am wrong, i am only hear to learn :D
It's a quote from the bible where Pilate is referring to Jesus. So it is a specific male person in question, not mankind.
I discover today "behold the man" and I was not disturbed :
- We have the translation inside the dotted line
- When we learn a language we know that the literal translation is often not possible.
- If we get a wrong answer, we just check the good one, maybe we ask in the discussion if we don't understand something, and next time it will be easy to answer.
Yes, translated correctly from the Latin because of its reference. However, for beginning students using this quote for translation could be confusing, since usually "mennesket" is better translated "human beings" or "humans."
"MenneskET" is always better translated as "THE human being" or "THE human".
Anyhow, "sexist" is the least appropriate word to express discontent with the inappropriateness of the sentence. So, even if the course authors made an ill choice of wording, then so did you, no offense :)
I'm just wondering whether the word Mennesket is not gender-biased, etymologically speaking.
Getting back to something more serious, I wonder if "MenneskET" is always better translated as THE human being.." I don't know Norwegian very well, but in German, "der Mensch" can be a way of expressing an abstract category that in English is often translated as "human beings" or "humans."