Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?

Subject: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: Haruo
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 01:00 AM

One of the better antiwar hymns of the early 20th century was Clifford Bax's Turn Back, O Man [link to The Cyber Hymnal], written in response to the Great War of 1914 and first published in 1919.

Unfortunately, its language is too archaic and too androcentric to be readily introduced to new singers today. So I'm wondering if any of you know of good rewrites (modernized or inclusivized or both, but especially the latter) of it. The Esperanto version, Pentu vi, homoj, avoids the problems but is, unfortunately, Greek to most American churchgoers. ;-(

Liland

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: Sorcha
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 11:59 AM

Liland, I went and read it and it didn't seem any more archaic to me than a lot of other hymns. I don't really see a problem. If there is, it shouldn't be too difficult to change. Why don't you give it a shot?

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 12:56 PM

Just use "thou" instead of "man"???

There is a growing body of experience among those Episcopal churches who have NOT modernized thier language, using King James language in services-- growing at a fantastic rate. If the material itself is of value and genuine, the words enhance it, it seems. The formal language still creates a mood nothing else can match.

Even Hebrew came back into daily usage eventually. *G*

~S~

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 12:58 PM

"Man" in this context clearly means exactly the same as "homoj" - human being.

The word "man" in English has two meanings, one being the English for the Latin word "homo", human being, the other being the English for the Latin word vir, male human being.

There are certain contexts in which it is probabaly reasonable enough to change the language to avoid any possible confusion - but this isn't one of them, I suggest.

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 02:18 PM

I've just read through it properly, and, aside from saying "thou" instead of "you" and "wilt" instead of "will", I can't see anything at all archaic about the language. Formal, yes, but what's archaic about formal?

As for "O Man", unless someone envisages the song as being addressed to an individual, which is a bit unlikely, it has to mean humanity as a whole, male and female. Which is yet a third meaning of the word.

Logically if someone objects to Man for the species because it's also used for one of the genders, they should do the same about "Goose" or "Duck", for example. I've never heard anyone do that for some uunaccountable reason. But maybe it's a controversial topic between Geese and Ganders and Ducks and Drakes and so forth...

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: Haruo
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 02:38 PM

McGrath, I beg to differ on the inclusiveness bit. I think that there are enough people (including many men) in the churches (or at least in those churches that don't look to Falwell and Robinson for guidelines on how when and what to repent of) who are genuinely put off by the use of "man" (or even "mankind") to mean "homoj" that this truly needs redressing. As to the other point, you're all correct in pointing out that most of what I was calling "archaic" is merely formal. Anyhow, thanks, you all. Be sure to look at my hymnic braggadocio, too.

Liland

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 02:52 PM

Not redressing, rethinking. There are things that are wrong that need changing about the way we use language, but it should be done on a case by case, thought out basis, not painting by numbers style.

So for example sometimes where liturgical language talks about "men", or "a man" it might well be better changed, so as to make it clearer that it means women as well. But in this particular case there is no possible confusion, so changing it is in my view redundant. It fact I think that doing so in a case like this would undeermine the strength of the case for making changes where it was appropriate.

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: Deda
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 03:05 PM

This hymn was included in the rock musical Godspell, and it had (has) huge appeal in spite of the archaic language. It didn't seem to be a problem to the audiences of the (I'm guessing here) 1980s -- not so terribly long ago. I don't know the hymnal tune, I only know this from the musical so it may have had a different tune.

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 05:37 PM

"Godspell" debuted in 1971.

C'mere Jesus, I got somethin' to show ya!

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: Peg
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 12:06 AM

The Godspell version is written to be sung by a woman in burlesque, honky-tonk seductive style; hence the language works fine the way it is!

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 01:18 AM

Peel me a grape sweetheart!!

Singing both parts in this song made me discover I had an extra 2/3rds octave hanging around down there, which I'd never used.... always wanted to sing it in church, but could never find a feather boa......

LTS

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 06:39 AM

Good hymn, I reckon it'd be great to sing. I'd love to hear Norma Waterson have a go at it. Or our own champion treaties.

"Archaic language" indeed. Well, it's grammatical, but I'd question whether that in itself counts as archaic. And there are the "thous", which could be sung just as well as "yous". In the context of folksong noone would call jib at that kind of thing? Why are people in church supposed to be so neophiliac anyway? (Well they aren't - it's the people who pick the hymns who are the problem...)

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 08:26 AM

For an example of how "archaic language" need be no barrier to people recognising a good song and singing it, see this current thread, Lyr Req: Row On for a hymn that over the last few years has become enormously popular in folk circles in England.

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: Burke
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 07:34 PM

I tend to think we should write new hymns instead of 'fixing' old ones. Earth as female tends to get tossed out when doing inclusive language & that's a very powerful image in this hymn that I really like. Here are my suggestions. I'm not crazy about O soul, I was thinking of "Turn back, sinner," but it doesn't really feel right. My parenthetical suggestions use the technique I've seen used elsewhere of turning 'man' to 'us.'

Turn back, O soul, forswear thy foolish ways.
Old now is earth, and none may count her days.
Yet thou, her child, whose head is crowned with flame,
Still wilt not hear thine inner God proclaim,
"Turn back, O soul, forswear thy foolish ways."

Earth might be fair, and all seem glad and wise.
Age after age their tragic empires rise,
Built while they dream, and in that dreaming weep:
Would all (we) but wake from out their (our) haunted sleep,
Earth might be fair and all seem glad and wise.

Earth shall be fair, and all her people one:
Nor till that hour shall God's whole will be done.
Now, even now, once more from earth to sky,
Peals forth in joy the (our) old undaunted cry—
"Earth shall be fair, and all her folk be one!"

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: Burke
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 07:39 PM

I just reread the 2nd verse. I think be would be better than seem. Using be twice in the line is probably not good poetry, but the last line does not want to just seem.

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 07:02 AM

Neatly done Burke. I still see no reason at all in this case for changing the original words, but if it had to be done you've done it neatly.

I notice that you've left in the "thous", therefore, quite correctly in my opinion, ignoring the "archaic" objection. (1919 archaic? Or is the more fitting word "unfashionable"?) As my link to that other thread about "Row on" indicated, my view is that people should be very cautious about rejecting language just because it is "archaic".

The objection to "Man", though in my view it just doesn't begin to stand up in this case, is at least about something that matters.

An alternative to "Soul" might be "Friend" - "Turn back O Friend" would sound quite good, and give the song a Quakerish feeling in keeping with its message.

Both Soul and Friuend, unlike Man, direct the hymnn towards the individual rather than the human race as a whole. Maybe that is a good thing. (But I'd want to use the original.)

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: GUEST,Dave (the ancient mariner at work)
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 08:29 AM

SIGH... "Man" embraces "woman" Of the family of "mankind". It is gender neutral. I hate political correctness, and the stupidity of changing language in this manner. Yours, Aye. Dave. (A seamans discharge book states "Seaman" he/she)

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: Burke
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 09:45 AM

One thing about changing lyrics is that most people don't have that many hymns memorized & if they do it's usually just the first verse. People will notice changing 'O man' the rest would probably pass unnoticed by most. I briefly thought about 'O Earth' for a more universal cast to the hymn, but given the 2nd line just would not fly. The word Man in the original can really be interpreted as either all people, or generic individual person. Choosing another word does change that, perhaps deliberate, ambiguity.

Changing the grammar to be less archaic is much more noticable even when you don't know quite what it is that's going on. Given that these words come from 1919, the grammar was already outdated as compared to normal spoken English, so staying with the author's original words fits.

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: MMario
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 10:03 AM

given the lyrics "Turn back o Fool" might also fit. However - if you are going to make the language inclusive there, then to be fair one should also make the references to Earth gender neutral.

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 03:46 PM

No need to worry about that - a lot of the people who might get worried about Man quite probably would like the idea of Gaeia anyway.

But I find the whole idea of changing where there is no valid reason to change, or benefit from the change very dispiriting. Symptomatic of something. Something wrong.

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: Penny S.
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:30 PM

The use of thou indicates singular man, does it not?

Cat among the pigeons, aren't most of the men (homo) responsible for the faults commented on in the hymn also men (vir)? Being in the position to take the decisions which waste the earth - I'm sure that women in the same place would not be innocent.

Can we go back to calling men weremen? since that is the derivation from the original, where man (homo) was modified into wifman (femina) and wereman (vir). somebody decided that men (vir) were the base state and didn't require differentiation. Without that, it would be true to use man as inclusive.

This is one of the hymns where the poetry is so good that it seems very wrong to change it. I've seen a dire rewrite of Dear Lord and Father which loses the rhyme scheme and the sound effects in its eagerness to abandon possible gender problems, and substitute the impersonal you for the personal thou (in verse by a Quaker, who used thou in everyday speech).

Penny

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 08:44 PM

The use of thou indicates singular man, does it not? No - "Thou" is collective here rather than singular -

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: GUEST,Penny S
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 11:43 AM

I thought that it was the equivalent of tu, du, etc, and used to people who were close to the speaker, or inferior, as a child would be. Using it of God would be like using it within family.

Penny

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 02:29 PM

The one place where degenderizing the language completely fails is in the hymn "Veni Emanuel" -- the one part that so admirably says:

Born as man with man to dwell
Jesus, our Emanuel

There is no way to gender-bowdlerize this that doesn't just totally bung-up the poetry.

Sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone. I always fear that if we totally sanitize everything that comes to us from the past, we stand to lose the realization that things are better now (where they are, anyway).

Alex

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 03:19 PM

Sing it in Latin, and the problem, if there is a problem, doesn't arise.

But using words like "sanitize" in this kind of context is not really appropriate. There is nothing "dirty" in using a word like Man in a setting where it clearly does not mean male human being, but refers to all human beings.

There are times when it makes sense to change the words you sing, when you are siging a song as a song, rather than as a historical document.

For example, if you are singing Swanee river, it becomes a better and more accessible song in my view, if you sing "people" or something like that instead of "darkies". And there are other times when that it appropriate.

For example at a funeral service for a woman, it moighht be a greta thing to sing "She who would valiant be" instead of "He" - not sanitizing or anything like that, but making it more applicable and meaningful.

But you do it when it is appropriate, and not when it isn't, and you use your intelligence and your experience of life to decide when it's needed and when it isn't. If you go round with a little checklist of things that might need changing in some contexts, and then use this as a kind of blanket blacklist, that's just making the whole idea of sensitivity in the use of language appear ridiculous.

And of course there is somethinmg totally ridiculous in the idea of anyone claiming to be in favour of using language more sensitively, but doing so in an insensitive manner.

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 04:59 PM

I never thought of that: sing it in Latin and the problem completely disappears, because NOBODY understands ANY of the words! Thank God for dead languages!

Alex

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 05:33 PM

Church Latin is pretty straightyforward really.

But the point is, in Latin this silly argument couldn't arise, because the word for male human being is not the same as the word for human being.

This sort of thing doesn't seem to worry people so much in a folk setting. Oh Sinner Man I don't think I've ever heard any one saying that ought to be amended before it is fit to sing.

Subject: RE: Help: Turn Back O Man - inclusive language?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 05:57 PM

Since you're effectively making up a new language, why not just write new hymns?