D:  was "O loving and kind Master"

          Vladyko                                  Chelovikolubche

         Master                                                Lover of Mankind

see also note 17a

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/207039/page/1/fpart/2

Φιλανθρωποσ - This term is discussed relatively briefly in the present book, because as a footnote (16 on p. 56, to be precise) in the book indicates, I devoted about six pages to this term in an article in Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Stuides in 1998 - please read that article if you wish the fuller discussion, including the Biblical background of this word. The desire for "inclusive language" adds to the difficulty of translation of this and other important terms...

Serge Keleher

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/207039/page/1/fpart/2

Again, the statement that I am the responsible party for the "horizontal inclusive language" in the text is purely the Administrator's fantasy. Let me say it more plainly, it's not how it happened. I am in favor of some "horizontal inclusive language," but would prefer "Lover of Humankind," to "who loves us all." Of course, since I promised confidentiality in the proceedings, this will give a warrant for anyone to hold me responsible for whatever they think I should be held responsible for.

Fr. David

http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.html

from Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal

III. Examples of problems related to questions of "inclusive language" and of the use of masculine and feminine terms

A. In an effort to avoid completely the use of the term "man" as a translation of the Latin homo, the translation often fails to convey the true content of that Latin term, and limits itself to a focus on the congregation actually present or to those presently living. The simultaneous reference to the unity and the collectivity of the human race is lost. The term "humankind", coined for purposes of "inclusive language", remains somewhat faddish and ill-adapted to the liturgical context, and, in addition, it is usually too abstract to convey the notion of the Latin homo. The latter, just as the English "man", which some appear to have made the object of a taboo, are able to express in a collective but also concrete and personal manner the notion of a partner with God in a Covenant who gratefully receives from him the gifts of forgiveness and Redemption. At least in many instances, an abstract or binomial expression cannot achieve the same effect.

B. In the Creed, which has unfortunately also maintained the first-person plural "We believe" instead of the first-person singular of the Latin and of the Roman liturgical tradition, the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave. This text ­"For us and for our salvation"-no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.