# Pater noster qui 'es' in caelis ....



## belvidere

In this sentence, "Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur Nomen tuum", it appears that "es" is the second person of "sum".  I guess it must be signifying, "Our Father, _*you*_ who are in heaven?"


----------



## Agró

belvidere said:


> In this sentence, "Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur Nomen tuum", it appears that "es" is the second person of "sum".  I guess it must be signifying, "Our Father, _*you*_ who are in heaven?"



That's right.
_Ego sum_ (I am)
_Tu *es*_(You *are*)

What else did you think "Our Father, who are in heaven" could mean? I'm curious.


----------



## Cagey

Are you asking the question because the English translation often includes the pronoun _you_? 

It is true that Latin does not use a pronoun where English requires it.  In Latin, the verb also indicates the subject.   
_Es in caelis_ is a complete sentence in Latin.  

In English, "Are in heaven" is not.  We require that the subject be made explicit -- "_You_ are in heaven" -- and we add _you_ to our translation.


----------



## belvidere

The second person was a bit unexpected.   I suppose third person appeared more likely at first.


----------



## Cagey

Yes, the speaker of the line is addressing God, who is therefore 'you'.


----------



## obz

> In English, "Are in heaven" is not. We require that the subject be made explicit -- "You are in heaven" -- and we add you to our translation.



Sorry, but his is not truly accurate.
In English, which typically holds the archaic second person informal conjugation of "thou", the most common translation is "father, who art in heaven".
The pronouns you/thou are not used in this common refrain, and sound odd if introduced.


----------



## Cagey

obz said:


> Sorry, but his is not truly accurate.
> In English, which typically holds the archaic second person informal conjugation of "thou", the most common translation is "father, who art in heaven".
> The pronouns you/thou are not used in this common refrain, and sound odd if introduced.


My apologies. I  was not clear.  I meant that that "Are in heaven" does not work as a stand-alone sentence.  In more complex structures, we take the subject from elsewhere.  In the relative clause "who art in heaven", _who_ is the explicit subject of the verb, _art_.


----------



## obz

> "Are in heaven" does not work as a stand-alone sentence.



With that, I completely agree.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Es de notar que las _*comas*_ en el texto latino están *descolocadas*. Debe ser *pater noster qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum, adueniat regnum tuum…* La oración adjetiva es adyacente del vocativo *pater* (del que se esperan todos esos subjuntivos optativos), y, además, debe ir en la entonación con *pater*, y no tener una entonación independiente ya que no es explicativa.


----------



## Kevin Beach

belvidere said:


> In this sentence, "Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur Nomen tuum", it appears that "es" is the second person of "sum".  I guess it must be signifying, "Our Father, _*you*_ who are in heaven?"


Concentrate on the "qui", which means "who". It isn't necessary, and in this case it would be wrong, to interpret *es* as *you* are/*thou* art.

In BrE certainly, and I suspect in AmE until about 50 years ago, the passage is always translated as "Our Father, *who art* in Heaven" despite attempts to modernise the English wording. Indeed, in the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer, I believe it is still rendered as "Our Father, *which art* in Heaven..."


----------



## Ben Jamin

Cagey said:


> Yes, the speaker of the line is addressing God, who is therefore 'you'.


  Is 'Pater' in vocative?


----------



## Cagey

Ben Jamin said:


> Is 'Pater' in vocative?


Yes it is.  In most declensions of Latin, the vocative has the same form as the nominative, as it does here.


----------



## XiaoRoel

> Yes it is.  In most declensions of Latin, the vocative has the same form as the nominative, as it does here.


Para ser exactos, ante la ausencia de forma de vocativo se usa en su lugar el nominativo.


----------

