At Matthew 27:46, we read (version Douay): And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying: Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani? That is, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? At Mark 15:34, again version Douay, we also read: And, at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying: Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabacthani? Which is, being interpreted: My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me? This entry will examine the Latin, Polish and Friulian readings of Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabacthani? (or Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani?), such being the fourth of the seven final words of Jesus on the cross.
Latin. Deus meus, Deus meus, ut quid dereliquisti me? The Latin for God is the masculine noun Deus, in both the nominative and the vocative. As for the possessive adjective my, the Latin, in the masculine singular, is meus (nominative) and mi (vocative). However, in the words of Jesus, we find instead vocative meus, so that Deus meus spoken by Jesus is in fact in vocative position. Another instance of vocative meus is found at Judith 12:4, where we read domine meus (my lord), with domine clearly being the vocative of dominus, and meus (also vocative) according therewith. Ut quid is read why. The second-person singular dereliquisti means thou hast forsaken; the lemma form of this verb is derelinquo (I forsake; present infinitive derelinquere, to forsake). The Latin me (me) is the accusative position of ego (I). Wherefore: Deus meus, Deus meus, ut quid dereliquisti me? (my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?).
Polish. Boże mój, Boże mój, czemuś Mnie opuścił? The Polish for God is the masculine noun Bóg (nominative), which takes the form Boże in the vocative. The reader who attends Mass in Polish will hear this vocative form employed in the kolekta, where it may appear as Boże (O God) on its own, or in some other form of address, such as Wszechmogący Boże (O Almighty God), Wszechmogący, wieczny Boże (O Almighty ever-living God), Wszechmogący i miłosierny Boże (O Almighty and merciful God). As for the possessive adjective my, the Polish, in the masculine singular, is mój in both the nominative and the vocative. Czemuś is the combination of czemu (why) and the second-person singular suffix ś; given that czemuś already bears the marker of the second-person singular, the verb need not: opuścił, rather than opuściłeś. The verb in question in czemuś Mnie opuścił is the past tense of the perfective opuścić (to forsake), whose imperfective counterpart is, for information, opuszczać. The Polish mnie (me) is the accusative position of ja (I). Wherefore: Boże mój, Boże mój, czemuś Mnie opuścił? (My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?).
Friulian. Diu gno, Diu gno, parcè mo mi âstu bandonât? The Friulian for God is the masculine noun Diu. As for the possessive adjective my, the Friulian, in the masculine singular, is gno, normally preceded by the definite article, for instance: il gno non (my name); il gno paron (my master); il gno pecjât (my sin). But when the possessive adjective modifies the name of a family member in the singular, the definite article is omitted: gno pari (my father); gno fradi (my brother); gno fi (my son); it is also omitted when the possessive adjective appears after the noun it modifies: Diu gno (my God). The interrogative parcè means why; the verb used therewith must take its interrogative form. Consider these instances: (i) tu âs (thou hast), parcè âstu? (why hast thou?); (ii) tu âs fat (thou hast done), parcè âstu fat? (why hast thou done?); (iii) tu âs fevelât (thou hast spoken), parcè âstu fevelât? (why hast thou spoken?). The infinitive bandonâ means to forsake, whence parcè mi âstu bandonât? for Friulian equivalent of why hast thou forsaken me?, with tu mi âs bandonât (thou hast forsaken me) having taken interrogative form. Now the Friulian also includes mo in the question of Jesus; this mo may be read ever, so that parcè mo should take the reading why ever. Wherefore: Diu gno, Diu gno, parcè mo mi âstu bandonât? (my God, my God, why ever hast thou forsaken me?).