Could you please explain this to me? I don’t want to derail the thread, but I really just don’t get it. I think I understand the desire to keep the liturgy of the Latin Rite in the Latin language, though I don’t agree. But what about prayers and everyday discussions about the truths of the faith in Latin?
In Church Slavonic, it is святой дух, which translates to either Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, but the word призрак would be used to specifically mean a specter or ghost (in Russian). I’m not familiar with Greek, but a quick check on Google translate seems to indicate that the situation is the same in Greek as well. Basically, if you put in “Holy Spirit” you get one translation, you get a particular word. If you put in “Holy Ghost”, you get the same translation. If you put in “spirit” it gives you the same word as in the previous examples. If you put in “ghost”, it gives you an entirely different word.
As previous posters have mentioned, the English language has changed, so what might have previously been a good translation is no longer. That is one reason why the King James version of the Bible is problematic. The very nature of a dynamic language necessitates periodic new translations. Should we only stick to the original languages in all things, never offering a translation and thus only making them available to those well educated in the original language? I’m glad that St. Jerome did not feel that way about the scriptures, instead translating them into the vernacular of his time, Latin. Translation is always going to problematic. The addition of the filioque (in Latin) to the Greek creed was an attempt to clarify a translation when the Greek word used simply could not come across completely in the Latin. It is an art to faithfully transmit the literal meaning, figurative, meaning, literary flow and numerous other considerations.
Finally, how is Holy Ghost more the truth than Holy Spirit? Is there a theological distinction that I’m not getting?