user11009: Most of the English translation I read, Anatta is translated as not-self and Anicca as impermanence.
However many Sri Lankan Buddhist monks do not agree with this translation.
They say it is a miss translation by Buddhagosha.
According to many Buddhist monks, it appears, Anicca means our inability to control the five aggregate. Anatta means the futile nature of the five aggregate. Is this true?

user5000: 
"Anicca means our inability to control the five aggregate."

Original translation of Anicca: impermanent.
2nd translation of Anicca: our inability to control the five aggregates.
Both translations refer to the same.
When one has no ability to control the five aggregates, impermanence is present.
It's because of the inability to control the five aggregates, that impermanence arises. Thus, looking at both translations with such wisdom, they are both correct.
If we use the 2nd translation, you must realize the nature of the five aggregates. Once realized, you know how and why they arise. By knowing how and why they arise, you get the ability to control the five aggregates. Once you get the ability to control them, you make them cease. Once ceased, impermanence is destroyed.
Both translation lead you to the same result: cessation of suffering. Cessation of impermanence.

"Anatta means the futile nature of the five aggregate."

Original translation of Anatta: not self.
2nd translation of Anatta: the futile nature of the five aggregates.
Both translations refer to the same.
When the futile nature of the five aggregates is present, one is subjected to clinging onto this wrong view: "this is self".
The futile nature of the five aggregates is like a magician playing a magic trick and you being ignorant can't recognize it's a magic trick. Once you start investigating and scrutinizing the magician's magic trick you slowly start to see how it works and once you realize how it works, you finally realize it was just a magic trick! 
In the same way, when you investigate and scrutinize the futile nature of the five aggregates, you slowly start to see how it works and once you realize how it works, you finally realize it was just "not self"!
When one realizes the futile nature of the five aggregates, one is free from the wrong view: "this is self" and comes to the right view: "this is not self"
Thus, looking at both translations with such wisdom, they are both correct.
And what is the futile nature of the five aggregates?
It arises and it ceases. It does that for a very very long time. In doing so it does not lead to happiness, to the cessation of suffering, but always to suffering, to impermanence. It always ends in suffering. It leads to suffering. That's why it is futile. When one sees this futility, he comes to the realization "If this were self, it wouldn't be subjected to such futility" and concludes "thus, this is not self".
Why he comes to such conclusion? Read my answer here: Impermanent self 

"Most of the English translation I read, Anatta is translated as
  not-self and Anicca as impermanence. However many Sri Lankan Buddhist
  monks do not agree with this translation."

I wouldn't say that there is disagreement in the translation. They just translate it or interpret it differently to explain the same thing. I would say this is more a question about the way of passing wisdom to listeners. They translated/interpreted it differently so to lead their listeners to the realization of the truth. Nonetheless, bot translations/interpretations lead the listener to the same goal: cessation of suffering.

user-1: Nyom Sarath, and those with interest,
At(t)ma(n)-peap (my person, "I-ness", usually, polite and modest 3rd person addressing of oneself when speaking with householder as pabbajita "one gone forth", here where he dwells) followed the hard leaded discussion on many places of Dhamma-discussion a little, which was merely very un-welcome to many and sometimes "brutal" and ignorant approached, from my persons view, especially in scholar-spheres and where practicing is merely secondary matter, even unwished to be discussed.
Coming to this question, not as a linguistic scholar and also not as a script scholar, but from a practical use, also of language and of it's sense, in relation to the practice and aim.
Here in Cambodia, which maybe has the longest unbroken "oral only"-tradition, with less exchange to organised communities elsewhere and seemingly long unbroken lineage without much scholars, in a more modern way, and scripts very young, many pali and sanskrit words are living part of the countries language in daily use, and also general translations into Khmer (khema = land or person at peace) language are mostly often different to modern translation in living languages.
The word atthanay,for example, as part of common language, adjectivly used, means simply "makes no sense", "has nothing to hold on".
Anicca is translated as min-deang or *min-dang (khmer), which means, not-knowable, not to see, not control-able, not in the sphere of control or foreseeable.
That would, independently of this "old" Sri Lankan approach, Sarath quoted,

Anicca means our inability to control the five aggregate. Anatta means the futile nature of the five aggregate.

fit well with each other. Practical in living language and meaning, as well practical in relation of the path, for the aim to get ride of suffering/stress, rather to find such as an "I" or destroy it.
At the heart - the sense stays actually (like also particly mentikned by Beginner her) the same with the usual words - it would, for a good and in line of the general context of the Dhamma, and ways conductive for the path, just fit better than use the modern/popular words, since speculations about, if there is a self or not, needs to be avoided, and are root causes of suffering (e.g. papanca).
But maybe the "problem", causing disputes, lies merely there, that the issue of at least emptiness, usually have not been taught to the untrained person (mind), and that people not free of sakkaya-ditthi, one of the lower fetter, self-view, self-believe, has simply a hard to work without self or not-self, therefore prever the use of one or another extreme and bend it here and there that it does not possible seem like eternal- or nihilism, but still is.
How ever, to cut away a "dangerous" assuming that some might draw from it: that would not mean that Nibbana is self - making a dopple-chance in a thought line - it just would mean that Nibbana makes sense (attha), aside of all other phenomenas which do not (anattha), and it is no more not in the sphere of insecurity, niccha, secure. For whom or what, is no question in this sphere, cut off, made an end.
How ever, my person never come across a saying of "nibbana atta, nibbana niccaṃ" quoting the Buddha, ditectly. Maybe out of good reason as well, such was not said, since Nibbana is not an antidote to Samsara, but "simply" beyond.
But this "tiny" distinction fits also well into the "not-modern" translation, suggested here:

anattā
While in the case of the first two characteristics it is stated that all formations (sabbe sankhārā) are impermanent and subject to suffering, the corresponding text for the third characteristic states that "all things are not-self" (sabbe dhammā anattā; M. 35, Dhp. 279).

Hence: Nibbana "just" nicca: secure: might be possible valid to express, taken that sabbe dhammā anattā incl. Nibbana (for security to be not mistaken as "the Self")
So the answer here will again either stay food for not conductive thoughts for the path either, or possible lead even more "just" to practice and see (dang km) for "oneself" (kluan eing km).
May all able to, gain the best out of it and reach the stream till highest fruit.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for any commercial purpose or other wordily gains]

user295: Anatta - non / not self is right. No self is wrong as it is an extreme view. See: Ananda Sutta
Anicca - impermanence. In ability to control comes because of impermanence but this is more to do with Anatta.
Anatta is also the in ability to control the 5 aggregates, 6 sense bases and their experience, not anicca.
Also see: Sutta references which Discuss Self and Not Self under Different Contexts

user8157: It is 'anatta' that means our inability to control the five aggregate, as found in the Pali as follows, where the word 'anicca' is not found at all:

Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, anattā. Rūpañca hidaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṃ rūpaṃ ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca rūpe: ‘evaṃ me rūpaṃ
  hotu, evaṃ me rūpaṃ mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ
  anattā, tasmā rūpaṃ ābādhāya saṃvattati, na ca labbhati rūpe: ‘evaṃ me
  rūpaṃ hotu, evaṃ me rūpaṃ mā ahosī’ti.
Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to disease, and it would be possible to have it
  of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because
  form is nonself, form leads to disease, and it is not possible to
  have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’
SN 22.59

It is 'anicca' that means the futile nature ('dukkha') of the five aggregates, as also explained in SN 22.59:

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent (niccaṃ) or
  impermanent (aniccaṃ)?"
"Impermanent (aniccaṃ), O Lord (O Bhante)."
"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or
  satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is
  it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my
  self (attā)'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

Anatta (not-self) is the recognition that conditioned things (such as the five aggregates) do not belong to you (i.e., are not "mine") and cannot be an intrinsic permanent "you" (i.e., are not "me") due to their impermanent (anicca) nature. 

11009: <p>Most of the English translation I read, Anatta is translated as not-self and Anicca as impermanence.
However many Sri Lankan Buddhist monks do not agree with this translation.
They say it is a miss translation by Buddhagosha.
According to many Buddhist monks, it appears, Anicca means our inability to control the five aggregate. Anatta means the futile nature of the five aggregate. Is this true?</p>
 5000: <blockquote>
  <p>"Anicca means our inability to control the five aggregate."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Original translation of Anicca: impermanent.</p>

<p>2nd translation of Anicca: our inability to control the five aggregates.</p>

<p>Both translations refer to the same.</p>

<p>When one has no ability to control the five aggregates, impermanence is present.</p>

<p>It's because of the inability to control the five aggregates, that impermanence arises. Thus, looking at both translations with such wisdom, they are both correct.</p>

<p>If we use the 2nd translation, you must realize the nature of the five aggregates. Once realized, you know how and why they arise. By knowing how and why they arise, you get the ability to control the five aggregates. Once you get the ability to control them, you make them cease. Once ceased, impermanence is destroyed.</p>

<p>Both translation lead you to the same result: cessation of suffering. Cessation of impermanence.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Anatta means the futile nature of the five aggregate."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Original translation of Anatta: not self.</p>

<p>2nd translation of Anatta: the futile nature of the five aggregates.</p>

<p>Both translations refer to the same.</p>

<p>When the futile nature of the five aggregates is present, one is subjected to clinging onto this wrong view: "this is self".</p>

<p>The futile nature of the five aggregates is like a magician playing a magic trick and you being ignorant can't recognize it's a magic trick. Once you start investigating and scrutinizing the magician's magic trick you slowly start to see how it works and once you realize how it works, you finally realize it was just a magic trick! </p>

<p>In the same way, when you investigate and scrutinize the futile nature of the five aggregates, you slowly start to see how it works and once you realize how it works, you finally realize it was just "not self"!</p>

<p>When one realizes the futile nature of the five aggregates, one is free from the wrong view: "this is self" and comes to the right view: "this is not self"</p>

<p>Thus, looking at both translations with such wisdom, they are both correct.</p>

<p>And what is the futile nature of the five aggregates?</p>

<p>It arises and it ceases. It does that for a very very long time. In doing so it does not lead to happiness, to the cessation of suffering, but always to suffering, to impermanence. It always ends in suffering. It leads to suffering. That's why it is futile. When one sees this futility, he comes to the realization "If this were self, it wouldn't be subjected to such futility" and concludes "thus, this is not self".</p>

<p>Why he comes to such conclusion? Read my answer here: <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/22750/impermanent-self">Impermanent self</a> </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Most of the English translation I read, Anatta is translated as
  not-self and Anicca as impermanence. However many Sri Lankan Buddhist
  monks do not agree with this translation."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't say that there is disagreement in the translation. They just translate it or interpret it differently to explain the same thing. I would say this is more a question about the way of passing wisdom to listeners. They translated/interpreted it differently so to lead their listeners to the realization of the truth. Nonetheless, bot translations/interpretations lead the listener to the same goal: cessation of suffering.</p>
 -1: <p>Nyom Sarath, and those with interest,</p>

<p>At(t)ma(n)-peap (my person, "I-ness", usually, polite and modest 3rd person addressing of oneself when speaking with householder as <em>pabbajita</em> "one gone forth", here where he dwells) followed the hard leaded discussion on many places of Dhamma-discussion a little, which was merely very un-welcome to many and sometimes "brutal" and ignorant approached, from my persons view, especially in scholar-spheres and where practicing is merely secondary matter, even unwished to be discussed.</p>

<p>Coming to this question, not as a linguistic scholar and also not as a script scholar, but from a practical use, also of language and of it's sense, in relation to the practice and aim.</p>

<p>Here in Cambodia, which maybe has the longest unbroken "oral only"-tradition, with less exchange to organised communities elsewhere and seemingly long unbroken lineage without much scholars, in a more modern way, and scripts very young, many pali and sanskrit words are living part of the countries language in daily use, and also general translations into Khmer (<em>khema</em> = land or person at peace) language are mostly often different to modern translation in living languages.</p>

<p>The word <em>atthanay</em>,for example, as part of common language, adjectivly used, means simply "makes no sense", "has nothing to hold on".
Anicca is translated as <em>min-deang</em> or *min-dang (khmer), which means, not-knowable, not to see, not control-able, not in the sphere of control or foreseeable.</p>

<p>That would, independently of this "old" Sri Lankan approach, Sarath quoted,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Anicca means our inability to control the five aggregate. Anatta means the futile nature of the five aggregate.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>fit well with each other. Practical in living language and meaning, as well practical in relation of the path, for the aim to get ride of suffering/stress, rather to find such as an "I" or destroy it.</p>

<p>At the heart - the sense stays actually (like also particly mentikned by Beginner her) the same with the usual words - it would, for a good and in line of the general context of the Dhamma, and ways conductive for the path, just fit better than use the modern/popular words, since speculations about, if there is a self or not, needs to be avoided, and are root causes of suffering (e.g. <em>papanca</em>).</p>

<p>But maybe the "problem", causing disputes, lies merely there, that the issue of at least emptiness, usually have not been taught to the untrained person (mind), and that people not free of <em>sakkaya-ditthi</em>, one of the lower fetter, self-view, self-believe, has simply a hard to work without self or not-self, therefore prever the use of one or another extreme and bend it here and there that it does not possible seem like eternal- or nihilism, but still is.</p>

<p>How ever, to cut away a "dangerous" assuming that some might draw from it: that would not mean that Nibbana is self - making a dopple-chance in a thought line - it just would mean that Nibbana makes sense (att<em>h</em>a), aside of all other phenomenas which do not (anatt<em>h</em>a), and it is no more not in the sphere of insecurity, nicc<em>h</em>a, secure. For whom or what, is no question in this sphere, cut off, made an end.</p>

<p>How ever, my person never come across a saying of "nibbana atta, nibbana niccaṃ" quoting the Buddha, ditectly. Maybe out of good reason as well, such was not said, since Nibbana is not an antidote to Samsara, but "simply" beyond.</p>

<p>But this "tiny" distinction fits also well into the "not-modern" translation, suggested here:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/a/anatta.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">anattā</a></p>
  
  <p>While in the case of the first two characteristics it is stated that all formations (sabbe sankhārā) are impermanent and subject to suffering, the corresponding text for the third characteristic states that "all things are not-self" (<em>sabbe dhammā anattā</em>; M. 35, Dhp. 279).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Hence: Nibbana "just" nicca: secure: might be possible valid to express, taken that <em>sabbe dhammā anattā</em> incl. Nibbana (for security to be not mistaken as "the Self")</p>

<p>So the answer here will again either stay food for not conductive thoughts for the path either, or possible lead even more "just" to practice and see (<em>dang</em> km) for "oneself" (<em>kluan eing</em> km).</p>

<p>May all able to, gain the best out of it and reach the stream till highest fruit.</p>

<p><em>[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for any commercial purpose or other wordily gains]</em></p>
 295: <p>Anatta - non / not self is right. No self is wrong as it is an extreme view. See: <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ananda Sutta</a></p>

<p>Anicca - impermanence. In ability to control comes because of impermanence but this is more to do with Anatta.</p>

<p>Anatta is also the in ability to control the 5 aggregates, 6 sense bases and their experience, not anicca.</p>

<p>Also see: <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/19165">Sutta references which Discuss Self and Not Self under Different Contexts</a></p>
 8157: <p>It is 'anatta' that means our inability to control the five aggregate, as found in the Pali as follows, where the word 'anicca' is not found at all:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, <strong>anattā</strong>. Rūpañca hidaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṃ rūpaṃ ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca rūpe: ‘evaṃ me rūpaṃ
  hotu, evaṃ me rūpaṃ mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ
  anattā, tasmā rūpaṃ ābādhāya saṃvattati, na ca labbhati rūpe: ‘evaṃ me
  rūpaṃ hotu, evaṃ me rūpaṃ mā ahosī’ti.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to disease, and it would be possible to have it
  of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because
  form is nonself, form leads to disease, and it is not possible to
  have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’</em></p>
  
  <p><em>SN 22.59</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is 'anicca' that means the futile nature ('dukkha') of the five aggregates, as also explained in <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 22.59</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent (niccaṃ) or
  impermanent (aniccaṃ)?"</p>
  
  <p>"Impermanent (aniccaṃ), O Lord (O Bhante)."</p>
  
  <p>"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or
  satisfactory?"</p>
  
  <p>"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."</p>
  
  <p>"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is
  it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my
  self (attā)'?"</p>
  
  <p>"Indeed, not that, O Lord."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Anatta (not-self) is the recognition that conditioned things (such as the five aggregates) do not belong to you (i.e., are not "mine") and cannot be an intrinsic permanent "you" (i.e., are not "me") due to their impermanent (<em>anicca</em>) nature. </p>
