Featured Ylt?

Not really. I found it interesting.

 

Won't make any difference Willis, everybody already knows you're from West Virginia.

 

The three main versions I use are ASV, KJV, YLT.

 

It's not a smooth read, I use it mostly for quick reference to see (as much as is possible for me) what the literal wording of the text is.

 

Kyredneck pretty much nailed it.

 

You mean "Young's literal translation?"

If yes, very close to being like the Asv was, a close word by word attempt to translate scriptures...

 

I use it as a reference.

 

It's overly literal, but this is a help sometimes to someone who knows the original languages. I wouldn't recommend it to others. We've referred to it in our translation work.

The YLT does have one linguistic fault. Young believed that each word in the original should be translated by concordance--that is with every Hebrew or Greek word having only one word in the target document to represent it. This is not only semantically, but just plain wrong thinking.

 

Really? It's been a help to you?

Try his rendering of 2 Sam. 19:38 on for size:

With me doth Chimham go over, and I do to him that which is good in thine eyes, yea, all that thou dost fix on me I do to thee.

 

YLT is a mixed blessing in translation work. Sometimes it has helped me clarify the original language to my translation partner, other times it has confused him.

If one knows Hebrew, this is clear.

 

Would say thst his translation was one of the most lietral ones even done, can be useful at times, but would prefer to stick with my nasb/Niv/Esv versions, and look atv an actual interlinear at times...

 

Why would an individual that knows the original languages refer to an overly literal English translation? Wouldn't it be better just to go directly to the Hebrew (or Greek, as the case may be)?

 

In translation work, though we translate from the Hebrew and Greek, it is still helpful to refer to translations in both English and the target language.

 

Would the YLT qualify as a real translation? Could it actually be said to be in proper English?

 

If you define an English translation as "a document in the target language in proper English" then no. But I don't know anyone who defines it that way. If you define it as "a document in the target language in understandable English" then it is a translation, even if it is poor and sometimes stilted English.

 

Yes, of course. I would expect that a translator would do so. But it sounded like you had found the overly literal YLT "helpful" in some sort of unique way.