Is Dynamic Equivalence a Bad Thing?

I did not mean this as an attack but a friendly sally. I'm sorry it offended you. Please forgive me.

Your posts are very confusing to me. I have a hard time finding the context in what you say. I truly don't have a clue what "big claim" you say I am making. You have attacked my positions in such a plethora of contexts that I don't have time right now to even read them, much less respond to them.

 

sure, likewise. s'long as sally's friendly :thumbs:

ok, i'm happy to leave it at that. (altho, if u'd like to continue, the "big claims" pertain to the list of nonliteral renderings into Japanese, possibly on page 6 or 7, claiming that they are NOT examples of dynamic equivalency when they are right in line w the Nida-Taber approach). it's sorta like me, God forbid, creating an interlinear and denying dependence on Formal Equivalence.

take care.

 

I'm afraid you completely misread my intent on that post. I did not "claim" anything of the sort you think I did. You are entirely welcome to blame me for your misunderstanding if you want, I don't care. However, look again at what I wrote, which you yourself quoted:

Of course right after this is when you wrote "Hilarious." What you did not understand, having come into the thread very late, was what had been going on before. I was (and still am) frustrated beginning on page 1 at the lack of understanding of translation theory on the BB, and the typical view of the BB denizens that dynamic equivalence and paraphrasing are one and the same. My goal with this post was to get the DE advocates I had been interacting with to actually discuss DE methodology with me, but it didn't work, obviously.

Now that I have that out of my system, I'm very curious. Please tell my why you called my posts a "diatribe" on p. 7. No one has ever in my 54 years called anything I ever wrote or said a diatribe. I don't do diatribes. I am not bitter, and I did not abuse or denounce Nida or anyone on the BB or anywhere else. (I'm not even going to touch where you called what I wrote on the paraphrase thread a "kneejerk caricature.")


di·a·tribe

di·a·tribe ​

(​

dì¹e-trìb´) noun​

A bitter, abusive denunciation.

(From the Microsoft Bookshelf 98)​

​

​

​

​

 

well, what's with the big red font? :wavey: it sounded angry n contentious, n it certainly implied 1. that DE wasn't used, n 2. DE isn't a valid translational method.

if that was ur intent, i didn't sense it. the point of hilarity did not pertain to the foregoing discussion but to that particular post claiming (at least implicitly) that no DE was used. rather than address the whole long foregoing discussion, i simply responded to "Look through this passage and tell me."

i didn't mean to imply bitterness in my use of the term diatribe. that's how i characterise the going on n on by DE's opponents abt how DE adds to or distorts the meaning, etc. glad to know that u've not been characterised as bitter n abusive in ur 54 yrs (like u, i'm also impressed w Christian character)! :thumbs: so u're certainly not gonna hear it fr me now.

but perhaps for now, to avoid further miscommunication, it's best for all of us that u answer ur own question: "did I translate with DE/de?" speaking at least for myself, i'm all ears!

 

No offense, but did you read that before you posted it? To say the KJV is "Holy Spirit filled wisdom" and dismissing all others as "taboo" seems a bit like idolizing to me. Please explain.

 

appreciate

John from Japan, I really appreciate your posts. It is interesting for you to explain the problems and issues involved in translating to another language--especially one as diverse as Japanese.

Thank you for your insights and sharing those with us. :thumbs:

 

I see you took me up on the offer to blame me for your misunderstanding. :smilewinkgrin: As for the big red font, I was enamored of the new software and decided to try it out. Note to self: forget big red fonts in the future.:flower:

What? Go back to a post you have already decided was nothing but DE renderings? From what you've said so far, I could say that some of them were DE-type renderings and you would still fight to make me say the whole thing was. I see no profit there. I don't believe in self-flagellation!:tongue3:

Instead, I would like to ask you more about your concept of DE and how it relates to such renderings. What per cent of paraphrased renderings do you believe are DE renderings? All? Most? None?

To put it another way, is it possible to paraphrase in a translation without it being DE?

For convenience, here is a neutral definition of paraphrase, written long before all this Bible translation controversy erupted. "Paraphrase: The statement of the contents of a passage, text, etc., in the same or another language, without following the original text verbatim" (Dictionary of Linguistics, by Mario pei and Grank Gaynor, c. 1954, 1967 ed., p. 159).

 

And thank you for the encouragement! :applause:

 

how quaint, not answering but w another set of questions. be that as it may, it does appear that all the items on the list (if carefully done) wld have communicated the meanings accurately to Japanese readers as intended by DE/MBT/FB/CNE.

this is truly sad. i thot we were ready to move on.

not too different a definition, i see, fr the one i posted on the Paraphrase thread:

in the Pei n Gaynor definition (perhaps becos the quote's only in part?), meaning may or may not be preserved.

but yes, i'd suppose that it's quite possible to paraphrase in a translation without it being DE. DE's a procedure that's quite clearly articulated (as u probably know, if u've read Nida-Taber), involving (i suppose, in its most primitive Nidaian form) first a semantic analysis of the SL, then a transfer of those semantic components over to the TL, n using whatever TL forms r available to recreate the same impression on its audience). but paraphrase happens all the time, with or without reference to this procedure or any procedure at all.

did u have a different idea of paraphrase or DE?

 

Don't worry, I translate every day, sometimes for hours: Greek to Japanese, Japanese to English, English to Japanese. I'll have more for you, but it is late evening here in Japan.

That is exactly why I wrote that. I want to move on. Please don't take offense here, as none was intended.:saint:

In my copy of Pei & Gaynor, the definition is exactly as I wrote it: no more, no less.

I'm agreed, and I'm pleased to see this. It shows me you do know what you are talking about. If we are working under different translation philosophies then when a paraphrastic rendering is needed we might both produce a completely different one--or maybe even the exact same one! So what you saw as DE renderings in my work I produced as OE renderings. That does not mean you can't consider them DE if you want to, it just means that they were produced from a different final objective for the rendering.

In the 21st century, paraphrase should occur according to one's translation philosophy. A translation philosophy should have guidelines or TG rules or transformations that produce a reasoned, purposeful paraphrase in cases where that is needed. This is where I give Nida credit. He revolutionized the thinking about Bible translation, causing translators to think more deeply about what they are doing. I have a Caesar's Gallic Wars interlinear with, in addition to the interlinear, what the title page calls an "Elegant Translation" and the author calls "a passably literal translation." We do much better now, I think, though I think some modern linguistic theories make things too difficult.

I also give Nida credit for inspiring many missionary translation efforts. One burden I have, which I have said over and over on this forum, is that there are so many new English translations and yet so very many languages in the world that need the Word of God. If a people group get their first Bible in a DE translation, I say, Praise the Lord!! At least they have a Bible!

Before I hit the hay, just a couple of clarifications. I am not KJVO. I have three Nida books but not Nida-Taber. Of course I want it, but have only just recently been encouraged by a mentor to study Nida again. I disagree with his method, sometimes strongly, but respect the man. Concerning OE, it did not originate with the Holman version. It is about 30 years old.
O yasumi nasai. ("May you honorably rest.") :sleeping_2:

 

One verse I translated this morning was Acts 7:14. For apostello ("sent") I used the Japanese word haken suru, which means an official sending. I also added hito wo ("a person" + object particle) to make the sentence read well in Japanese. While a Greek person will read apostello and know, "Well, of course he sent a person," according to Japanese syntax it will sound awkward and strained without the extra word.

Some DE advocates on the BB will no doubt claim I have done a DE here, since I strove for readability. However, this is not something that all of a sudden Nida invented with DE. Translators have done this since the first person learned another language after the Tower of Babel. In the Bible, Mark did so in Mark 5:41.

 

Now we are communicating.

 

John , it wasn't so long ago that you were saying that there were no DE renderings before Nida . We have come a long way .

 

If this is what you thought I was saying, then either you completely misunderstood me or I completely miscommunicated. What I am trying to say here is, why should Nida get credit and the DE/de term applied to practices that have always occured? Jerome discussed "sense for sense" translating in his "To Pammachius on the Best method of Translating" way back in about 394. So why don't you call sense for sense renderings "Jeromisms?" He deserves it more than Nida, in my mind!

What did Nida do differently? He systemetized translation, and he deserves credit for that. He also gave as a goal for translation that the reader in the receptor language should have the same response to the text that the reader of the original did, and that is where I disagree with him--not that we should never paraphrase.

 

But John , you had said several pages ago that DE did not exist in KJV times ; further you claimed that it is inaccurate to say it existed before the 1940's .

 

EXACTLY!! Nida was not alive in KJV times, so his theory did not exist!!

I never said paraphrase did not exist!! Now if all DE means to you is paraphrase, and your definition of DE is paraphrase, and you think that DE is a modern word for paraphrase, then I guess DE did exist in KJV times! :smilewinkgrin:

 

More Luther quotes from Wendland

In post #71 I cited some words of Luther . He seemed to be a DE-man using MBT methodlogy without Nida's help .

I wanted to speak German , not Latin or Greek , since I was German I had undertaken to speak in the translation ... Therefore I must let the literal words go and try to learn how the German says that which the Hebrew expresses ... Words are to serve and follow the meaning , not meaning the words .

... if it were translated everywhere word for word ... and not for the most part according to the sense , no one would understand it ... We have taken care to use language that is clear and everybody can understand , without perverting the sense and meaning .

 

A miracle! Nida must have visited Luther in a vision! raise:

What you have to know is that in those days (and even in Jerome's writing and to many today), "word for word" meant even retaining the word order of the source language in the receptor language. Some in those days actually translated that way. So Luther was not necessarily arguing for Nida's method. IMO it is a mistake to read Nida's exact method back into Luther.

 

Exact ? Who said exact ? I will echo what Forever settled in heaven has said in the Paraphrase thread : Nida simply codified a set of good translational practices . Those practices were functioning centuries before Nida .

 

thank u! i noticed that there was a bunch of constructive discussion i'd missed when i got back online, incl much that i'd agree with.

amen to that, n Nida's advent was also providential in the light of King James Onlyism's rise shortly after his time. yet i'm not sure if Nida himself's a born-again believer, or Bratcher after him. they seem, sadly, to've bought a bunch into Higher Criticism. but that takes nothing away fr what they've contributed in terms of translation.

thanks again; n rest well. when u've got the time, do go ahead n share abt the history of OE n how it might be distinct as a theory.