Featured A Glossary of Translation Terms

I've not heard this, but since the above mentioned Dr. James Price was the OT editor, and he likes the concept of computer translating, that could very well be true.

 

Fine. Then give a better definition.

 

For a definition of dynamic equivalence, let's start with the source. (Nida changed the term DE to "functional equivalence" in From One Language to Another by Nida and Jan de Waard, but most scholars still use the DE term.)

"dynamic equivalence: quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the RESPONSE of the RECEPTOR is essentially like that of the original receptors. Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful. The opposite principle is FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE." (The Theory and Practice of Translation, by Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, 1982, p. 200.)

 

interlinear: a literal translation that translates not only word for word, but keeps the word order of the original. It is called interlinear because such a translation is usually printed with the original and the translation lined up together. (my own definition--JoJ)

Here are a couple of examples of interlinear renderings for those who don't have an interlinear NT:


en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV
"In beginning was the Word, and the Word was to the God and God was the Word." (John 1:1).

ina paV o pisteuwn eiV auton mh apolhtai all ech zwhn aiwnion
"In order that all the believing ones in Him not might perish but might have life everlasting." (John 3:15)

In an interlinear NT each English word would be lined up right under each corresponding Greek word--thus, "interlinear."

Also, note that doing an interlinear into a lanugage that is not Indo-European, and thus very different in syntax (sentence structure) and word order from the original doesn't produce nearly as readable a translation as an English interlinear.

 

In regards to this claim, a friend pointed out to me that in the HCSB the Greek word idou (idou, "Behold") is variously translated "see," "look" and "behold," all literal renderings, but the non-literal "Listen" in almost a dozen places. Seems like computer checking would have standardized this. I know as final editor here in Japan I have such issues in mind as I work.

Even more to the point, for the phrase panta a eipon umin (tauta a eipon umin), the HCSB has four different renderings in six places where the word occurs in John: "I have spoken these things to you," "I have told these things to you," "I have told you these things," "I have spoken these things to you." According to an HCSB editor, "The translation was computer checked for accuracy, but the editors didn't always follow the computer."

The human computer is still best. A good translation editor will keep in mind such standard phrases as this and "God forbid" and go back and check the places where they occur. A computer still can't make final decisions.

 

meaning-based translation: a theory developed by John Callow, John Beekman, Katharine Barnwell, and Mildred Larson, in which the goal is to properly render the meaning of the original into the target language. This method differs from DE in that it does not insist on eliciting the same response in the receptor as in a reader of the original document. It also differs from literal methods in that it does not insist on equivalence of the grammatical forms from the original to the target language.

 

At the risk of tweaking certain noses, I'm going to add my own definition of DE here, somewhat revised from the last time I posted it on the BB:

Dynamic Equivalence (DE; see “functional equivalence”) is a theory of Bible translation developed by Eugene Nida, beginning with his 1964 book Toward a Science of Translation. DE is influenced by existentialism , and by linguistics, in particular code theory and transformational grammar. Instead of working to discern authorial intent this method is characterized by an effort to produce an equivalent effect in the target (“receptor” in DE terminology) audience to that produced in the original audience. DE emphasizes the importance of meaning over grammatical form.

 

It all depends on your defintions. Would you like to define "accuracy" and "faithfulness" in the area of translation for us please?

 

One way of dividing translation methods is by literal and free. Here is a comparison of the two by a secular scholar. Free translation is similar to thought-for-thought, but with a different nuance.

“Free translation is usually taken to concentrate on conveying the meaning of the ST disregarding the formal or structural aspects of the ST. Literal translation is normally taken to be a mode of translation that remains close to the form of the original.”
Key Terms in Translation Studies, by Giuseppe Palumbo, 2009, 49.

edited in:

I'm going to add another, kind of negative defintion of free translation.

“free translation: the rendering of the meaning of a statement, expression, text, etc., in another language, without following the original accurately.”
Dictionary of Linguistics, by Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, 1954, 77.

 

Then please give a better definition of "free translation."

Please define accuracy, then.

 

Okay, so Rippon doesn't like the definition of "paraphrase" that I gave, but apparently doesn't have one of his own. Let me try again and see if I can find another definition that will please him. Try this:

"As it is ordinarily used, the word 'paraphrase' refers to a freely rendered restatement of a passage in a clearer form in the same language without altering its meaning. In using this word for Bible translation from one language to another, it has come to connote a rather free translation in which phrases are added or omitted and often fidelity to the meaning is thus sacrificed" (So Many Versions? revised ed., 1983, by Sakae Kubo and Walter Specht, p. 20).

 

So then in your mind accuracy and faithfulness are synonyms when used to refer to Scripture translation, correct?

 

Yeah, he really holds to the NIV 2011! :smilewinkgrin:

 

Here's a quote on why Eugene Nida changed his term from DE to functional equivalence.

“Nida later felt that the term ‘dynamic equivalence’ had been misunderstood and was partly responsible for translations like the Living Bible. Some translators used the term ‘dynamic’ to refer to translations that had impact and appeal. But since he had in fact defined ‘dynamic equivalence’ in terms of ‘functional equivalence,’ he began to use this latter term instead. “Functional equivalence” was introduced in From One Language to Another, co-authored with Jan de Waard” (Stine, p. 51).