Paraphrases

Well, that is handy for Carson. Just label anyone who disagrees with you as incompetent!

Carson's problem here is that he is thinking strictly in the Bible translation realm. Doesn't he realize that translation by professional linguists goes on every day all the time all over the world? Every day of the year I have the news on, and I can hear it bi-lingually, and it is NOT done by the DE method.

I have a huge library of martial arts books in English, Chinese and Japanese. I have quite a few that art bilingual, either Japanese-English or Chinese-English. Guess what? NONE OF THEM are done by the DE method. They are all literal-type translations.

Why is it that only in the world of Biblical translation do people want to use the DE method? It has not been recognized in the general linguistic realm as the best method, unless you are translating poetry or putting subtitles on movies.

When I went to two years of full time Japanese language school at the oldest and most prestigious language school in Japan, the Tokyo School of the Japanese Language, my home work would have been marked wrong if I had done it by the DE method. And this was well after Nida's invention of the method. At one time I was chosen to join a class of all Chinese folk. (Boy did I have to work hard on the "kanji" Chinese characters with those Chinese characters!:tongue3. Our task was to be the first to test out a new textbook. Guess what? None of it taught the DE method! But then I guess according to Carson all of my teachers were incompetent. Sigh. I guess I am too.

 

My method is optimal equivalence, not formal equivalence. So (without examining the passages closely) I'm sure I would paraphrase most of them, or look for a similar idiom in the receptor language. Most of them look like straight idioms. But this is not DE, which often adds words and concepts not in the original, ostensibly to clarify things.

Concerning the book of Psalms, I've looked at my favorite two, the First and Twenty Third. In Psalm 1, I count 60 Hebrew words. However, there are no idioms. In Psalm 23 there are 54 words with 2 idioms consisting of 5 Hebrew words: "You made fat with oil my head" (v. 5) and "for the length of days" in v. 6. I see nothing else I would paraphrase in either of these Psalms. The symbolism is so beautiful and deep, especially in Ps. 23, why in the world would anyone want to paraphrase? So, the percentage of the Hebrew I would paraphrase for 5 out of 114 words is only 4.4%

The NET Bible paraphrases more than I would. You may be right about it. It substitutes "assembly" for "seat" in 1:1, changing the image completely. Sitting down with someone implies a closer relationship than assembling with them. In 2:2 the Net has "finds pleasure in them" instead of "his delight." If my delight is in the law of the Lord, it is primary to me. If I simply "find pleasure" in the law, then it may be one of many pleasures. In v. 3, "He succeeds in everything he attempts" (Net) is not the same meaning as "whatever he does will prosper." It changes the subject of the sentence and destroys the nuance of the original.

I agree with none of these renderings. Why not preserve the nuances of the original? Worse yet, why introduce new nuances into the text?

I think people overestimate the need for paraphrasing symbology. I think the average English reader is perfectly capable of understanding the symbolism of the Bible--if they work at it and depend on the Holy Spirit's illumination.

 

My method is optimal equivalence, not formal equivalence. So (without examining the passages closely) I'm sure I would paraphrase most of them, or look for a similar idiom in the receptor language. Most of them look like straight idioms. But this is not DE, which often adds words and concepts not in the original, ostensibly to clarify things.

Concerning the book of Psalms, I've looked at my favorite two, the First and Twenty Third. In Psalm 1, I count 60 Hebrew words. However, there are no idioms. In Psalm 23 there are 54 words with 2 idioms consisting of 5 Hebrew words: "You made fat with oil my head" (v. 5) and "for the length of days" in v. 6. I see nothing else I would paraphrase in either of these Psalms. The symbolism is so beautiful and deep, especially in Ps. 23, why in the world would anyone want to paraphrase? So, the percentage of the Hebrew I would paraphrase for 5 out of 114 words is only 4.4%

The NET Bible paraphrases more than I would. You may be right about it. It substitutes "assembly" for "seat" in 1:1, changing the image completely. Sitting down with someone implies a closer relationship than assembling with them. In 2:2 the Net has "finds pleasure in them" instead of "his delight." If my delight is in the law of the Lord, it is primary to me. If I simply "find pleasure" in the law, then it may be one of many pleasures. In v. 3, "He succeeds in everything he attempts" (Net) is not the same meaning as "whatever he does will prosper." It changes the subject of the sentence and destroys the nuance of the original.

I agree with none of these renderings. Why not preserve the nuances of the original? Worse yet, why introduce new nuances into the text?

I think people overestimate the need for paraphrasing symbology. I think the average English reader is perfectly capable of understanding the symbolism of the Bible--if they work at it and depend on the Holy Spirit's illumination.

 

But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Even so may The LORD bless your work John of Japan.


A.F.

 

Thank you, A. F.

 

I wish I could claim it, but a scholar far smarter than I am, an NKJV editor, is kindly helping me to learn his O. E. method, about which he is writing a technical tome. I hope to figure out more of the technicalities once I firmly get a grasp on something called transformational grammar, which is nothing like the traditional and/or historical grammar methods I've learned before. Is 54 too old for this? Maybe!

Also, the Holman CSB translators call their method O. E., but I am not quite sure if there is a connection.

 

God forbid, methinks when it came to pass that i happened upon this!

accusing DE of adding concepts NOT in the original, "ostensibly to clarify things," is as cynical a thot as i've ever come across in this DE/FE debate. first it was Nida inventing a translation theory (rather than codifying a set of good translation practices); then was somehow evil to be "thot for thot"; now it's the addition of extraneous thots, woohoo!

if anyone has read the regular textbooks on Bible translation or journals like Bible Translator, it will become apparent that the purposes are different between translations meant for popular reading, high church liturgy, scholarly comparison, etc. DE's good for some of these purposes but not all; likewise FE and "Optimal Equivalence" (optimal for what, but i'm blown away by the modesty!). for instance, DE may not be ideal for precise comparison in Septuagintal studies, nor FE for family devotions in native speaking English congregations.

bottomline thot fr me: there's no need to demonise one approach to translation over another--the playing field's wide enuff for different versions for different needs.

 

Defining paraphrase

i thot it might be good to post this definition of PARAPHRASE for the record:

i guess it don't sound so bad after all!

it's just disturbing hearing folk slamming DE n TG Grammar n Functional Grammar in the same way Westcott & Hort've been slammed--i.e. thru kneejerk caricature rather than by their proper definitions.

i wld suggest checking out the resources at the following website for anyone serious abt looking at translation theory up close (rather than erecting bogeymen based on surface meaning of words--like "transformational generative" .... yikes!):

http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/

 

Did I use the word "insult?" I don't think I did, but I can't find the post.

I've never read the TNIV, so I've never commented on it on.

 

:laugh: i think the original was said in jest! good ole Wayne Leman, the translator who owns that resource site, has a gt sense of humour!

hey thanks!! :wavey:

i still haven't figured out OE (beyond the apparent pomposity of its name :tongue3; so it's hard for me to respond. also what translation method's preferred really depends on its intended use/audience. a translation written to accommodate high churchy liturgical suits may not be appropriate for interlinear-hungry seminary students, hearing impaired readers, ESL learners, or family altars.

which, praytell, is "optimum" as a translation philosophy? one that tends to set aside reader response? :saint:

 

Since there are plenty of translations both DE and non-DE I haven't bothered to read the TNIV. I have not bothered to purchase it. I am disturbed with its dynamic changes of gender. In other words, if the GREEK says "brothers" when there is a GREEK word for "sisters" then it should NOT be translated "brothers and sisters". (I have read enough examples to comment about some of these.) Some of the gender changes are obviously okay, some are not. If the Greek did not have a word for "sisters" then this would be another issue. IMHO

 

this might possibly be right, but it's hard to know for certain (perhaps some real Gk expert--or access to the Louw-Nida lexicon--wld weigh in).

i do know, in English at least, that having an option linguistically does not obligate one to use it. for instance, there's a word GUY n a word GAL in English. in the plural, does one sometimes hear "u GUYS" in reference to an all-girl or a mixed group?

 

I still haven't figured out your view that "optimal" is pompous!

"op·ti·mal


(òp¹te-mel) adjective

Most favorable or desirable; optimum." (From Microsoft Bookshelf 98).​

To me it means doing my best. It means not saying, "I don't want to take time to look up that word in my Greek-Japanese lexicon. I'll just take a guess as to what a good Japanese equivalent would be." It means taking the time to figure out both the grammar and lexical meaning of the original and convey it as optimally as possible into the receptor language, preserving the nuances and ambiguities and layers of meaning as faithfully as possible.

"This principle of complete (optimal; JOJ) equivalence seeks to preserve all of the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form" (NKJV Preface).



Reader response in OE is secondary, as opposed to DE where it is primary. It is not a matter of "setting aside reader response." The meaning of the text is primary. If the meaning is conveyed properly and fluently, the reader's response will take care of itself.​

 

Thx for defining! hmm, 2 things:

1. most desirable for what? if undefined, it's at best a motherhood statement to say a translation theory's "optimal."

2. if one's approach is "optimal," what does that make the others--suboptimal?
​

n the implication's that DE or FE translators are ...? :smilewinkgrin:

see why it might be construed as a tad pompous?

that's all well n good. it's just that OE isn't descriptive of the method itself but is more or less (based on ur explanation) a self-accolade. perhaps it's better termed AE or NE (Ambiguity or Nuance Equivalency)?

again, i'll question "complete" equivalency, for DE has as one of its aims the preservation of all the meaning of the SL--implicit n explicit--n optimally presenting it in the TL to evince an equivalent response.

JOJ?

it's also important to define what's "good" in literary form. but i'll havta leave that for another day.

​

sure, if "properly n fluently" can be defined, n also the role of reader response in it. to the degree that it is defined, IMO, to that degree is that theory useful. the procedure needs to be articulated descriptively (e.g. FE n DE) sans the motherhood statements n lightweight modifiers--i can go on w some, e.g. "faithful equivalency," "reverent equivalency," "elegant equivalency." otherwise, won't we all wind up w translation theories (as i've pointed out in the case of the hijacked semidescriptive term "closest natural equivalence") like mine, that only pat their own backs? raise:


>>> apologies for the font variations ... i'm not sure what happened while typing, but i don't seem to be able to fix it. perhaps the Moderators wld know.

 

Stop looking at the term "optimal" by itself. It goes with the word "equivalent." So the effort is to make the equivalent fit the source optimally. What's wrong with that?

If one's approach is "dynamic" what does that make the others--boring? Come on, you are playing with semantics here. ​

​

No, I don't see why it might be construed as a tad pompous. And yes OE is descriptive of the method. If you can't see that, sorry. No hair off my chin. And no I don't agree that it is based on a "self-accolade." It is based on a desire for excellence.​

​

No problem. A similar thing happened to a post of mine.

 

hmm, for one, what do u think the E stand for in DE n FE?

um, not me. :saint: c'mon, u know the technical definition, no?

what does this have to do with boring/not boring. talk abt playing w semantics

n what might DE n FE have a desire for? something suboptimal? :tear:

anyways, i'm afraid we'll havta agree to disagree on this one n let the others decide.