Featured The genetics of Bible translation

True, but those such as nas/Nkjv do, due to their plilosphy of translation, do it less often, and try to keep the intended meaning intact...

 

It's a fallacy to think that this will result in a better translation. Quality is determined by the end product not the initial philosophy of translation used by the translators.

 

The philosophy of just how one views the nethod of translation is very critical to the finished product though, for if one seeks to keep intact as much as possible the word for word construction into the English renderings, the closer to being what was originally penned down will happen as a direct result...

 

You're all wet thereY1. Haven't you learned anything in the last few years?

There is no such thing as true word-for-word translation. And those versions that try to ape that at times use deplorable English.

Any good translation will attempt to bring as much of the meaning from the original to the receptor language --whether the translational method is more functional or more formal.

 

Not really.

You are making the mistake that a word for word translation is even possible, it's not, well not that anyone could read anyway. It's a marketing ploy that conservative Christians have bought into and believes to be an actual thing, it's not. All translations are dynamic, all translations have to interpret the text in order to get it into an understandable format.

 

What a strange thing to say. I have recent books by both secular translation studies scholars and Bible translation scholars that use the term. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Please define "word for word."

 

Pretty self explanatory. The thinking that you just read a word in one language and just translate it into another language fails to grasp what translation is, how it is done. It is so much more involved than that.

 

If this is actually what people think word-for-word translation is, then you are correct. It ignores the problem of getting the grammar from one language to another.

This is very true.

 

The truth in translation is also though that while there cannot be in a true sense exact word for word equivalence in translation from original sources into English, there is a considerable difference in the overall finished product depends on if one holds to the normitive way to do it is to adhere to a word for word as much as is possible, and trying to get to a 'thought by thought" version approach...

 

True, yet those who would hold to as being as much of a word for word as is possible does give to us translations that do adhere to the original intended meanings of the scriptures though!

 

You keep saying statements like this as if they actually mean something in the world of bible translation, they don't. I know it's hard to accept it, but word for word in bible translation, any translation work really, doesn't have any value. The bible version pamphlets you can buy at the bookstore are wholly inadequate in helping to grasp these concepts.

Spend some time with a translator, see how they do things, see how they make interpretive choices all the time (near every sentence depending on language) in order to communicate original meaning.

 

John of Japan would seem to agree here more woth me on this issue though, and he is in the translation field!

And the scholars of the conservative english editions would also disagree with you!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by go2church View Post
Pretty self explanatory. The thinking that you just read a word in one language and just translate it into another language fails to grasp what translation is, how it is done.
If this is actually what people think word-for-word translation is, then you are correct. It ignores the problem of getting the grammar from one language to another.

Quote:
It is so much more involved than that.
This is very true.

Maybe not. John is a very smart guy, he can speak for himself, I won't attempt to drag him into something he may not want any part of

 

Just what do you mean when you say "conservative English translations" Y1? For example, the NLT translators are conservative Evangelical scholars. There is cross-pollination. You do realize that some of the same translators have worked on the NIV, NLT, ESV, HCSB etc.

So please clarify just what you mean by your terminology.

 

Just stating by that phrasing, that some of the MV seemed to have gone beyond what the text actually required and stated in order to get rid of perceived gender biasing, and to better accomodate modern viewpoints regarding some issues!

This does not mean they are bad versions, or bad scholars, just doing unwarrented things!

 

You make plenty of assertions with no substance behind your charges.

I gave the specific example of the NLT which has conservative Evangelical Bible scholars as translators. And I also said that a number of those same folks also worked on various other Bible translations including the ESV, NASB etc.

So, in your mind the NLT is not a bad version and it doesn't have bad scholarship. Nevertheless, it has done unwarranted things. Please explain. You are hard to understand. How can a fairly good Bible version with fairly good scholarship do unwarranted things?

Please eliminate the use of exclamation marks in your posts --or at least minimize the usage. They are entirely unwarranted. ;-)

 

Everything depends on the definition of "word-for-word." If by that one means that you translate every single word of the original and all of the grammar into the target language, that is impossible. For example, Japanese does not have articles, infinitives or true participles. Chinese does not even have verb tenses. So to get these exact grammatical structures into those languages is impossible. In fact, the Greek perfect tense is usually very difficult to get even into English.

On the other hand, if you have as your goal (the skopos in skopos theory) to find an equivalent of every word and grammatical structure into the target language, this is much more possible. It is also quite often part of the job description in a secular translation job. One secular book on translation that I have calls this "verbatim translation."

 

How long has it been since you observed little girls playing ring around the posey? These same bogus arguments are hoisted again and again.
1) The fact that word for word translation philosophy versions such as the NASB and NKJV are not perfect does not indicate that the approach is not superior to issuing commentary and claiming it is translation.
2) Formal equivalence = conservative translation
Functional equivalence = liberal translation
3) Lets say based on usage a single Greek word has in its range of meanings in scripture, three meanings. Thus, if the one Greek word was translated into three words or phrases, one for each meaning, then that would be a word for word translation philosophy effort.
4) And to repeat, all these complaints are vague and lack specific examples. And there is no need to muddy the water with translation difficulties into other languages. Nearly everyone here is thinking about what English translations provide the most accurate rendering of God's actual message. We do not need to reinvent the wheel, we have interlinears, and exhaustive concordances and lexicons and various English versions such as the NASB, NKJV, NET, HCSB and WEB to consider.

 

Ispissima Verba? Hardly.

Don't you find a contradiction in both paragraphs?

How can you, as a translator, claim that you have been able to find an equivalent for every word and grammatical structure of the original and convey it into a target language? It isn't possible. We have had this conversation several times before. You had acknowledged that it is impossible to have equivalents at times. You have admitted that you have not translated a number of words --as all translations must.

Verbatim translation is an oxymoron. It can't be done from one language to another. Verbatim means using exactly the exact same words! It is an impossibility! Someone can do transcription within the same language. One hears a speech and records the words as exactly as possible. But it does not work from one language to another.

What secular book on translation theory could possibly advocate such an absurdity? It sure wouldn't work in a court situation, for instance.