[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: post.prepared for anglican (aka reversible translations)
- To: Biblical Greek List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: post.prepared for anglican (aka reversible translations)
- From: Eric Weiss <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 13:33:30 -0500
- CC: "Brian E. Wilson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Brian E. Wilson (email@example.com)
>Thu, 15 May 1997 07:11:39 +0100
>A translation is reversible. That is to say, if one person translates a
>Greek text into English, and another translates it back into Greek, the
>final result would be the original text.
>A paraphrase is irreversible. If someone paraphrases the Greek text of
>Romans 5.1-5 into English, the resultant English would not translate
>back into the Greek text Paul dictated.
To me, this means that only a literal word-order-for-word-order
interlinear rendering qualifies as a translation. And because Greek
(like English and other languages) has many words with near-synonyms or
which share greatly-overlapping semantic domains with other words, it
would still be impossible to guarantee that two different
back-translators would select identical words and hence come up with
"the [same] original text." I cannot imagine that someone would
seriously be taught or put forth this as the definition (or distinction)
of a "translation" versus a "paraphase". Would Mr. Wilson be kind enough
to cite the source (author, teacher, book, journal) of his definition?
"Eric S. (and Karol-Ann) Weiss"
part-time grad student at The Criswell College
"Send those testimonies!"