If not "univocal," then what? (fwd)

> So, some questions:
> 1.  If not a univocal relationship, then what?
What is the understanding of 'univocal' in this context?  A true (not
loaded) query.
> 2.  What remains of the difference between paraphrasing and "translation in the
> best sense," or, of any kind of differentiation between meaning in textual
> authorship/readership and meaning in "translation"?

> 3.  If Mari's observation is vindicated, then what makes for good or less good
> translation?

Aha!  I knew there was something I was missing.  I think HERE is where
the Dynamic Equivalence theory applies, on the end of constraint,
rather than license.  I think the latter has been assumed in a couple
of the DE questions.  I think the former provides a way to distinguish
good translations from, uh, well, the OTHER paraphrases.  :-)  DE
would suggest that nothing should be made explicit that was not either
i) uniformly implicit (as a stupid example, consider the pronominal
subjects we need to insert, where the Greek has simply an inflected
verb form) or ii) explicit.  If a passage allowed multiple
interpretations to the original language hearers, the same variety of meaning
should be conveyed to the target language readers.  Quick example:
the fact that Amos was a shepherd conjures up a variety of images.  If
a culture does not have such 'animal caretakers', some suitable phrase
should be used to suggest a set of things one might associate with
shepherds.  Living Bible picks one of these out and foregrounds it by
making it explicit:  "All day long [Amos] sat on the hillsides
watching the sheep, keeping them from straying."  This example
demonstrates another tightrope in translation:  the Gricean maxim of
quantity.  Readers (hearers) assume that writers (speakers) say no
more than is necessary.  By making too many explicit things implicit
(sitting on the hillside), we suggest that this information is
essential to the text, perhaps setting the inference machine cranking

> and, 4. If the RSV/NRSV leave a "hard to understand" greek passage hard to
> understand in translation, what were they missing which would have resulted in
> an easy to understand translation?  Is the NIV, with its propensity to render
> every possible difficulty in as "vanilla" a translation as possible, a better
> treatment of hard to understand passages in greek?

Above comments are relevant.  I also think it is important to ask from
WHOM the passages are difficult.  If for the original readers (cf.
Peter, who says many of Paul's writings were hard), leave the
difficulty in (perhaps footnoting possibilities?).  If it is hard for
translators to figure out WHAT the Greek meant, more study is needed,
of course.

Mari Broman Olsen
Northwestern University
Department of Linguistics
2016 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208