[B-Greek] Lexical entries and "final meaning" - translation vs. understanding (AD NAUSEAM)

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Jul 28 10:54:33 EDT 2008


Sorry about that. I should have labeled it as another AD NAUSEAM post  
to make it clear that I'm saying the same thing again that I've said  
before and so that those who are already sick of it will know not to  
re-read it. It is certainly true that one who is NOT a neophyte has  
pretty much become aware of what I've tried to argue about the  
difference between reading and translating or about understanding as a  
stage preliminary to translating. My own experience on this list has  
been that many of the same simple first-step pedagogical questions are  
posed again and again -- and will, I think, continue to be posed again  
and again. Neophytes, people who are really just beginning to learn  
Biblical Greek, are really pretty common as new subscribers. And it is  
also true that teachers of Biblical Greek continue to assign tasks  
that suggest that translations of assigned text is what they're  
looking for as the first indication of supposed understanding. What  
I'm really inveighing against is the pedagogical emphasis upon  
translation more than the natural tendency of neophytes.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)



On Jul 28, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Mitch Larramore wrote:

> Here’s what goes through my mind when I read this:
>
> When learning something new, one is forced to move from the known to  
> the unknown. You can not learn the unknown with words that are  
> unknown.
>
> I could not give a lexical entry of the word “bizrimfolt” by saying  
> it the gloss, “to hiujnotic with tobbikorist.” Nor could I give a  
> more detailed definition with better results, such as, “this means  
> nuoetail memtoys after fooptil varnmums betyifis by the argilusitoin  
> blanthvout.
>
> What a lexicon does is gives one the gloss in the target language AS  
> THE STARTING POINT. Nobody reads these glosses and presumes they are  
> exhaustive in any sense of the word. A gloss by definition  
> represents a word within the semantic range of a word; this word’s  
> semantic range may divide into dozens of subsemantic meanings, some  
> seemingly unrelated to others, some actually unrelated to others.
>
> To understand the myriad of nuances of a dead language can not be  
> learned by reading only. If one lived in that culture and was native  
> to it, that person would attain near 100%. As a reader only, the  
> best one can hope for is maybe half that.
>
> And then I thought about your concern with “translations.”  
> Translations are nothing more than an attempt to communicate the  
> idea expressed in one language to another. Translations - like  
> Bibles - are not intended to capture the multiple and various  
> nuances of a word. If that is what you want, you have to move in the  
> direction of a paraphrase. Of course, a paraphrase has set limits  
> just as translations do. Lexicons are just a way of giving a reader  
> enough of the “known” to allow him to move farther into the unknown.  
> How far one goes depends on other factors, such as intellect,  
> motive, time, etc.
>
> To “understand” what a word or phrase means in a dead language is  
> obviously what we are after, but I would not make this arbitrary  
> distinction between translation and understanding. I think you have  
> somehow come to understand these words quite different than those  
> within my sphere. I certainly hope you are not trying to “rebuke”  
> scholars who are guilty of this. Scholars guilty of this cease to be  
> scholars when such a thought seems rational.
>
> All in all, I really think you have assigned very poor meanings to  
> these words, and I certainly don’t doubt that this has been your  
> experience. But you understand the limits of lexicons, translations,  
> glosses, etc. I think most people who give themselves to honest  
> pursuit of historical research have long since passed that  
> illusionary barrier. I do think this point should find its way into  
> a Translation 101 class, but I would still relegate it to a footnote.
>
> As always, I give you my thoughts to learn from the pros. I am sure  
> I’ve said nothing to you, Dr. Conrad, that you are not more aware of  
> than I. But I am just trying to figure out why you have been ranting  
> on this point throughout the archives, a point that seems on the  
> surface to be painfully obvious.
>
> Of course, if your point was to simply educate a neophyte, then I  
> would like to retract the entire email to this point and rather  
> commend you for your infinite patience with us mere mortals.
>
>
> Mitch Larramore
> Sugar Land, Texas
>
>
>
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list