From: roland milanese (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat May 10 1997 - 12:20:26 EDT
Don Wilkins wrote:
> ... to assume that no translation of a word or phrase ever fully conveys
> the grammatical (and sometimes lexical) meaning of the original is also
> fallacious. The opposite sentiment ... is probably true more often. ... I
> would suggest that the simple past tense in Eng and other languages is
> often a correct understanding of a Grk aorist indicative. The challenge is > to evaluate each construction correctly, pointing out when the translation > succeeds as well as when it fails.
I would agree, Don, that in order to justify a translation, we need to
evaluate each construction correctly, pointing out when the translation
succeeds as well as when it fails. The question then is, how? It seems to me
the translator must have a sufficient understanding of the semantic elements
that make up the grammatical and lexical structures (and other structures as
well) in BOTH (emphasis) the source and receptor language in order to
determine an appropriate translation. And if this is so, we as English
speakers need to work on English grammar just as much as on Greek grammar.
Hmmm. But at the same time I still think there is an intuitive and informal
grasp of language which enables people to become bilingual and capable of
translating, even though they may not have any formal understanding of
grammar and may themselves therefore be unable to justify their translation.
So I suppose we need to work at developing our language instincts too ...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:15 EDT