reversible translation

Date: Wed May 21 1997 - 07:52:49 EDT

i can both show that they are not the same and that they are the same.

the recent history of english representation of ancient texts has been such
that venn diagrams of the thought maps have more greatly overlapped between the
two terms.

take 100 greeks. the longer a patch of english is the more different versions
you'd get in a reverse translation. for shorter phraseology, you'd likely find
many duplications.

as i pointed out on here a while back a clever pedagogue can teach prose
composition, say by having students translate plato from certain english loeb
editions back into greek. needless to say, this practice soon reveals much of
the mental processes of the translator chosen for said exercise.

so far, however, i have not seen from anyone here a single, cogent, clear
principle of differentiation between translation and paraphrase. most attempts
inject extraneous elements like amplification, repetition, et alia.

one reason for progressive blending of the venn's and failure to clarify
distinction will have been use of 'dynamic equivalence' which offered
professionals a kind of self-compliment and advertising gimmick, but which
guaranteed nothing either dynamic or equivalent, and which offered no
improvement at all over the old classical goal of crafting prose in the target
language that could be as readily understood as possible and which would
simultaneously convey as much of the thought of the original as possible.

most versions simply show how little of their original the various individuals
or committees understood. if they had been more thoughtful, they would have
corrected some of the glaring mistakes contained in almost all versions of
scripture. thank the Most High, Blessed be He, for the few brilliant exceptions
to this.

bearded bill of asheville <>
unca not having approved either whom or thereof.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:16 EDT