Re: post.prepared for anglican (reversible translation)

From: Bill Stonebraker (
Date: Thu May 22 1997 - 07:30:33 EDT

At 7:42 AM +0100 5/21/97, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
>I am absolutely fascinated that no-one else has yet come up with an
>alternative definition of the distinction between a translation and a
>paraphrase. I appreciate that my suggestion that a translation is
>reversible, but a parapharase irreversible, may include too strict a
>view of translation for some scholars. But unless an alternative
>objective test for distinguishing between translating and paraphrasing
>is laid down, should we not draw the conclusion that they are one and
>the same activity, and that when one person says something is a
>translation he is simply affirming that it is the paraphrase he
>subjectively prefers to other paraphrases?

>From all the discussion, it sounds like the difference has more to do with
the whether the end point is in the same language as the start point. In
other words, a translation would be a paraphrase into a different language.

Of course, since my teen-aged daughter speaks a different language, this
may be less clear than I thought... :-)

Grace & Peace
Bill Stonebraker

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