Re: post.prepared for anglican (reversible translation)

From: Paul Zellmer (
Date: Thu May 22 1997 - 14:40:20 EDT

Lee R. Martin wrote:
> Paul Zellmer wrote:
> >
> > Lee R. Martin wrote:
> > >
> > > Comparing "paraphrase" to "translation" is like comparing apples to
> > > oranges. They do not belong in the same discussion. Paraphrase is the
> > > attempt to restate a meaning in different words. This principle applies
> > > only within the same language.
> >
> > Lee,
> >
> > In the purest form of the definition, I agree with your "same-language"
> > definition. However, in actual practice, the word "paraphrase" has been
> > used to describe translations based on translations, e.g.,
> > Koine-->English-->minority language.
> Translators certainly use "paraphrase" in this way, but it is
> misleading, as we can plainly see from the posts on this list. A
> double-step translation is no more a paraphrase than a single-step
> translation. It is a translation of a translation. Of course the
> translators may then add the further process of paraphrasing their
> retranslation.

Then, Lee, just a question that brings this back (somewhat) to the study
of Greek. What determines the meaning of a word: its etymology, its
original meaning, or how it is used in the context? Plainly, the line
of the current posts are saying, "Don't worry about all the ways it IS
currently being used. This is how it SHOULD be used."

Perhaps it's time to put TDNT back on the list of approved sources of
information. ;^> (Of course, I realize that the argument which put it
"on report," so to say, was not the information it contained, but how
that information was misused.)


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