[B-Greek] GLWSSA
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Mar 25 00:36:13 EST 2004
> To all:
>
> I apologize for posting this unclear question. I was
> not wanting to discuss the "gift of" GLWSSA or
> anything theological. I was more just trying to
> understand why modern translations still translate
> GLWSSA as "tongue" when it has the general meaning of
> a "language" (either of people or angels).
>
> Mitch Larramore
Mitch, if you would like to understand more about modern translations, I
suggest you try to follow some courses in semantics, communication and
translation theory. And you could subscribe to the bible translation list
where such issues are discussed. There is a huge difference between modern
literal translations like RSV, NASB, NKJV and modern idiomatic translations
like JBPhillips, TEV, CEV, NCV, NLT etc. NIV is more literal than idiomatic,
but there is no clear-cut dividing line. It is rather a continuum from one
extreme end (KJV) to the other (the Message).
Since you refer to people or angels you may be thinking of 1 Cor 13:1, and
here a number of modern translations do use "language" (TEV, CEV, NCV, NLT).
JBP uses "eloquence".
The "normal" word for language in the Greek NT is DIALEKTOS, but only Luke
uses it in Acts. He never uses GLWSSA in the sense of a language the person
speaking has learnt to speak. John uses GLWSSA for language in Revelation,
but that reflects that he is thinking in a Semitic language and translating
literally. Different languages in the world often use that part of the body
which seems most pertinent to speech to refer to both speech and language. I
am familiar with an African language where the word for mouth also refers to
language. In Hebrew it is either tongue or lip that are extended to refer to
speech. As far as I know Hebrew does not have any other word for language
whereas Greek has several and the metonym "tongue" is one of them.
Try to look up all occurrences of GLWSSA in the GNT. Apart from its literal
meaning, it is often used as a metonym to stand for what is formed by using
the tongue and the lips, that is, speech.
What is chosen for a real translation of the bible depends on already
established terminology in the target language and culture or subculture.
"Speaking in tongues" is an established technical term in Biblical English,
because we have a long tradition of literal translations. In Phil 2:11 a lot
of English translation say that "every tongue will confess" even though that
is not normal English. It is understandable as a metonym, because we all use
our tongues to speak, but it is not a natural expression in English, since
literal versions do not use natural everyday language. NCV says "everyone
will confess" and TEV says "all will openly proclaim".
If you were to translate into a language without such a tradition, it is
unlikely you would use "tongue". But remember, that meaning is not only
attached to isolated words, but to combinations of words, so you might need
to use a whole phrase to get a reasonably accurate translation, e.g.
"speaking a language they have never learned" in some of the places in 1
Cor. Such long phrases are cumbersome, so it may be better to use a shorter
phrase like "speaking in tongues". It is not normal English, but then the
phenomenon it describes is not normal either. It probably was not a normal
expression in Greek. The advantage of using a technical term is that then
people have to get the meaning from context and experience. The disadvantage
is that people often misunderstand the intended meaning. Carl has mentioned
one of the common misunderstandings by saying that it is "pretty clearly NOT
ordinary human language."
Iver Larsen
SIL Translation Consultant
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list