Translating grammatical forms

[John of Japan]

that is why they at times chose to translate the tense of the Greek verb into what would be considered proper English, not proper Greek, as that would make it mean little to someone reading it!

Well put.

Which shows us that NO translation is fully literal, as at times there is simply no direct word to word equivalent, and at times it would read as being unknowable by the reader what was stated!

An interlinear is the most literal we can get. Next to that is Young's Literal Translation, which at times makes no sense in English.

Would say though that as close to literal would be the best approch though, and why I prefer the Nasb!

The version used by almost all conservative churches in Japan was done with Lockman Foundation money and the translation principles of the NASB.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well put.
An interlinear is the most literal we can get. Next to that is Young's Literal Translation, which at times makes no sense in English.

The version used by almost all conservative churches in Japan was done with Lockman Foundation money and the translation principles of the NASB.

think that is why for the really serious study of the bible, we need to learn at least the basic of the Hrebrew/Greek grammar, enough to be able to use original languages tools such as lexicons, dictionaries etc!

for while translations can be very helpful, still no substitute for the 'real thing!"

 

[John of Japan]

think that is why for the really serious study of the bible, we need to learn at least the basic of the Hrebrew/Greek grammar, enough to be able to use original languages tools such as lexicons, dictionaries etc!

for while translations can be very helpful, still no substitute for the 'real thing!"

I would only rephrase your comment to be "the original thing" instead of "the real thing," since I believe a valid translation is the word of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

I would only rephrase your comment to be "the original thing" instead of "the real thing," since I believe a valid translation is the word of God.

yes, that would be the better word to use there!

 

[Rippon]

JoJ,does form = meaning? Is it the same thing?

Is it possible to capture all nuances when you are translating? Translating is a give-and-take process;isn't it? You have to make choices between things when the alternative might be acceptable as well.

The proponents of the ESV(by that I mean the Preface and Grudem,Ryken &Co.) claim that every possible nuance is packed into their translation. You don't think you are able to do that with yours,do you? You have to settle for a compromise at times;don't you?

 

[John of Japan]

JoJ,does form = meaning? Is it the same thing?

Yes, form = meaning.

Illustration: The Paul makes a semantic point from grammatical form in Gal. 3:16--"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

Is it possible to capture all nuances when you are translating? Translating is a give-and-take process;isn't it? You have to make choices between things when the alternative might be acceptable as well.

No it is not possible to capture all nuances when translating. That is why it is so important for hermeneutics to go to the original Greek and Hebrew for a full understanding of the meaning of the text.

The proponents of the ESV(by that I mean the Preface and Grudem,Ryken &Co.) claim that every possible nuance is packed into their translation. You don't think you are able to do that with yours,do you? You have to settle for a compromise at times;don't you?

"Every possible nuance" is not the same as "every nuance." We do our best to get "every possible nuance" into Japanese, but make no claim to having gotten "every nuance" into Japanese, because the differences between Greek and Japanese grammar don't allow that. Therefore once again, this hightlights the importance of the original languages in Biblical hermeneutics.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, form = meaning.

Illustration: The Paul makes a semantic point from grammatical form in Gal. 3:16--"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

No it is not possible to capture all nuances when translating. That is why it is so important for hermeneutics to go to the original Greek and Hebrew for a full understanding of the meaning of the text.
"Every possible nuance" is not the same as "every nuance." We do our best to get "every possible nuance" into Japanese, but make no claim to having gotten "every nuance" into Japanese, because the differences between Greek and Japanese grammar don't allow that. Therefore once again, this hightlights the importance of the original languages in Biblical hermeneutics.

Won' some of the Nuances being taken and translated into the receiving language though be different due to the 'bias" of the transaltors in regards to trying to mke the Bible speak in what they think it should have said, or would say based upon today, rather than what it said and meant tothe original readers of it?

and is this the area in translation of the scriptures where theTniv/Niv 2011 has received heat for their decisions made in rendering into english, as they have sought to make sure thebible speaks to both male/female, and try to not make it offend Christian feminists as sounding 'too harsh?"

 

[Van]

Advocating ear tickling over accurate translation is without merit.

Luke 8:43 offers several options for translation. The first word "and" could be translated "now" to indicate a change of topic. However, "and" is the most probable meaning of the word. So this could be filed under improving the style rather than translating the style.

Next we get a hemorrhage, or an issue of blood, or a flow of blood, or an issue of a flow of blood. But is she having a flow of blood, or is the idea she had a flow of blood from twelve.

Does the text really say 12 years or does it say from 12. Did she start flowing at age 12, or had the flowing been occurring for 12 years.

Next the CT brackets the idea of having spent her living, apparently going with the idea it was added to harmonize with Mark. The dreaded NIV and NASB leave it out, the KJV includes it.

If it is an addition then reference to the doctors goes away, at least directly.

Next "no one was able to restore her health" seems to best capture the grammar.

 

[John of Japan]

Won' some of the Nuances being taken and translated into the receiving language though be different due to the 'bias" of the transaltors in regards to trying to mke the Bible speak in what they think it should have said, or would say based upon today, rather than what it said and meant tothe original readers of it?

A good translator tries to ignore his or her own biases when translating. However, there are times when theological presuppositions must govern a rendering.

and is this the area in translation of the scriptures where theTniv/Niv 2011 has received heat for their decisions made in rendering into english, as they have sought to make sure thebible speaks to both male/female, and try to not make it offend Christian feminists as sounding 'too harsh?"

I've read a little on this, and I certainly don't have any feminist leanings. However, there are times when anthropos (as compared with aner, which is always "man" or "husband") can be translated as "human" or "person," but that's as far as I'll go in that direction.

 

[John of Japan]

Advocating ear tickling over accurate translation is without merit.

Huh??

Luke 8:43 offers several options for translation. The first word "and" could be translated "now" to indicate a change of topic. However, "and" is the most probable meaning of the word. So this could be filed under improving the style rather than translating the style.

This is not really a grammar problem as per the OP, but is about a lexical unit.

Next we get a hemorrhage, or an issue of blood, or a flow of blood, or an issue of a flow of blood. But is she having a flow of blood, or is the idea she had a flow of blood from twelve.

This is extremely simple Greek grammar, merely two nouns, one of them nominative and the other genetive: "an issue of blood."

Does the text really say 12 years or does it say from 12. Did she start flowing at age 12, or had the flowing been occurring for 12 years.

This is a prepositional phrase, apo plus the genetive. It doesn't mean "from the age of 12," since later in the passage we have a 12 year old girl (5:42), and the phraseology is different. The prepositional phrase means "for 12 years."

Next the CT brackets the idea of having spent her living, apparently going with the idea it was added to harmonize with Mark. The dreaded NIV and NASB leave it out, the KJV includes it.

If it is an addition then reference to the doctors goes away, at least directly.

This is a problem of textual criticism, and does not follow the OP, which is about translating grammar.

Next "no one was able to restore her health" seems to best capture the grammar.

Translating it this way takes away the force of the passive verb. As the original passive stands, she was the one trying to be cured, and could not be, therefore it leaves open the possibility that she was fooled by quacks. However, making it an active verb means none of the doctors could cure her, leaving out the possibility that she was deceived by quack doctors, as the nuance of the original has it.

 

[Yeshua1]

A good translator tries to ignore his or her own biases when translating. However, there are times when theological presuppositions must govern a rendering.

I've read a little on this, and I certainly don't have any feminist leanings. However, there are times when anthropos (as compared with aner, which is always "man" or "husband") can be translated as "human" or "person," but that's as far as I'll go in that direction.

Agree with you on this, but think the Tniv went overboard, as their group had stated that a purpose in translating the revision was to make sure the "bias" that might be seen still in the text 1984 was updated, so to not offend those in circles thinking the bible is anti female! So agenda drove their revision partly!

 

[John of Japan]

Agree with you on this, but think the Tniv went overboard, as their group had stated that a purpose in translating the revision was to make sure the "bias" that might be seen still in the text 1984 was updated, so to not offend those in circles thinking the bible is anti female! So agenda drove their revision partly!

And I agree that agenda, especially such an agenda, should nor drive a Bible translation.

 

[HankD]

And I agree that agenda, especially such an agenda, should nor drive a Bible translation.

We may not all agree with JoJ's individual statements, but I believe that God has put this drive in his heart:

"... Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God".

HankD​

 

[John of Japan]

We may not all agree with JoJ's individual statements, but I believe that God has put this drive in his heart:

"... Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God".

HankD​

Exactly! Thank you, Hank.

 

[Van]

Not really

Huh??

Ear tickling is without merit. You should agree rather than question.

This is not really a grammar problem as per the OP, but is about a lexical unit.

Choosing the best word in English, to convey the original message should reflect both the Greek grammar and construction. Here we have a topic change, thus some translators go with "now" but "and" most accurately presents the original.

This is extremely simple Greek grammar, merely two nouns, one of them nominative and the other genitive: "an issue of blood."

That is your choice but a flow of blood more closely reflects the actual meaning of the Greek word used.

This is a prepositional phrase, apo plus the genitive. It doesn't mean "from the age of 12," since later in the passage we have a 12 year old girl (5:42), and the phraseology is different. The prepositional phrase means "for 12 years."

Yes "from 12" is a prepositional phrase. To change "apo" which means out of or from or since, to years is without merit.

This is a problem of textual criticism, and does not follow the OP, which is about translating grammar.

It relates to the meaning of "no one" of the doctors versus no one including Jesus.

Translating it this way takes away the force of the passive verb. As the original passive stands, she was the one trying to be cured, and could not be, therefore it leaves open the possibility that she was fooled by quacks. However, making it an active verb means none of the doctors could cure her, leaving out the possibility that she was deceived by quack doctors, as the nuance of the original has it.

No it reinforces the passive verb and includes the nuance.

 

[John of Japan]

No it reinforces the passive verb and includes the nuance.

Please enlighten me as to how rendering a Greek passive as an English active verb "reinforces the passive verb."

 

[Van]

No one was able to restore her health is not the same as no one restored her health. To be restored is passive, thus was able creates the passive nuance. The idea is she was not able to be healed by any, thus no one was able to restore her health captures the nuance and the grammar.

1)flow of blood

2) since 12 years

3) no one was able to restore her health.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Next the CT brackets the idea of having spent her living, apparently going with the idea it was added to harmonize with Mark. The dreaded NIV and NASB leave it out, the KJV includes it.

If it is an addition then reference to the doctors goes away, at least directly.

Next "no one was able to restore her health" seems to best capture the grammar.

Funny, my dad recently presented a paper on this textual problem. Here it is for anyone interested: "The High Cost of Physicians: The Textual Criticism of Luke 8:43."

What do you think?

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[John of Japan]

No one was able to restore her health is not the same as no one restored her health. To be restored is passive, thus was able creates the passive nuance. The idea is she was not able to be healed by any, thus no one was able to restore her health captures the nuance and the grammar.

I suggest that you really need to study grammar more. "was able to restore" is not passive. "To be restored" is passive, but "to restore" is just a normal infinitive. :type:

 

[Van]

Someone needs to study grammar more. How about "by no one was she able to be restored to health.”