Is there really an Optimal Translation theory?

[John of Japan]

It is also used by the Nkjv, and I see that as being a more formal translation then any of these these!

There are two English translations that claim to use OE, the NKJV and the HCSB (I don't yet have a CSB). The OT editor of both is the above-mentioned James Price. To claim OE being used in any other translation is to misunderstand what exactly a translation method is and how it rules the translator's choices. This viewpoint can easily become anachronization, putting modern thinking back into historical translations (as when someone claims the KJV uses DE).

 

[Yeshua1]

I think you mean "holding to verbal inspiration." I believe that verbal inspiration demands a verbatim method of translation.

Which is not really the translation theory taken by many modern versions!

 

[John of Japan]

Which is not really the translation theory taken by many modern versions!

True.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Nasb and the Nkjv to me really attempt to use Formal translation theory, and the Esv seems to be trying to hit that "optimal balance", while those such as the Niv and the Net seem to be not quite as literal/formal as these 3 are!

 

[John of Japan]

The Nasb and the Nkjv to me really attempt to use Formal translation theory, and the Esv seems to be trying to hit that "optimal balance", while those such as the Niv and the Net seem to be not quite as literal/formal as these 3 are!

In my view there is no such thing as "formal translation theory," though you might say "a formal translation theory," meaning one theory out of several that look for formal equivalence. Nida gave a supercilious definition: "formal correspondence: quality of a translation in which the features of the form of the source text have been mechanically reproduced in the receptor language" (Nida and Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, p. 200).

There are various levels of formal (or literal), which I would represent by: interlinear, Young's, NASB & ESV, NKJV & Holman's.

 

[Yeshua1]

In my view there is no such thing as "formal translation theory," though you might say "a formal translation theory," meaning one theory out of several that look for formal equivalence. Nida gave a supercilious definition: "formal correspondence: quality of a translation in which the features of the form of the source text have been mechanically reproduced in the receptor language" (Nida and Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, p. 200).

There are various levels of formal (or literal), which I would represent by: interlinear, Young's, NASB & ESV, NKJV & Holman's.

When I use the tern "formal", basically saying to be as literal as one can be in the translation process, but not at the extreme of being an interlinear!

 

[John of Japan]

When I use the tern "formal", basically saying to be as literal as one can be in the translation process, but not at the extreme of being an interlinear!

But an interlinear keeps the form of the original, just as defined by Nida and Taber.

Unfortunately, quite often a good literal method is depicted as being interlinear. For example, D. A. Carson characterized as "literal" an interlinear translation of the German "Haben Sie nichts gefunden?" as translated by "Have you nothing found?" (The King James Version Debate, p. 90). As much as I respect Carson, this is not the typical literal translation, but interlinear. He is setting up a straw man argument, not worthy of his usual scholarship.

 

[Yeshua1]

But an interlinear keeps the form of the original, just as defined by Nida and Taber.

Unfortunately, quite often a good literal method is depicted as being interlinear. For example, D. A. Carson characterized as "literal" an interlinear translation of the German "Haben Sie nichts gefunden?" as translated by "Have you nothing found?" (The King James Version Debate, p. 90). As much as I respect Carson, this is not the typical literal translation, but interlinear. He is setting up a straw man argument, not worthy of his usual scholarship.

The term that I have seen associated with more literal/formal versions has been "wooden"

 

[Rippon]

It is also used by the Nkjv, and I see that as being a more formal translation then any of these these!

These these?

 

[Rippon]

Now (ignoring the nattering nabob of negativism), may I assume that none of you knows what transformational grammar (TG) is?

Point of grammar : It's know, not "knows" in the context of what you were trying to say.

 

[Rippon]

I think you mean "holding to verbal inspiration." I believe that verbal inspiration demands a verbatim method of translation.

That's pure nonsense. One can't translate verbatim. That's silly.

 

[Rippon]

Now (ignoring the nattering nabob of negativism),

By the way, I had Spiro's daughter, Susan, as a 7th grade history teacher.

 

[Rippon]

There are two English translations that claim to use OE, the NKJV and the HCSB (I don't yet have a CSB). The OT editor of both is the above-mentioned James Price. To claim OE being used in any other translation is to misunderstand what exactly a translation method is and how it rules the translator's choices.

You are being silly. Just about every translation claims to translate in the best way possible --optimally.
One can't just push a program button of O.E. and maintain it is totally unique to two or possibly three translations. That's absurd.

This viewpoint can easily become anachronization, putting modern thinking back into historical translations (as when someone claims the KJV uses DE).

Again, there is nothing new under the sun. Tyndale and the KJV revisers used the principle of dynamic equivalence.
That particular term wasn't used --but the principle certainly was employed. You'd have to be blind (or deaf --if visually impaired) to miss the obvious.

 

[Rippon]

The term that I have seen associated with more literal/formal versions has been "wooden"

You have used it yourself when referencing the 1977 NASB.

 

[John of Japan]

The term that I have seen associated with more literal/formal versions has been "wooden"

But I'm sure the translators have a steely gaze when they translate.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's pure nonsense. One can't translate verbatim. That's silly.

One can have a theory that would be a direct word for word translation whenever possible though!

 

[Yeshua1]

You have used it yourself when referencing the 1977 NASB.

True, which should be corrected in the 2018 Nas update now coming.
Lets see if they go big into being "gender neutral" in the next revision!

 

[Rippon]

True, which should be corrected in the 2018 Nas update now coming.

I never thought that the 1995 NASB was wooden.

Lets see if they go big into being "gender neutral" in the next revision!

You are off the deep end.

 

[Rippon]

This viewpoint can easily become anachronization, putting modern thinking back into historical translations (as when someone claims the KJV uses DE).

"Functional equivalents are not new. Although the translation theory which formally defines such differences is of recent origin, the technique did not originate in the late twentieth century. Fuinctional equivalent translation is found in the Septuagint and the venerable KJV also used functional equivalents in many instances."( Rodney Decker Verbal-Plenary Inspiration And Translation.)

 

[Rippon]

One can have a theory that would be a direct word for word translation whenever possible though!

Whenever possible = rarely.