Featured Definitions Again

No, their theory is called something different, and is slightly different in methodology.

 

In the case of βαπτιζω, it is technically no longer a transliteration but a loan word.

"loan word A word imported by borrowing from another language." (P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 230) Examples given are chamber from Old French, karma, and blitz.

Surely 1000 years are enough for "baptize" to be a loan word, or maybe even a straight English word, not even a loan word!

On the other hand, baptesuma is a Japanese loan word without near the history. In our Japanese NT we did a translation instead of the usual transliterated loan word, so anyone reading it knows it means to immerse.

 

Here is my own definition of "interlinear."

interlinear: a literal translation that translates not only word for word, but keeps the word order of the original. It is called interlinear because such a translation is usually printed with the original and the translation lined up together. The purpose of an interlinear translation is study.

 

Thank you. Interesting. The question would then be, does Moffat define "equivalent effect" the same way as NIda, as per the quote I gave?

 

My impression is that this is anachronism. Or to put it another way, is F. F. Bruce reading his own thoughts on "equivalent effect" back into Moffatt's effort? Most consider Moffatt to be simply a paraphrase. Therefore, Nida would not appreciate his terminology being used for it--and that's what this thread is about, terminology. If Bruce has a direct quote from Moffatt using this term that would be convincing. However, Moffatt's stated skopos for the OT was "to present the books of the Old Testament in effective and intelligible English" (Sakae Kubo and Walter Specht, So Many Versions? p. 37). That is not a Nida skopos.

 

I have one of those in book form, but from the UBS Greek NT.

 

Unfortunately, Americans have the reputation of not being very astute linguistically. Few of us know a foreign language, and very few know anything about linguistics. I imagine the "baptism is a transliteration" crowd simply likes that paradigm as a point to argue from.

 

The term "back translation" is not widely known outside of professional circles (Bible and secular translators. Here is a sercular definition:

The BT is “A process in which a text which has been translated into a given language is retranslated into SL” [source language]. (Mark Shuttleworth and Moira Cowie, Dictionary of Translation Studies, 14)

Here is my own definition:
back translation: a literal retranslation from the document in the target language back to the source language, usually for the purpose of checking the TL translation. This technique is common in tribal translation work, especially when a translation consultant is being used.

“Such back translations are by necessity highly literal, although the precise decree of literalness will vary depending on the particular feature that needs to be highlighted.” (Shuttleworth and Cowie, 15)

Ironically, even Eugene Nida, the inventor of dynamic equivalence, did literal back translations. “Dr. Nida instructed Viv to translate the first two chapters—the hardest chapters in Luke—from Tboli back into English, word for word. When they finished checking these, verse after verse, question after question, Dr. Nida turned to Vivian and said, ‘Young lady, you’ve done a splendid job.'” (Doris Fell, Lady of the Tboli, p. 97)

 

OE as James Price teaches it makes use of the linguistic tool of transformational grammar to analyze the source text. Then, OE pays more attention to literary style in the target language.

 

Yep.