Featured They, Them, Their

Regardless of 19th or 20th century usage (or that of any BB denizen posting here) of "they" for "he, him" (etc.), this usage in translating a 1st century document is an anachronism. They simply did not talk or write that way in 1st century Greek. In Venuti's terminology, it is domesticizing, and thus inappropriate in a formal translation of the NT.

Our usually excellent proofreader recently suggested 口座 (kouza), which is the word for a modern bank account, for λόγος (usually trans. "account") in Phil. 4:17. Doesn't work.

I'm out of here till Monday. Enjoy yourselves.

 

Why should he or she care how the instructions are given as long as they can understand and follow them?

 

What is correct about theirself? Their is a plural form. Self is singular. Combining them sounds like an attempt to accommodate a collective noun.

If one needs a "self" form, then themself would seem the more obvious solution, but still has the same strange feel. However, it evidently has historical roots all the way back to the 14th century.

On the other hand use of hisself evidently dates back to the 12th century. Hmmm.

But I foresee other problems with this situation.

 

The point was that using their for singular involves the exact same issues as using them for singular. That is, the comparison is themself vs theirself. Why go off into using theirself rather than keeping to themself? Themself, singular; themselves, plural.

"Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themself and take up their cross and follow me."

 

You missed my point entirely, which was about 1st century Greek.

Nope, you did not quote me, although if you want to go through 15 years of JoJ quotes and find something, go right ahead. It would still not be relevant to my point.

Do you know what Venuti means by "domesticizing"? He's an excellent translation scholar. I highly recommend him.

Are you okay? This is the second time in your post you mentioned something that I did not say.

 

Yuk! What exactly is wrong with the generic use of the Third Person Singular, 'himself'?

It's wrong. Apart from the fact they the word 'you' is not found in the original, it also restricts the application to the disciples. 'If anyone' translates the Greek ei tis precisely, and rightly opens it out to all people of all times. This frantic exclusion of the word 'he' may satisfy the gender fascists but it doesn't help good translation.

Just so.

 

That's 'whom are you addressing?'

 

Venuti follows Schleiermacher:

”In an 1812 lecture on the different 'methods' of translation, Schleiermacher argued that 'there are only two. Either the translator leaves the author in peace as possible and moves the reader towards him, or he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him" (Lawrence Venuti, The Translator's Invisibility, 2nd ed., p. 15).

The first method is called foreignization, and the second is called domesticization.

"Schleiermacher made clear that his choice was foreignizing translation, and this led the French translator and translation theorist Antoine Berman to treat Schleiermacher's argument as an ethics of translation, concerned with making the translated text a place where a cultural other is manifested" (Ibid).

 

Jerome (the historical translator, not ours on the BB) domesticized when translating the Bible:

“For I myself not only admit but freely proclaim that in translating from the Greek (except in the case of the holy scriptures where even the order of the words is a mystery) I render sense for sense and not word for word," from “To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating,”

[1] Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, ed. The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Volume VI. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co. reprint, 1989, 113.)

 

Rippon, here's an example that suggests how Lawrence Venuti might treat certain passages of Scripture:

In The Translator's Invisibility [cited by John of Japan above], pp. 33-34, Venuti takes issue with a 1950s translator of Suetonius's The Twelve Caesars employing the terms "homosexual relationship" or even "catamite".

Venuti: "the translation is...homophobic", "Grave's use of 'homosexual relationship' to render 'prostratae regi pudicitiae' ('surrendered his modesty to the king') is an anachronism....[it] diagnoses same-sex sexual activity as pathological"

Venuti: "Suetonius later touches on Caesar’s sexual reputation, and here too Graves’s version is marked by a homophobic bias....the Latin text makes rather general and noncommittal references to Caesar’s sexuality ["'contubernium' ('sharing the same tent', 'companionship', 'intimacy')"]...Graves chooses English words that stigmatize same-sex sexual acts as perverse...makes Caesar a 'catamite'....As an archaism, 'catamite' deviates from the modern English lexicon....a deviation that is symptomatic of the domesticating process in Graves’s version."

all from first chapter of The Translator's Invisibility by Lawrence Venuti (Phd, Columbia University) pdf link