Featured Bill Mounce

That’s missing the point. For those able to read the originals like a native speaker, no translation is needed.

Literal word for word translation does not work where languages are significantly structurally different or where idioms rendered literally become meaningless.

For those unfamiliar with other languages and cultures, such explanations may prove just as opaque as literal word for word translations would. Heaven help them.

 

It may be that idiomatic, but the linked list only says long of anger not nose. Did something get lost in translation? “Got your nose!”

Ex 34.6 Long of anger slow to get angry

 

Aha. "Long nose" here is an idiom. One of my pet peeves in translation studies: throwing an idiom on the table and then saying, "It's nonsense to translate this literally." Well of course it is nonsense, because an idiom is not meant to be taken literally by its very nature. And we "literal" translators do not translate idioms literally, as a general rule.

“idiom A set expression in which two or more words are syntactically related, but with a meaning like that of a single lexical unit: e.g. ‘spill the beans’ in Someone has spilled the beans about the bank raid, or ‘put one’s foot in it’ in Her husband can never make a speech without putting his foot in it” (P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, 183).

This is a semantic problem, of course, not necessarily a difference in translation methodology. The essentially literal translator will say to choose the optimally equivalent word, and a DE translator will say to choose the closest natural equivalent. Not a big difference there.

 

Not every difference in expression would be considered idiomatic to that extent. Idiom also carries the definition “: the syntactical, grammatical, or structural form peculiar to a language.” Definition of IDIOM

Is that entirely correct? Might not the DE translator rather recommend choosing the closest natural equivalent expression rather than word?

 

Also Exodus 32:19. Strong's Hebrew number 639. Reference to the "nose" for anger.
Good catch by the way.

 

Hebrew Word Definition: Anger| AHRC

 

There are two meanings to the word "idiom." What you have defined here is not what I was talking about. What I was talking about is the figure of speech called "idiom." The "idiom" of a language is a more general term for how a language is arranged. So C. F. D. Moule's intermediate grammar is titled, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, but it has no list of idioms, the figure of speech.

True.

 

It depends. There is never a one-to-one correspondence in words between languages. In Japanese we have one word for gold, kin (金). But for "justified" we have three words, gi to mitomerareta (義と認められた, recognized as righteous). There is no "one size fits all" solution to any word a translator is working with.

 

Yes, I agree. And yes, it is not what you were talking about, but it is what we are talking about. And it's always interesting to see that words end up having a range of meanings not always understood even by native speakers (not meaning you).

The point was really that languages are more distinct in manner of expression than just that limited definition of idiom. As some might say, "We don't talk like that where I come from."

Thus, translating strictly word for word, except for those idioms, still may not correctly express what was actually written. Throw resultant culture into the mix and a span of centuries and the problems multiply.

So, back to the age old issue. There is no substitute for study, commentary, explanation. Translators should do the best job they can, but even a very good translation cannot do it all.

 

You lost me there. It's not what I was talking about? But JonC used an idiom (figure of speech) and I responded to it. And that's how the term "idiom" entered this discussion.

You lost me again. "Limited definition of idiom"??? Once again, there are two definitions of "idiom" in the English language, and neither of them are "limited."

Here's where folks always miss what each other is talking about. When I say "word for word," I mean when possible, translating each word in the original with something (a word or phrase) in the target language. Granted, sometimes it is not possible (Greek particles and sometimes the Greek article).

But about the culture, that is where the theory relevance theory of linguistics is helpful. If you are interested (rather than just throwing the idea of culture and translation out there on the BB), I recommend Relevance Theory, by Ernst-August Gutt.

Agreed.

 

Formal translation philosophy superior to a dynamic one!

 

Would you agree with me that formal translation philosophy superior to dynamic viewpoint for translations then?

 

You know it.

 

Oh boy. Lost two ways in one post?

The first would require remembering or rereading your own post first to understand. (Your post is gonna fail the scholarship test. )

The second is that the single word has a range of meanings, a rather simple concept, and fundamental to translation difficulties. If you were one of your students you might chastise him for not understanding something so basic. (Some might say that your post was ridiculously pedantic, but I'll refrain from such. )

And yes, the literal meaning of "word for word" may not convey what is generally meant by it when translating per theory. Funny how that "works."

Throwing out the idea? Nonsense. Again, it's rather basic to language, and certainly something you are very familiar with. Not that it's not worth discussing. Perhaps the resident expert will want to start another educational thread.

Good. We agree on something. We agree on a lot more, but you have to understand to realize it. But if or where it's my fault, I do apologize for losing you. Really. It wasn't intentional.

 

I did reread my first post here. It was talking about idioms.

No, my students have to be taught how to translate individual words. I drill it into them. They've learned when talking about an individual word that when I say, "1-2-3," they are to yell, "Context."

Aren't you kind of overusing the smileys?

No problem.

 

OK. CONTEXT!

But nothing. Your post said...

Still lost? Prithee, say, “Nay.” (Should I count to 3? )

Using smileys is a matter of taste, of which I claim none, except perhaps for my own brand of humor, which I demand of no man to share or even get, the latter lacking often being the more delightful. If I really had any taste in the matter, I mightn’t use smileys at all."

 

Excellent!

Let's get back to the OP.

Okey dokey.

 

Get back to? But anyway… Your turn.

Are you in any way bothered by the use of italics in Bible versions?

And what of emphasizing studying only one word in a passage to get its meaning?

And what of his comments regarding word-for-word and faithful translation? Etc.

(See the OP and the link in post #5 to the article whence it came in.)

 

Here is something about Bill Mounce from James Snapp .

The Text of the Gospels: A New Book About the Text of Codex Bezae

Incidentally, Lorenz’s research (already released in the Tyndale Bulletin and described at his blog in October 2021) does not bode well at all for the 2011 NIV’s adoption of οργισθεις in its base-text of Mark 1:41. Bill Mounce, take note!

The Text of the Gospels: A New Book About the Text of Codex Bezae