Featured "Formal" vs "Functional"

[QUOTE="John of Japan, post: 2778063, member: 5820] "Optimal equivalence as a translation philosophy recognizes that form cannot be neatly separated from meaning and should not be changed...unless comprehension demands it.”
[/quote]
But form doesn't = meaning, does it? Obviously some of the form should be used in translating; it should not be neglected. However, much of the time the form has to be altered in order for the translation to make sense in the receptor language.

 

That principle above is the goal of all sorts of Bible translation. It is not unique to OE.

 

Yes, there are weaknesses associated with formal equivalence and strengths. Then too, functional equivalence has both its strengths and weaknesses.

D.A. Carson has an essay on The Limits Of Functional Equivalence.

 

The above is a tricky one. Just how far does that go? I think New Testament scholars as well as Old Testament scholars would differ among themselves on this principle. Looking at footnotes from a number of English translations I see many that say "There is uncertainty about the original."

 

The chart is all messed up. The CSB and NIV should be in the center, GW should be to the right of the NLT. The ESV should be to the right of the NKJV.
As much as it was denied CNE is the same thing as functional equivalence. It's nothing new, It's the same thing. CNE is just another marketing slogan.

 

That chart seems to be a "Christian advertisement" for God's Word translation. RipponRedeaux was right it is inaccurate. The GW translation goes to the extreme right of the chart. NET maybe center of the chart or to the right.

 

Good literary form depends on the biblical genre being translated. But it involves a lack of awkwardness, being easy to read without being distracted by the syntax, etc.

Again, this is a complicated issue, depending on the text. In a narrative it is entirely possible to preserve all of the information in the text. In John's epistles this is also true, but not so much in Paul's. Then there are other genres. So if you are asking for a simple answer, there is none, but the effort is made in OE to preserve the information.

The key word is "seeks." Whether every nuance can be carried over or not, the attempt must be made.

 

What about it?? I've already said that this was not Dr. Price's choice, but that of an editor. (He told this to me personally.) Therefore it is obvious that "optimal equivalence" represented his translation theory while "complete equivalence" did not.

 

Very poor translation; functional/dynamic equivalence.

 

The first translation done on purpose with dynamic equivalence (the term was changed to "functional" later) was the Today's English Version (TEV, Good News for Modern Man, now in revision the GNB), done at Nida's request by liberal Baptist Robert Bratcher. Other translations done with FE include the NET and the NIV (to a lesser extent), but not something like The Message, which is a purposeful paraphrase. Nida objected to paraphrases being called DE, and that is why he changed his term to FE.

 

That can be taken several ways. It's functional, i. e. dynamic equivalence. Therefore, it is a very poor translation.

It's a poorly done functional equivalence translation.

Which one is it? Or is there another option?

Are all functionally equivalent translations poorly done?

Are some functionally equivalent translations done well?

Are some formally equivalent translations poorly done?

Are Martin Luther's Bible translations (at least five during his life) poor just because he did them in a functionally equivalent manner? I know you're going to say since you don't speak or write German you wouldn't know. But you have read articles about Martin Luther's translational style.

The CSB, NIV, NABRE, NJB and NET Bible are all a blend of formal and functional. That's why they are considered to be standing in the center of honest translational charts. They are mediating translations --neither fish nor fowl.

 

The Message is not a paraphrase. It's unduly free.

You can't expect people to know which is which when you just give the initials of FE. It could stand for either formally equivalent or functionally equivalent. You have to express the terms by using the full wording.

 

Sorry, but the translator notes for which translation?