Featured "Formal" vs "Functional"

I'm not sure what "less FE" means. I have a physical copy of the NT with all of the notes, and they certainly look "full" FE (whatever that is ) to me. My son, a linguist with a PhD in NT/Greek under a well known Greek scholar, agrees that it is FE.

 

Form absolutely has meaning. It's a linguistic error to think that form does not have meaning. Tenses have meaning. Moods have meaning. Verbal aspect has meaning. Cases have meaning. Putting a verb in the infinitive (verbal noun) or participle (verbal adjective) has meaning. Prepositional phrases have meaning. Agreement in context has meaning. Using a pronoun instead of a proper noun has meaning. I could go on and on.

 

Well, I had my MA translation students compare The Message to the Greek, and they completely agree that it is a paraphrase. I'm pretty sure they are more knowledgeable than you in this area, especially S, a linguist from Germany training to translate under our faculty.

 

Sounds like you are trying to lecture me. The prof is not qualified. I think I'll transfer to another class.

Got to teach Greek in a few minutes, anyway. They are studying the -μι verbs, about to take a quiz on them. Perhaps you'd like to pontificate on the -μι verbs, and I can pass your wisdom on to my students.

 

Often the ambiguities can be kept, but sometimes they cannot. One example of ambiguity unable to be preserved in English is ἄνωθεν in John 3. Functional translators usually try to eliminate the ambiguities completely, but OE translators strive to keep them.

 

Looking back, I figure you mean the NET translation notes, which are in footnotes throughout the text. They are generally helpful.

"Fourth, the translators and editors used the notes to give a translation that was formally equivalent, while placing a somewhat more dynamically equivalent translation in the text itself to promote better readability and understandability" (NET Bible NT Preface, p. 6).

 

I asked you about five legitimate questions and you chose to dismiss them with a wave of the hand. I wasn't lecturing you. I didn't put them in the form of statements.

 

The questions were not in the form of statements. But people often lecture with questions. So your whole post sounded like a lecture to me (and you have quite often lectured me in the past.) Since you say it was not, I'll take a second look at it.

 

I don't even remember what translation this is talking about. I think you know my general opinion about most modern translations, which is that they are not needed; the world has many people groups which need translations far, far more. (I have read a few modern translations.)

No.

Yes, insofar as the theory will allow it.

Yes.

I have no opinion on Luther's work, and plan to have no opinion in the future. My German linguist student tells me it is very archaic.

Lecturing.

 

I did not say that form doesn't have meaning. I said that form does not equal meaning. Since the form of every translation has to be restructured; the form doesn't automatically communicate meaning. Some translations keep more of the form than other translations --but all translations to one degree or another have to alter the form (restructure) in order for the intended audience to understand --- to get the meaning.

 

What's the difference?

 

The particular translation is the NET Bible.

 

Read the rest of my post #50. You quoted only the first sentence. You ignored the remainder.

 

Which formally equivalent translations are poorly done in your opinion?

 

So you said that all functionally-equivalent Bible translations are not poorly done. Which ones have been done well?

 

We have discussed Ernest S. Wendland's article before : Martin Luther --The Father Of Confessional, Functional--Equivalence Bible Translation.

Apparently Luther's New Testament translation was Functional equivalence (dynamic equivalence). He, with the help of other produced several retranslations of his original in his lifetime.

To say that it is very archaic may be as true as saying that the KJV is too archaic in our language. Luther's translation was as instrumental for the German language as Tyndale's was for the English language.

 

JOJ, you called the above a lecture. (That's funny). You didn't say it was false. You didn't cite N.T. scholars who differ with what I said.

So apparently, since you did not elaborate one whit, you think that all five are functionally-equivalent. And, I might add you are not familiar with some of the translations that I, and Bible scholars believe are indeed a mixture of the two translational methods. They blend and interweave from passage to passage and within passages both formally equivalent and functionally equivalent. renderings. you seemingly recognize no continuum. You must think a Bible version is either one or the other --with no in-betweens.

 

Young's.

 

I first read the original NIV when it came out. At the time, I predicted that it would do well, due to its excellent English style. Obviously, my prediction came true. However, I do not recommend it due to its many mistranslations, and because I disagree with the NT Greek text it came from.

 

Concerning the change in terminology by Eugene Nida (inventor of the method), here is what Nida wrote:

"Unfortunately, the expression 'dynamic equivalence' has often been misunderstood as referring to anything which might have special impact and appeal for receptors. Some Bible translators have seriously violated the principle of dynamic equivalence as described in Theory and Practice of Translating and Toward a Science of Translating. It is hoped, therefore, that the use of the expression 'functional equivalence' may serve to highlight the communicative functions of translating and to avoid misunderstanding" (Eugene Nida and Jan de Waard, From One Language to Another (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986, vii-viii).

So Nida would not consider The Message and other paraphrases to be DE/FE. In fact, some were saying such things, and that is why Nida changed his term.