Featured "Formal" vs "Functional"

This is what JOJ said. He thinks the NET translation was done in a Functionally Equivalence manner. He believes that the NIV was done so to a lesser extent.

Therefore the NET is more functionally equivalent than the NIV.

No criticism, just rephrasing.

 

To call a Bible translation an FE is ambiguous. FE could stand for Formal Equivalence or Functional Equivalence. Those are two different categories. It's better to use the full words instead of an abbreviation.

 

That's what I thought. Nobody refers to "formal equivalence" as FE. A "formal equivalence" translation (Nida's term, not mine) is usually called simply "formal" by those who use the term. Note that this is not the usual term used by scholars of secular translation studies, just by Nida and his imitators.

 

Tell that to Alireza Jamalimanesh.

 

You appear to be referring to this article by him: Formal vs. Dynamic Equivalence in Subtitling: The Case of English Movies with Persian Subtitles
If so, well, duh. How is he going to interact with Nida without using Nida's terminology?

Plus, it's not that scholarly.
1. The "seal pup of God" story is apocryphal, so he can't even (and doesn't even) source it.
2. He extrapolates based on a very limited study. I mean, just three movies? Not PhD, or even MA material.
3. The subject is not that great of a scholarly draw. I mean, movie subtitles? Really? (I've only read one essay on that elsewhere.) Plus, the conclusions are self evident.

 

I completely agree.

 

Formal, as that tends to try to get to what was intended by the originals, and less of a commentary on what we think that they meant to state!

 

The Net textual notes best feature of that bible

 

No, let's put the incomprehensible and more difficult readings in the text. That will be a winner. ;-)

 

Do you actually think the Bible as is has no difficult passages? That the translator can simply expand the translation so that everything is understandable? FE often actually dumbs down the Bible, losing nuances that are difficult to understand by trying to make them easy to understand. This makes the translator the interpreter, rather than the reader.

ἐν οἷς ἔστιν δυσνόητά τινα, ἃ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι στρεβλοῦσιν, ὡς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς γραφάς, πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν.
"In them are some things difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort, just as in the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16b, translation by JoJ).

 

That is why to me prefer to use the "wooden" 1977 and 1995 Nas, instead of the more dynamic Niv 2011!

 

Even if one does not like the Greek Critical text being used as main source, still very useful textual notes!

 

I never said or implied that the Bible has no difficult passages. I was poking fun at those who think that difficult wording should be in the text and the more reader friendly renderings should be placed in the footnotes.

So-called Lit. renderings found in nearly all English Bibles are found in the footnotes --as they rightly should be.

And there are a number of uncertainties in the text of the Old Testament especially.

You use "FE" thinking that that is clear. FE also stands for Formally Equivalent.