Definitions Again

[John of Japan]

I always heard it call Formal translation method....

This is a term invented by Nida in his 1964 book. I don't necessarily disagree with using the term like I do some of Nida's other terms, but I think it is a little misleading in the sense that "formal equivalence" translators don't just translate form, but also meaning. If you don't get the meaning into the target language it is not really translation.

 

[John of Japan]

Here's Nida's definition of "formal equivalence," called "formal correspondence" in this definition (he liked to invent new terms):

“formal correspondence: quality of a translation in which the features of the form of the source text have been mechanically reproduced in the receptor language. Typically, formal correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard.”
Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, p. 201.

By this definition you can see how Nida looked down on any "literal" translation. He uses negative terminology like "mechanical" and "distorts" and "misunderstand" and "labor unduly hard." In other words,you have to modernize and dumb down a translation for it to be effective.

 

[Yeshua1]

The term "functional equivalence" was chosen because Nida felt that his theory was being misused and applied to outright paraphrases. DE/FE is ostensibly not a method for paraphrasing, though it is more paraphrastic than most people think.

Is there when translators went from word to word to thought by thought phase?

 

[Yeshua1]

Here's Nida's definition of "formal equivalence," called "formal correspondence" in this definition (he liked to invent new terms):

“formal correspondence: quality of a translation in which the features of the form of the source text have been mechanically reproduced in the receptor language. Typically, formal correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard.”
Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, p. 201.

By this definition you can see how Nida looked down on any "literal" translation. He uses negative terminology like "mechanical" and "distorts" and "misunderstand" and "labor unduly hard." In other words,you have to modernize and dumb down a translation for it to be effective.

You have to get behind the actual wording used and more in the mind of the writer of scripture per that, but wind up many times giving more commentary on what think it should have said that what was said!

 

[John of Japan]

Is there when translators went from word to word to thought by thought phase?

What translators? There have always been translators who liked "thought for thought." However, You have to realize Nida's innovations; he was not just another "thought for thought" translator. He invented "receptor response."

"response (of a receptor): the sum of the reactions of a receptor to a message in terms of understanding (or lack of it), emotional attitude, decision, and action."
Nida and Taber, 206.

 

[Yeshua1]

What translators? There have always been translators who liked "thought for thought." However, You have to realize Nida's innovations; he was not just another "thought for thought" translator. He invented "receptor response."

"response (of a receptor): the sum of the reactions of a receptor to a message in terms of understanding (or lack of it), emotional attitude, decision, and action."
Nida and Taber, 206.

Isn't that then where the issue of just how much interpretation and commentary gets interjected into the translation?

 

[John of Japan]

Isn't that then where the issue of just how much interpretation and commentary gets interjected into the translation?

No offense, but I'm trying to concentrate on definitions here rather than methodology.

 

[Yeshua1]

No offense, but I'm trying to concentrate on definitions here rather than methodology.

What is the definition of the translation process used by the Nkjv in their preface?

 

[John of Japan]

What is the definition of the translation process used by the Nkjv in their preface?

I do have that in my files, but surely you can post it, since it's short.

 

[Yeshua1]

I do have that in my files, but surely you can post it, since it's short.

Optimal, or complete equivalence!

 

[John of Japan]

Optimal, or complete equivalence!

“Seeks to preserve all of the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form” (NKJV Preface).

My definition:
Optimal Equivalence: A method of translation which seeks the optimal expression in the target language; that is, the expression which best reproduces the form and meaning of the original while aiming at good literary style in the target language. OE uses transformational/generational grammar to achieve this goal. OE was the method used to translate the NKJV and HCSB. This method's main proponent is Dr. James Price, OT editor of the NKJV and a translator on the HCSB.

A secular definition, but not referencing Price's theory:
"optimal equivalence
trans This refers to the choice of one out of several equivalents our of a number of potential equivalents. It can be the result of a trade-off between linguistic/stylistic options, subject preferences, and transfer alternatives. According to Jiri Levy, a translator begins with a set of possible choices. Each successive choice narrows the field of possible choices until the translator has arrived at the single, optimal target language equivalent. [Levy, 1967: 1171-82.]"
A Dictionary of Translation Technology, by Chan Sin-wai. The Chinese University Press, 161-162.

 

[Yeshua1]

“Seeks to preserve all of the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form” (NKJV Preface).

My definition:
Optimal Equivalence: A method of translation which seeks the optimal expression in the target language; that is, the expression which best reproduces the form and meaning of the original while aiming at good literary style in the target language. OE uses transformational/generational grammar to achieve this goal. OE was the method used to translate the NKJV and HCSB. This method's main proponent is Dr. James Price, OT editor of the NKJV and a translator on the HCSB.

A secular definition, but not referencing Price's theory:
"optimal equivalence
trans This refers to the choice of one out of several equivalents our of a number of potential equivalents. It can be the result of a trade-off between linguistic/stylistic options, subject preferences, and transfer alternatives. According to Jiri Levy, a translator begins with a set of possible choices. Each successive choice narrows the field of possible choices until the translator has arrived at the single, optimal target language equivalent. [Levy, 1967: 1171-82.]"
A Dictionary of Translation Technology, by Chan Sin-wai. The Chinese University Press, 161-162.

So the Esv with their "essentially literal" would be using that also then?

 

[Van]

I'm going to try this again. Note that this thread is strictly about definitions. Please do not make it an argument about different theories or methods of translation. Argue about the definitions if you wish, but don't argue about the methods. I'm going to make this easier so people don't get mixed up by not putting any definitions in this OP. This will make it easier to figure out the OP.

So, please put up definitions of your own or quotes from others about methods of translation or about specific translation matters.

Formal Equivalence = Word or Phrase Contextual Meaning of the source language text translated into the same meaning in the target language using consistent word or phrases for each translated meaning. Thus monogenes should be translated either as "unique" or as "one of a kind" but the same meaning should not be translated inconsistently.

 

[Logos1560]

The very word translation by definition, when used to refer to something that is translated from one language into another language, would require its need of a source or sources from which to be translated and on which it is therefore dependent. By reason of its proper, exact definition concerning what constitutes its being a translation, it is unequivocally or univocally termed a “translation.“ Of what is it a translation? A translation is univocally a translation as a necessary consequence of its being translated from an original language source into a different language. What is more essential to the being, state, or constitution of a translation than having source or sources from which it was translated and derived? A Bible translation cannot be something other than what it is.

By definition and by the laws of causality and of non-contradiction, a Bible translation would be in a different state, classification, category, or order of thing or being than untranslated original language texts of Scripture. A proper definition of a term would include the whole category or class of things which it seeks to define and would exclude what does not properly come under that term or name. Edward Carnell asserted: “For it is impossible to relate two different orders of being by the same terms with exactly the same meaning to each” (Introduction to Christian Apologetics, p. 145). It should be clear that a Bible translation does not belong in the same category or classification as untranslated original language texts of Scripture.

A correct analytic statement would be true by virtue of the accurate meanings of its terms alone. A translation remains what it actually or truly is. Whatever is essential to its constitution as a translation is essential to it. By definition, a translation would not be the translation of nothing. By definition, a Bible translation is not the source or cause of itself. A translation cannot create itself. There could not be a translation without a source or sources from which it is translated, to which it is related, and to which it may be compared and evaluated for accuracy. A translation without any underlying texts or sources to which it is related by being translated from them would not by definition be a translation. Likewise, a translation cannot be an exact or identical duplicate of its source or sources; otherwise, by definition it would not be a translation but would instead be an identical copy or duplicate.

 

[rlvaughn]

Occasionally here on the BB someone mistakes transliteration for a method of translation, but it isn't. It is simply the process of putting a word or words from one language into the alphabet of the other, without regard to meaning except peripherally.

Here is a definition:

“Transliteration: The representation of a sound, phoneme or word or utterance in the conventional symbols of another language or system or writing.”
(Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor. Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 219).

I agree. On the other hand, after words have been transliterated and then been in a language say a thousand years and have gained status and meaning, is it still proper to keep referring to using them in new translations as transliteration? For example, baptize was a transliteration, but has so long since been an English word. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Van]

The key thing about "transliteration" is that a Greek word as presented with Greek alphabet symbols, and would if pronounced correctly produce a certain sound, is represented using English alphabet symbols such that if pronounced would produce the same sound. Since the entire Bible has been transliterated, we who cannot understand Greek, can read and pronounce a transliterated interlinear, and close the gap between the inspired text and our capabilities. I can pronounce "monogenes" and identify where it appears in John 3:16, and look up its historical range of meaning in a lexicon.

 

[Yeshua1]

The key thing about "transliteration" is that a Greek word as presented with Greek alphabet symbols, and would if pronounced correctly produce a certain sound, is represented using English alphabet symbols such that if pronounced would produce the same sound. Since the entire Bible has been transliterated, we who cannot understand Greek, can read and pronounce a transliteraten or as uniques one of a kind, and both are valid!d interlinear, and close the gap between the inspired text and our capabilities. I can pronounce "monogenes" and identify where it appears in John 3:16, and look up its historical range of meaning in a lexicon.[/QUOT, and both ways would be valid!E]
John 3:16 can be translated as only begotten, or as one of a kind and unique, and both ways are valid!

 

[Jerome]

For example, baptize was a transliteration, but has so long since been an English word.

Huh? What's it a transliteration of?

 

[Yeshua1]

Huh? What's it a transliteration of?

Baptizmo?

 

[Van]

The key thing about "transliteration" is that a Greek word as presented with Greek alphabet symbols, and would if pronounced correctly produce a certain sound, is represented using English alphabet symbols such that if pronounced would produce the same sound. Since the entire Bible has been transliterated, we who cannot understand Greek, can read and pronounce a transliterated interlinear, and close the gap between the inspired text and our capabilities. I can pronounce "monogenes" and identify where it appears in John 3:16, and look up its historical range of meaning in a lexicon.