Featured Definitions

On another thread the term "thought for thought" came up. I thought it would be helpful if we did a thread defining various translation theories or methods. Quote from someone else, or make up your own definitions. Either way is fine.

I'll start with definitions of translation itself. Here are a couple of quotes from secular experts:

“Translate: To render a word of text written in one language into another language, retaining the full and correct meaning of the word or text in the other language.”
Pei and Gaynor Dictionary of Linguistics, 219.

“What is generally understood as translation involves the rendering of a source language (SL) text into the target language (TL) so as to ensure that (1) the surface meaning of the two will be approximately similar and (2) the structures of the SL will be preserved as closely as possible but not so closely that the TL structures will be seriously distorted.”
Susan Bassnett, Translation Studies, 3rd edition, 2002, 11.

 

Too often true.

 

You'll have to ask Him about that. But verbal communication is extremely important to God. The trinity communicates to each other in words.

 

Verbal plenary inspiration is for the autographs. But please, this thread is about definitions, not the theology of inspiration. Do you have any definitions?

Oops, this was not to me. Sorry. I actually thought it was Yeshua to me.

 

I basically agree with you here. But I have to say that, contrary to popular opinion, sometimes the translator has to interpret before he translates. And then sometimes translation is an interpretation, even when translating literally.

 

Good post!

He's following Nida's terminology here, of course, except for the third one, which was delineated by James Price. I think he's too specific on "formal equivalence," though. I don't think the typical literal translator is going to try to keep the idioms, since they are not going to make sense in the target language most of the time.

ESV calls their process "essentially literal," a "translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on 'word-for-word' correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages."

In my thinking, the NIV is a somewhat functional equivalence translation, more literal than the Good News Bible, but still doing some dynamic renderings.

This is kind of what all translators think about their method. Seriously, though, I believe that they called it OE because James Price was the OT general editor.

 

Here is a short and simple definition of optimal equivalence from the NKJV preface:

"Seeks to preserve all of the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form.” Dr. Price was also the OT editor for the NKJV.

Here is my own brief definition: 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.

 

Here is the Nida & Tabor definition of translation.

“translation: the reproduction in a receptor language of the closest natural equivalent of the source language message, first in terms of meaning, and second in terms of style” (The Theory and Practice of Translation, Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, p. 208).

Note that they say "message" instead of even saying "meaning." In other words, functional equivalence is actually a method of "scientific paraphrase," as James Price calls it. In reality it is a "thought for thought" method.