Definitions

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[Salty]

What is that statement often mentioned : "It lost something in translation"

 

[John of Japan]

What is that statement often mentioned : "It lost something in translation"

Too often true.

 

[Yeshua1]

Too often true.

Why didn't the Holy Spirit inspire thought for thought instead of word by word?

 

[John of Japan]

Why didn't the Holy Spirit inspire thought for thought instead of word by word?

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

 

[Salty]

Why didn't the Holy Spirit inspire thought for thought instead of word by word?

Are you talking about the autograph copies or translations?

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you talking about the autograph copies or translations?

Originals!

 

[rlvaughn]

I found an interesting writing from a guy at York University in Toronto HERE. It does not appear to be Bible specific. Here are a few excerpts.

Translation is always reconstructing a text with differing semiotic resources, and the criterion of success is text-type relative.
What is appropriate in the translation of one kind of text (poetry, or fiction) would not be appropriate in another (law or science)

Accessibility or the ability of a target audience to understand a translation is not a universal criterion of translation success, for the simple reason that the target audience may not be equipped with the requisite disciplinary expertise to appreciate the original text.
This implies that there are many processes of semiotic conversion aimed at user friendliness that are not translation, but localization.

 

[rlvaughn]

Dave Croteau claims that "Major Bible translations typically reflect one of three general philosophies: formal equivalence, functional equivalence, and optimal equivalence." Here is how he defines them:

• Formal equivalence is called a word-for-word translation and attempts to translate the Bible as literally as possible, keeping the sentence structure and idioms intact if possible.
• Functional equivalence is typically referred to as a thought-for-thought translation. This is an attempt to translate the text so it has the same effect on the current reader as it had on the ancient reader.
• Optimal equivalence falls between the former approaches by balancing the tension between accuracy and ease of reading. While striving for precision in translation, it also seeks clarity to the modern day reader.

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." The NIV seems to avoid traditional definitions and calls theirs "a balanced approach." CSB likes the term "optimal equivalence." To me that comes off sort of like "we have the ability to get it right when others get it wrong."

 

[Revmitchell]

I do no trust anyone to translate a thought. That is called interpretation

 

[Yeshua1]

The Formal translations to me would be Nas/Nkjv/Kjv

Optimal Csb/Esv

Mediating Niv 2011/Nlt

 

[John of Japan]

Are you talking about the autograph copies or translations?

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.

 

[Deacon]

The trinity communicates to each other in words.

Via email or text messages?

 

[John of Japan]

I do no trust anyone to translate a thought. That is called interpretation

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.

 

[John of Japan]

Good post!

Dave Croteau claims that "Major Bible translations typically reflect one of three general philosophies: formal equivalence, functional equivalence, and optimal equivalence." Here is how he defines them:

• Formal equivalence is called a word-for-word translation and attempts to translate the Bible as literally as possible, keeping the sentence structure and idioms intact if possible.
• Functional equivalence is typically referred to as a thought-for-thought translation. This is an attempt to translate the text so it has the same effect on the current reader as it had on the ancient reader.
• Optimal equivalence falls between the former approaches by balancing the tension between accuracy and ease of reading. While striving for precision in translation, it also seeks clarity to the modern day reader.

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."

The NIV seems to avoid traditional definitions and calls theirs "a balanced approach."

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

CSB likes the term "optimal equivalence." To me that comes off sort of like "we have the ability to get it right when others get it wrong."

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

Via email or text messages?

Must have been their "heavenly" personal prayer language!

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[Rippon2]

I do no trust anyone to translate a thought. That is called interpretation

No Bible translation takes place without interpretation.

 

[Rippon2]

The Formal translations to me would be Nas/Nkjv/Kjv

Optimal Csb/Esv

Mediating Niv 2011/Nlt

The NLT is not in the mediating category. Name a Bible scholar who says that.

The CSB is right in the center of the mediating translations along with the NET, NAB and the good ole' Norlie.

So you are putting the CSB in the same turf as the ESV? Curious that you would say that when you rail against inclusive language all the time and you know that the difference between the CSB and NIV in that regard is minimal.