How Possible Is Word for Word Translation?

[John of Japan]

Quantum Language Translation or Why Word for Word Will Never Work

Word-for-Word and other Translation Mythologies

Are these articles somewhere on the Internet? Please give links, if you have them.

I'm going to guess that the author/authors are connected with Bible translation in some way and not secular translation studies. Oddly enough, "word-for-word" is passionately opposed by Bible translation folk, but secular folk are more practical. For example, the founders of Skopos Theory make the point that a word-for-word strategy reveals information about the structures of the original language (Reis & Vermeer, translated by Christiane Nord, Towards a General Theory of Translational Action, p. 75).

So anyway, notice again that I am saying it is about 95% possible, not 100%, and I think that is a more realistic way to look at it, rather than "can" or "can't."

 

[GoodTidings]

I'm going to give a secular source here for reference: “Word-for-word Translation (or Word-by-word Translation) A method of translating which entails precise fidelity to the wording of ST [“source text”—JoJ]. Like its opposite, Sense-for-sense Translation, the term was originally coined in the first century BC by Roman writers Cicero and Horace…. Most writers now consider it an extreme form of literal translation in which a TL [“target language”—JoJ] word is substituted for each ST word without reference to syntactical factors such as word order” (Mark Shuttleworth and Moira Cowie, Dictionary of Translation Studies, 197-198).

Now, for the purposes of this thread, let's not go with "most writers." Here is my definition for the purposes of this thread: "a translation method that seeks to find the closest possible equivalent in the target language for every single word in the original document." Note that I am not talking about semantic equivalents, but not strict grammatical equivalents. For example, if a language does not have a passive voice, you simply cannot event one to translate the Greek passive.

So, how possible is it to get an equivalent word in the target language for each word in the original languages? I'm going to say about 95%.

Words that often cannot be translated from Greek include: the Greek article, some pronouns, and most particles. (I'll say what a Greek particle is later.) The Greek article often cannot be translated because it is often not used just like the English article, and indeed, many languages (Japanese, Chinese, etc.) do not have an article at all! For example, the Greek article usually appears before proper nouns, but we don't use the English article that way. Imagine translating into English: "The Jesus said to him,...."

You can do that, but the English text would be unreadable and unintelligible.

 

[John of Japan]

You can do that, but the English text would be unreadable and unintelligible.

You gave a one line reply to a post with several paragraphs. Please elaborate. I can do what?

 

[Rob_BW]

I'd just call it ignorant, not to mention brazen, since the dude knows no Hebrew. How in the world can you discern a language like that when you don't know the language or linguistics? A linguist is trained to examine a language and discern what the particles are. A lawyer is not, and that's what the dude is.

Brother, I believe his remark was merely a world class pun.

 

[John of Japan]

Brother, I believe his remark was merely a world class pun.

Well, I love puns, but can't see this one yet. I'm feeling like a failure right now who needs to be pun-ished.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I'd just call it ignorant, not to mention brazen, since the dude knows no Hebrew. How in the world can you discern a language like that when you don't know the language or linguistics? A linguist is trained to examine a language and discern what the particles are. A lawyer is not, and that's what the dude is.

Rob_BW is of course right about the tongue-in-cheek (I did like his use of "merely" there), but knowing the "translator" is a lawyer, your (non-)mention of "brazen" sounds more apt than the "ignorant" excuse. A lawyer knows enough about language to know better. indeed.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Are these articles somewhere on the Internet? Please give links, if you have them.

I'm going to guess that the author/authors are connected with Bible translation in some way and not secular translation studies. Oddly enough, "word-for-word" is passionately opposed by Bible translation folk, but secular folk are more practical. For example, the founders of Skopos Theory make the point that a word-for-word strategy reveals information about the structures of the original language (Reis & Vermeer, translated by Christiane Nord, Towards a General Theory of Translational Action, p. 75).

So anyway, notice again that I am saying it is about 95% possible, not 100%, and I think that is a more realistic way to look at it, rather than "can" or "can't."

Yeah, sorry, JoJ, I was playing around a bit there. I'll be serious here. I don't know enough to argue the attainability of 95% in combination with accuracy, but I do encourage the attempt.

However, with all of the modern tools available, an interlinear word-for-word with linked concordance in parallel with an accurate translation and key footnotes should not be out of the question.

The truth is that translation alone cannot do all of the work. It still needs to be combined with commentaries and other Bible helps.

But the burden is not on scholars alone, or even mostly. Ultimately, qualified pastors/teachers are needed in the church to equip the saints, guard the flock, etc.

 

[Eliyahu]

Words that often cannot be translated from Greek include: the Greek article, some pronouns, and most particles. (I'll say what a Greek particle is later.) The Greek article often cannot be translated because it is often not used just like the English article, and indeed, many languages (Japanese, Chinese, etc.) do not have an article at all! For example, the Greek article usually appears before proper nouns, but we don't use the English article that way. Imagine translating into English: "The Jesus said to him,...."

My little comments here are that 100% Words-for-Words translation is impossible.
If I can quantify it numerically, it may reflect 80% maximum because we don't have the exact words in the Target language which have the same meanings as the words in the Source language do.

But I think we can improve this situation by creating new words as Tyndale did for < Scapegoat > < Passover> < Network>, <Peacemaker> < Beautiful>
NT/History Blog: Words Tyndale Invented
In my case I do it by combining 2 words.
Another way is to give some footnotes for the transliteration.
In both cases, we need some explanations eventually.

Korean language do not use the articles often but we use < the > when we specifically mean something.
Kai in Greek and Va in Hebrew may not have to be in the target language necessarily all the time. Therefore sometimes they are ignored.

But I still believe that the Words-for-Words translation is more accurate than the Dynamic Equivalence as it minimizes the insertion of the translators' human thoughts leaving the rooms for the readers, interpreters, preachers to think, meditate with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.
For the beginners and for children, Translation by Dynamic Equivalence may be easy to understand.
This is just a short comment from my experience.

Eliyahu

 

[John of Japan]

Yeah, sorry, JoJ, I was playing around a bit there. I'll be serious here. I don't know enough to argue the attainability of 95% in combination with accuracy, but I do encourage the attempt.

However, with all of the modern tools available, an interlinear word-for-word with linked concordance in parallel with an accurate translation and key footnotes should not be out of the question.

We certainly do have more helps for translation than at any time in history. I'm very grateful for the software we can use and the many lexicons, exegetical commentaries, and grammars out there. There are also several programs designed to help with the actual translation work.

The truth is that translation alone cannot do all of the work. It still needs to be combined with commentaries and other Bible helps.

But the burden is not on scholars alone, or even mostly. Ultimately, qualified pastors/teachers are needed in the church to equip the saints, guard the flock, etc.

Unfortunately, most people groups are not blessed with all of the reference books we have in English. For just one example, there is only on study Bible available in Japanese, and that is the one for the JW Japanese translation.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm finally able to get back here. I'm taking a course by live-streaming this week, 5-6 hours a day, and it's intense. But I have a small window of opportunity here.

I have mentioned particles, and there are quite a few untranslatable particles in Greek as well as Hebrew. Here is a Greek one from my lecture notes for "Translation Issues in Hebrew and Greek." (Lest anyone think I'm a Hebrew expert, my son teaches the Hebrew and I the Greek.)


I. The Particle ἄν

A. This particle should not be translated, but delivers a strong nuance to a sentence that includes it.

B. Friberg has carefully delineated for us the effects of having ἄν in a sentence: “ἄν an adverb incapable of translation by a single English word, denoting that the action of the verb is dependent on some circumstance or condition; its effect upon the meaning of its clause varies with the construction.[1]
1. “With the indicative—a. impf. or aor. to indicate repeated action in past time, in relative and temporal clauses: ὅσοι ἂν ἥψαντο αὐτοῦ, ἐσῴζοντο whoever touched him was cured Mk 6:56; cf. Ac 2:45; 4:35.—b. In the apodosis of contrary-to-fact (assumed as unreal) conditions, with impf. tense for present time, aor. or plupf. for past time: εἰ ἦν προφήτης, ἐγίνωσκεν ἄν if he were a prophet, he would (now) know Lk 7:39. εἰ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ ἂν ἐσταύρωσαν if they had known him, they would not have crucified him 1 Cor 2:8. Plupf. 1 J 2:19. ἐλθών Lk 19:23 and ἐπεί Hb 10:2 are equivalents of a protasis.”
2. “With the subjunctive—a. in the protasis of conditional relative clauses of the future more vivid type ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ…ἔνοχος ἔσται whoever eats will be guilty 1 Cor 11:27, or the present general type ἃ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ whatever he does, the Son does also J 5:19. Similarly with temporal clauses ὅταν = ὅτε + ἄν whenever Mt 15:2. ἡνίκα ἄν as often as 2 Cor 3:15. ὡς ἄν as soon as 1 Cor 11:34. ἕως ἄν until Mt 10:11.—b. in purpose clauses with ὅπως, with no appreciable change in meaning Lk 2:35.”
3. “With the optative: rare and literary in the N.T. In a main clause εὐξαίμην ἄν I might wish Ac 26:29 (potential optative); in a rhetorical question πῶς γὰρ ἂν δυναίμην how could I? Ac 8:31; in an indirect question τί ἂν ποιήσαιεν τῷ Ἰησοῦ what they might do with Jesus Lk 6:11.”

C. Sometimes the nuance may be inserted into the target language with just a small dose of doubt, since an is part of ei an, which equals ean.

[1] Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva Mille, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Bloomington: Trafford Publishing, 2005; accessed through BibleWorks).

 

[Eliyahu]

I'm finally able to get back here. I'm taking a course by live-streaming this week, 5-6 hours a day, and it's intense. But I have a small window of opportunity here.

I have mentioned particles, and there are quite a few untranslatable particles in Greek as well as Hebrew. Here is a Greek one from my lecture notes for "Translation Issues in Hebrew and Greek." (Lest anyone think I'm a Hebrew expert, my son teaches the Hebrew and I the Greek.)


I. The Particle ἄν

A. This particle should not be translated, but delivers a strong nuance to a sentence that includes it.

B. Friberg has carefully delineated for us the effects of having ἄν in a sentence: “ἄν an adverb incapable of translation by a single English word, denoting that the action of the verb is dependent on some circumstance or condition; its effect upon the meaning of its clause varies with the construction.[1]
1. “With the indicative—a. impf. or aor. to indicate repeated action in past time, in relative and temporal clauses: ὅσοι ἂν ἥψαντο αὐτοῦ, ἐσῴζοντο whoever touched him was cured Mk 6:56; cf. Ac 2:45; 4:35.—b. In the apodosis of contrary-to-fact (assumed as unreal) conditions, with impf. tense for present time, aor. or plupf. for past time: εἰ ἦν προφήτης, ἐγίνωσκεν ἄν if he were a prophet, he would (now) know Lk 7:39. εἰ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ ἂν ἐσταύρωσαν if they had known him, they would not have crucified him 1 Cor 2:8. Plupf. 1 J 2:19. ἐλθών Lk 19:23 and ἐπεί Hb 10:2 are equivalents of a protasis.”
2. “With the subjunctive—a. in the protasis of conditional relative clauses of the future more vivid type ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ…ἔνοχος ἔσται whoever eats will be guilty 1 Cor 11:27, or the present general type ἃ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ whatever he does, the Son does also J 5:19. Similarly with temporal clauses ὅταν = ὅτε + ἄν whenever Mt 15:2. ἡνίκα ἄν as often as 2 Cor 3:15. ὡς ἄν as soon as 1 Cor 11:34. ἕως ἄν until Mt 10:11.—b. in purpose clauses with ὅπως, with no appreciable change in meaning Lk 2:35.”
3. “With the optative: rare and literary in the N.T. In a main clause εὐξαίμην ἄν I might wish Ac 26:29 (potential optative); in a rhetorical question πῶς γὰρ ἂν δυναίμην how could I? Ac 8:31; in an indirect question τί ἂν ποιήσαιεν τῷ Ἰησοῦ what they might do with Jesus Lk 6:11.”

C. Sometimes the nuance may be inserted into the target language with just a small dose of doubt, since an is part of ei an, which equals ean.

[1] Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva Mille, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Bloomington: Trafford Publishing, 2005; accessed through BibleWorks).

This is a very interesting study.
I have got the strong impression that such particle is the result of the translation of the Bible from Hebrew.
Especially < αν > must be a translation of < ב> in Hebrew.
I have some better example than the followings but at this time I cannot recall them right away.

Deut 21:19-20

Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
וְתָפְשׂוּ בֹו אָבִיו וְאִמֹּו וְהֹוצִיאוּ אֹתֹו אֶל־זִקְנֵי עִירֹו וְאֶל־שַׁעַר מְקֹמֹֽו׃

There is no need for < ב > but it is there. Therefore KJV reflected it by stating < lay hold ON > instead of arrest him.


And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he isa glutton, and a drunkard.
וְאָמְרוּ אֶל־זִקְנֵי עִירֹו בְּנֵנוּ זֶה סֹורֵר וּמֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ זֹולֵל וְסֹבֵֽא׃

shema ba-kol could be just shema kol and could be < hear our voice > but it is < hear onto our voice >

Such particle may be the result of the translation of the autograph from Hebrew into Greek.
I can feel such aspect in many spots of Gospel Matthew.
In Matthew 15:22 a woman of Canaan is mentioned, but as you know, Canaanites were exterminated by King David. Therefore there couldn't be Canaanite any more. If you look at the Hebrew Lexicon, you can find Kananith can be < Canaanites > < Commercial Merchant > < Man from Kana, Galilee>
Therefore I believe it meant the lady was a commercial merchant in Lebanon.
But this is hard to prove enough but I would meditate further more.

Eliyahu

 

[John of Japan]

This is a very interesting study.
I have got the strong impression that such particle is the result of the translation of the Bible from Hebrew.
Especially < αν > must be a translation of < ב> in Hebrew.

This may be true sometimes, but I checked and existed in classical Greek before it did in koine Greek.

I have some better example than the followings but at this time I cannot recall them right away.

Deut 21:19-20

Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
וְתָפְשׂוּ בֹו אָבִיו וְאִמֹּו וְהֹוצִיאוּ אֹתֹו אֶל־זִקְנֵי עִירֹו וְאֶל־שַׁעַר מְקֹמֹֽו׃

There is no need for < ב > but it is there. Therefore KJV reflected it by stating < lay hold ON > instead of arrest him.


And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he isa glutton, and a drunkard.
וְאָמְרוּ אֶל־זִקְנֵי עִירֹו בְּנֵנוּ זֶה סֹורֵר וּמֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ זֹולֵל וְסֹבֵֽא׃

shema ba-kol could be just shema kol and could be < hear our voice > but it is < hear onto our voice >

Such particle may be the result of the translation of the autograph from Hebrew into Greek.
I can feel such aspect in many spots of Gospel Matthew.
In Matthew 15:22 a woman of Canaan is mentioned, but as you know, Canaanites were exterminated by King David. Therefore there couldn't be Canaanite any more. If you look at the Hebrew Lexicon, you can find Kananith can be < Canaanites > < Commercial Merchant > < Man from Kana, Galilee>
Therefore I believe it meant the lady was a commercial merchant in Lebanon.
But this is hard to prove enough but I would meditate further more.

Eliyahu

Thanks for sharing this. I'll have to say that Hebrew is not my strong point. I really need to relearn it, but that will have to wait until later, maybe until I get serious about translating the OT. I've got a lot of irons in the fire right now.

 

[John of Japan]

We might also say, how important is word-for-word translation? Yesterday and today I've been going through the changes in our Japanese "John" recommended by one of our proofreaders. Several times this wonderful lady has recommended simplifying either the grammar, or leaving out a word to simplify. However, in a number of these cases, important nuances would be lost if we followed her recommendations.

John 4:22--To not translate the relative pronoun would be a mistake.
John 4:50--To change "lives" to "is healed" would lose an important nuance.
John 8:44--The Greek is not saying that Satan is a deceiver in this phrase, but that he himself is actually a lie.
John 10:39—To translate as "escaped" when according to the Greek Christ simply “went away,” would add a nuance of difficulty, when Christ had no difficulty simply walking away without them being allowed to touch Him.
John 13:19—To change our rendering to a more sensible rendering would lose the fact that this is one of the “I AM” statements of Jesus.

And there are other places, but you get the idea.

 

[robycop3]

I'm going to give a secular source here for reference: “Word-for-word Translation (or Word-by-word Translation) A method of translating which entails precise fidelity to the wording of ST [“source text”—JoJ]. Like its opposite, Sense-for-sense Translation, the term was originally coined in the first century BC by Roman writers Cicero and Horace…. Most writers now consider it an extreme form of literal translation in which a TL [“target language”—JoJ] word is substituted for each ST word without reference to syntactical factors such as word order” (Mark Shuttleworth and Moira Cowie, Dictionary of Translation Studies, 197-198).

Now, for the purposes of this thread, let's not go with "most writers." Here is my definition for the purposes of this thread: "a translation method that seeks to find the closest possible equivalent in the target language for every single word in the original document." Note that I am not talking about semantic equivalents, but not strict grammatical equivalents. For example, if a language does not have a passive voice, you simply cannot event one to translate the Greek passive.

So, how possible is it to get an equivalent word in the target language for each word in the original languages? I'm going to say about 95%.

Words that often cannot be translated from Greek include: the Greek article, some pronouns, and most particles. (I'll say what a Greek particle is later.) The Greek article often cannot be translated because it is often not used just like the English article, and indeed, many languages (Japanese, Chinese, etc.) do not have an article at all! For example, the Greek article usually appears before proper nouns, but we don't use the English article that way. Imagine translating into English: "The Jesus said to him,...."

I agree with your "95%" figure! I believe some difficulties in "word-for-word" are seen in translation words that have multiple meanings in their original language, such as "break" in English.

And history records an example of misunderstanding a multiple-meaning word in Japanese. In July 1945, Japanese Premies Kantaro Suzuki declared his govt. would mokusatsu the Potsdan Declaration. That word can mean "ignore, reject, or, more commonly, "treat with silent contempt".

A reporter for the main Tokyo newspaper notified his editors that the govt. had rejected the Potsdam Declaration outright, while Suzuki's intent was to seek clarification of the Allies' intent as to how to treat the Emperor, which was the central issue for vitrually all Japanese. Several of Truman's cabinet had recommended he include a declaration that the Emperor would be left in place if Japan surrendered.

But somehow, that vital declaration was left out of the Potsdam Declaration, and so Japan, not sure of the Emperor's future, was hesitant in accepting Potsdam's terms, thus Suzuki's answer. It was NOT intended as an outright rejection of Potsdam, but their news published that it was, & thus, Truman & Co. decided to use the nukes.

( John, I realize you already knew all this; I posted it for the benefit of the general readership.)

 

[robycop3]

Young's Literal Translation is quite-close to being a completely word-for-word Bible translation, As one can see, it'd be quite-clumsy to try to preach or teach from it ! (Available on Bible Gateway & similar websites)

 

[John of Japan]

Been with friends in Iowa, with no Internet (kind of nice), for a brief vacation. Back now!

I agree with your "95%" figure! I believe some difficulties in "word-for-word" are seen in translation words that have multiple meanings in their original language, such as "break" in English.

Yes, you have hit the nail on the head. Translating idioms, such the several that use "break," may be the most difficult part of translation.

And history records an example of misunderstanding a multiple-meaning word in Japanese. In July 1945, Japanese Premies Kantaro Suzuki declared his govt. would mokusatsu the Potsdan Declaration. That word can mean "ignore, reject, or, more commonly, "treat with silent contempt".

A reporter for the main Tokyo newspaper notified his editors that the govt. had rejected the Potsdam Declaration outright, while Suzuki's intent was to seek clarification of the Allies' intent as to how to treat the Emperor, which was the central issue for vitrually all Japanese. Several of Truman's cabinet had recommended he include a declaration that the Emperor would be left in place if Japan surrendered.

But somehow, that vital declaration was left out of the Potsdam Declaration, and so Japan, not sure of the Emperor's future, was hesitant in accepting Potsdam's terms, thus Suzuki's answer. It was NOT intended as an outright rejection of Potsdam, but their news published that it was, & thus, Truman & Co. decided to use the nukes.

( John, I realize you already knew all this; I posted it for the benefit of the general readership.)

Thanks for sharing this. As you figured, I'm well familiar with this incident. It is a great example of what we are talking about.

The thing is, mokusatsu (黙殺) is a powerful word in Japanese, with that second Chinese character meaning "kill"! So IMO the Japanese side is completely at blame. Furthermore, as you know, the Potsdam Declaration gave no wriggle room for the Japanese to worry about the Emperor (who I believe was complicit in the war effort). It called for unconditional surrender. The Allies were fed up.

 

[John of Japan]

Young's Literal Translation is quite-close to being a completely word-for-word Bible translation, As one can see, it'd be quite-clumsy to try to preach or teach from it ! (Available on Bible Gateway & similar websites)

YLT is indeed word-for-word, but I think it depends on how one defines the term. I'm sure most of us on the BB would say that the YLT is too literal. One thing it does wrong from a normal word-for-word is to habitually translate by concordance, using the same English word over and over for a particular Greek word. Normal word-for-word methods don't do this.

 

[Eliyahu]

YLT is indeed word-for-word, but I think it depends on how one defines the term. I'm sure most of us on the BB would say that the YLT is too literal. One thing it does wrong from a normal word-for-word is to habitually translate by concordance, using the same English word over and over for a particular Greek word. Normal word-for-word methods don't do this.

YLT is very much accurate literally, in most verses.
We can find the errors of KJV by comparing both in many verses.

Let me show you the simple example:

Deut 23:10
כִּֽי־יִהְיֶה בְךָ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִהְיֶה טָהֹור מִקְּרֵה־לָיְלָה וְיָצָא אֶל־מִחוּץ לַֽמַּחֲנֶה לֹא יָבֹא אֶל־תֹּוךְ הַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה׃
If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp: (KJV)

Apparently it should be < among thee> but KJV translated it as < Among you >

But what makes YLT become the main text bible at the churches is that YLT translated the Perfect Tense as it is.
However, Perfect Tense in Hebrew often means Future for the
Duty, Destiny, Justice, Command, Surely, Obstinence, etc
YLT didn't reflect them but simply stated as Have pp.
This is the major problem with it.
Other than that, YLT pointed out the words exactly many times while KJV is beating the bush.

Eliyahu

 

[John of Japan]

But what makes YLT become the main text bible at the churches is that YLT translated the Perfect Tense as it is.
However, Perfect Tense in Hebrew often means Future for the
Duty, Destiny, Justice, Command, Surely, Obstinence, etc
YLT didn't reflect them but simply stated as Have pp.
This is the major problem with it.
Other than that, YLT pointed out the words exactly many times while KJV is beating the bush.

Eliyahu

I'll have to disagree with you on this point. It is almost impossible to translate the Greek perfect tense with the proper aspect into English. (The Hebrew perfect has pretty much the same aspect.) Here is one definition of perfective aspect: "The Greeks could regard an action as a completed event with ensuing results, in which case the aspect is said to be perfective" (David Alan Black, It's Still Greek to Me, 96).

The YLT translates the perfect in John 19:30 as "It hath been finished." That's fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't reflect the perfective aspect of tetelestai.

 

[John of Japan]

Here's another Greek particle:

I. The Particle ge,
A. This particle is used to intensify the statement.
B. “γέ an enclitic particle intensifying a word, always adding emphasis but not always translated; (1) as limiting at least (LU 11.8); (2) as intensifying indeed, even (RO 8.32); (3) often combined with other particles: εἰ δὲ μή γε otherwise (MT 6.1); καί γε as limiting at least (LU 19.42 ); as intensifying even (AC 2.18); though (AC 17.27 ); καίτοιγε and yet, of course, although (JN 4.2); μήτιγε not to mention, let alone (1C 6.3)” (Friberg's lexicon).
C. Note that this particle does take on translatable meaning when combined with other words. In general, though, the rendering should only take form as intensifying the statement. (This is not possible in some languages.)


[1] Ibid.