Paraphrases

[John of Japan]

hmm, for one, what do u think the E stand for in DE n FE?

um, not me. :saint: c'mon, u know the technical definition, no?

I have to quit these throwaway lines. You are taking me too seriously!

what does this have to do with boring/not boring. talk abt playing w semantics

I tell you the name of a translation theory you've not heard of. You quibble about it. I tell you the history. You make assumptions about it and then attack it on the basis of your own assumptions. Where's the profit for me in that? Sounds more like an argument than a debate, and I detest arguments as much as I enjoy debates. I learn nothing from arguments, so I try to avoid them.

You have been enjoyable in your discussion of theory, though very abrubt in dismissing certain aspects of OE. That enjoyment is the reason I haven't quit the thread.

anyways, i'm afraid we'll havta agree to disagree on this one n let the others decide.

Yep. :tongue3:

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Yep. :tongue3:

n with that, u get the last word here, too :wavey:

 

[Rippon]

Regarding the subject of paraphrases -- we all know that Ken Taylor paraphrased the 1901 ASV . The present NLT2 is not a paraphrase , but a real translation -- though it uses the dynamic model of translation for the most part (other aspects are rather formal ) . If the NASU were paraphrased how would it look ? I think it would be more free than the NLT2 in my estimation -- but nowhere near the freeness of The Message . What do you guys think ?