Paraphrases

[Rippon]

So again , I claim that there is more de or DE in most Bible translations . I am limited to the English language in my personal observations though . Regardless of the particular promo of any translation -- it has a fair share of DE . Even the HCS has some DE renderings at times while the NLT is more in the formal category . There is a continuum in Bible translations -- it is hard to calibrate . But I want to emphasize that some DE renderings are more accurate , faithful to the original , and better than a more formally expressed version . Of course the opposite can happen as well . But to simply say ( or infer ) that the De way is not as God-honoring is wrong .

While thumbing through my HCS I came across a number of footnotes which gave a more literal rendering . A more understandable wording remained in the text itself . Here a few I found in the Psalms .

4:5 Sacrifice sacrifices of righteousness

7:8 integrity on me

7:9 examines hearts and kidneys

11:4 His eyelids examine

17:8 as the pupil , the daughter of the eye

17:10 have closed up their fat

35:13 prayer returned to my chest

55:9 and divide their tongues

63:5 with fat and fatness

73:10 and waters of fullness are drained by them

73:21 my kidneys

78:63 virgins were not praised

102:20 free sons of death

103:5 satisfies your ornament

106:20 they exchanged God

109:20 denied from fat

132:3 into the couch of my bed

139:13 my kidneys

144:7 down your hands

 

[John of Japan]

Few translators of any competence would today deny such fundamental priorities as the following :

1. Contextual consistency has priority over verbal consistency ( or word-for-word concordance ) .

2. Dynamic equivalence has prioriy over formal correspondence .

3. The aural (heard) form of language has priority over the written form .

4. Forms that are used by and acceptable to the audience for which a translation is intended have priority over forms that may be traditionally more prestigious .

(p. 92 )

Well, that is handy for Carson. Just label anyone who disagrees with you as incompetent!

Carson's problem here is that he is thinking strictly in the Bible translation realm. Doesn't he realize that translation by professional linguists goes on every day all the time all over the world? Every day of the year I have the news on, and I can hear it bi-lingually, and it is NOT done by the DE method.

I have a huge library of martial arts books in English, Chinese and Japanese. I have quite a few that art bilingual, either Japanese-English or Chinese-English. Guess what? NONE OF THEM are done by the DE method. They are all literal-type translations.

Why is it that only in the world of Biblical translation do people want to use the DE method? It has not been recognized in the general linguistic realm as the best method, unless you are translating poetry or putting subtitles on movies.

When I went to two years of full time Japanese language school at the oldest and most prestigious language school in Japan, the Tokyo School of the Japanese Language, my home work would have been marked wrong if I had done it by the DE method. And this was well after Nida's invention of the method. At one time I was chosen to join a class of all Chinese folk. (Boy did I have to work hard on the "kanji" Chinese characters with those Chinese characters!:tongue3. Our task was to be the first to test out a new textbook. Guess what? None of it taught the DE method! But then I guess according to Carson all of my teachers were incompetent. Sigh. I guess I am too.

 

[Rippon]

John , please address the phrases from the Psalms which were in the footnotes of the HCS and not the text . Do you insist on putting them in the text or do you recognize the need for a more functionally equivalent method in those cases ? It is a great deal more pervasive than my meager examples evidenced .

And will you concede that a method of translation can be just as God-honoring which puts the words into a more idiomatic manner that is understandable to the reader ? ( Again , I know that things that are not clear in the original should not be made clear for clarity's sake . )

Are there instances in the NKJ and NASU where you think a more DE approach would be preferred ?

 

[John of Japan]

John , please address the phrases from the Psalms which were in the footnotes of the HCS and not the text . Do you insist on putting them in the text or do you recognize the need for a more functionally equivalent method in those cases ? It is a great deal more pervasive than my meager examples evidenced .

And will you concede that a method of translation can be just as God-honoring which puts the words into a more idiomatic manner that is understandable to the reader ? ( Again , I know that things that are not clear in the original should not be made clear for clarity's sake . )

Are there instances in the NKJ and NASU where you think a more DE approach would be preferred ?

My method is optimal equivalence, not formal equivalence. So (without examining the passages closely) I'm sure I would paraphrase most of them, or look for a similar idiom in the receptor language. Most of them look like straight idioms. But this is not DE, which often adds words and concepts not in the original, ostensibly to clarify things.

Concerning the book of Psalms, I've looked at my favorite two, the First and Twenty Third. In Psalm 1, I count 60 Hebrew words. However, there are no idioms. In Psalm 23 there are 54 words with 2 idioms consisting of 5 Hebrew words: "You made fat with oil my head" (v. 5) and "for the length of days" in v. 6. I see nothing else I would paraphrase in either of these Psalms. The symbolism is so beautiful and deep, especially in Ps. 23, why in the world would anyone want to paraphrase? So, the percentage of the Hebrew I would paraphrase for 5 out of 114 words is only 4.4%

The NET Bible paraphrases more than I would. You may be right about it. It substitutes "assembly" for "seat" in 1:1, changing the image completely. Sitting down with someone implies a closer relationship than assembling with them. In 2:2 the Net has "finds pleasure in them" instead of "his delight." If my delight is in the law of the Lord, it is primary to me. If I simply "find pleasure" in the law, then it may be one of many pleasures. In v. 3, "He succeeds in everything he attempts" (Net) is not the same meaning as "whatever he does will prosper." It changes the subject of the sentence and destroys the nuance of the original.

I agree with none of these renderings. Why not preserve the nuances of the original? Worse yet, why introduce new nuances into the text?

I think people overestimate the need for paraphrasing symbology. I think the average English reader is perfectly capable of understanding the symbolism of the Bible--if they work at it and depend on the Holy Spirit's illumination.

 

[John of Japan]

John , please address the phrases from the Psalms which were in the footnotes of the HCS and not the text . Do you insist on putting them in the text or do you recognize the need for a more functionally equivalent method in those cases ? It is a great deal more pervasive than my meager examples evidenced .

And will you concede that a method of translation can be just as God-honoring which puts the words into a more idiomatic manner that is understandable to the reader ? ( Again , I know that things that are not clear in the original should not be made clear for clarity's sake . )

Are there instances in the NKJ and NASU where you think a more DE approach would be preferred ?

My method is optimal equivalence, not formal equivalence. So (without examining the passages closely) I'm sure I would paraphrase most of them, or look for a similar idiom in the receptor language. Most of them look like straight idioms. But this is not DE, which often adds words and concepts not in the original, ostensibly to clarify things.

Concerning the book of Psalms, I've looked at my favorite two, the First and Twenty Third. In Psalm 1, I count 60 Hebrew words. However, there are no idioms. In Psalm 23 there are 54 words with 2 idioms consisting of 5 Hebrew words: "You made fat with oil my head" (v. 5) and "for the length of days" in v. 6. I see nothing else I would paraphrase in either of these Psalms. The symbolism is so beautiful and deep, especially in Ps. 23, why in the world would anyone want to paraphrase? So, the percentage of the Hebrew I would paraphrase for 5 out of 114 words is only 4.4%

The NET Bible paraphrases more than I would. You may be right about it. It substitutes "assembly" for "seat" in 1:1, changing the image completely. Sitting down with someone implies a closer relationship than assembling with them. In 2:2 the Net has "finds pleasure in them" instead of "his delight." If my delight is in the law of the Lord, it is primary to me. If I simply "find pleasure" in the law, then it may be one of many pleasures. In v. 3, "He succeeds in everything he attempts" (Net) is not the same meaning as "whatever he does will prosper." It changes the subject of the sentence and destroys the nuance of the original.

I agree with none of these renderings. Why not preserve the nuances of the original? Worse yet, why introduce new nuances into the text?

I think people overestimate the need for paraphrasing symbology. I think the average English reader is perfectly capable of understanding the symbolism of the Bible--if they work at it and depend on the Holy Spirit's illumination.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

I think the average English reader is perfectly capable of understanding the symbolism of the Bible--if they work at it and depend on the Holy Spirit's illumination.

But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Even so may The LORD bless your work John of Japan.


A.F.

 

[Rippon]

Well John , I am glad that we can agree that the NET Bible is dynamic ! And we agree that my 19 examples have to be restructured because they would not be understandable otherwise . I think your OE model is a fine one . It takes a middle course between the formally equivalent way and the FE method . It tries to stick with the former more than the latter though .

Regarding Psalm 23 : in verse 6 the NET notes say that in Hebrew it is " all the days of my life " . In verse 4 shadows and death are not in view . The TNIV has it as : Even though I walk through the darkest valley ..."

In 23:6 a the TNIV has : "Surely your goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life ... " . I read in the NET notes a comforting thought -- that God's favor chases down the one he loves .

 

[John of Japan]

But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Even so may The LORD bless your work John of Japan.


A.F.

Thank you, A. F.

 

[John of Japan]

Well John , I am glad that we can agree that the NET Bible is dynamic ! And we agree that my 19 examples have to be restructured because they would not be understandable otherwise . I think your OE model is a fine one . It takes a middle course between the formally equivalent way and the FE method . It tries to stick with the former more than the latter though .

I wish I could claim it, but a scholar far smarter than I am, an NKJV editor, is kindly helping me to learn his O. E. method, about which he is writing a technical tome. I hope to figure out more of the technicalities once I firmly get a grasp on something called transformational grammar, which is nothing like the traditional and/or historical grammar methods I've learned before. Is 54 too old for this? Maybe!

Also, the Holman CSB translators call their method O. E., but I am not quite sure if there is a connection.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

My method is optimal equivalence, not formal equivalence. So (without examining the passages closely) I'm sure I would paraphrase most of them, or look for a similar idiom in the receptor language. Most of them look like straight idioms. But this is not DE, which often adds words and concepts not in the original, ostensibly to clarify things.

God forbid, methinks when it came to pass that i happened upon this!

accusing DE of adding concepts NOT in the original, "ostensibly to clarify things," is as cynical a thot as i've ever come across in this DE/FE debate. first it was Nida inventing a translation theory (rather than codifying a set of good translation practices); then was somehow evil to be "thot for thot"; now it's the addition of extraneous thots, woohoo!

if anyone has read the regular textbooks on Bible translation or journals like Bible Translator, it will become apparent that the purposes are different between translations meant for popular reading, high church liturgy, scholarly comparison, etc. DE's good for some of these purposes but not all; likewise FE and "Optimal Equivalence" (optimal for what, but i'm blown away by the modesty!). for instance, DE may not be ideal for precise comparison in Septuagintal studies, nor FE for family devotions in native speaking English congregations.

bottomline thot fr me: there's no need to demonise one approach to translation over another--the playing field's wide enuff for different versions for different needs.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Defining paraphrase

i thot it might be good to post this definition of PARAPHRASE for the record:

http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/glossn.htm#paraphrase
Paraphrase

Paraphrase is the process of restating the meaning of something in other words. The original wording and its paraphrase are intended to be synonymous. The Living Bible was properly called a paraphrase by Kenneth Taylor, its author, who used as his source text the American Standard Version of the Bible and reworded it so that it could be understood by his young children for his family's devotions. It was so effective in helping his family that he published his paraphrase as the Living Bible. Technically, paraphrase is restatement of something in the same language, but the term paraphrase is often used non-technically by people concerned about Bible translation issues to refer to restatement of meaning using one's own opinions as to what the original meaning of the Biblical text is. Used in this sense, the term typically has negative connotations. When so used as a non-technical term, paraphrase is essentially synonymous with interpretive translation. Compare Periphrasis. Following is an example of paraphrase:
"Eschew obfuscation" is a phrase intended to be humorous because it breaks its own instruction. Neither of its words are known to a majority of average, fluent speakers of English. Paraphrases of this phrase, which would be understandable to most speakers, would be:
"Avoid using big words when you speak."
"Don't use big words."

i guess it don't sound so bad after all!

it's just disturbing hearing folk slamming DE n TG Grammar n Functional Grammar in the same way Westcott & Hort've been slammed--i.e. thru kneejerk caricature rather than by their proper definitions.

i wld suggest checking out the resources at the following website for anyone serious abt looking at translation theory up close (rather than erecting bogeymen based on surface meaning of words--like "transformational generative" .... yikes!):

http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/

 

[Rippon]

Eschew obfuscation ? How about : Get rid of words that are not clear .

Yeah , I tend to agree with you FSiH . I do not think any translation method is without flaws . The FE and OE styles are both subject to weaknesses . It is rare for a translation to be entirely DE . The FE uses functional equivalence a good deal . There is no pristine pure translational methodology . For instance , the OE approach often adds words not found in the original . But I am not going to fault that particular translational philosophy for that . The OE model is better than a stricter FE manner many times .

John , you had some harsh words for the NIV translators in the recent past . You apologized for that but then said that you intended to insult the translation method of the NIV . I do not think you are being as transparent as the translation model you prefer . The NIV ( and the TNIV ) is essentially literal . No , I am not mistaking the NIV/TNIV for the ESV . The ESV is in the same territory as the NIV/TNIV . I do not think the TNIV should be classified as largely dynamic . It is somewhat , but not much moreso than the ESV .

When a hard to understand idiom is translated dynamically by paraphrase it is using DE . Luther used DE , the KJV revisers used DE , the NASU uses DE . The restructuring of words are attempts at equivalency . Words of necessity have to be added and others left out . The sense is preserved by the better translators .

Nehemiah 8:8 : They read from the Book of the Law of God , making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people understood what was being read . ( TNIV )

In the footnote it says that "making it clear " means translating it .

 

[John of Japan]

John , you had some harsh words for the NIV translators in the recent past . You apologized for that but then said that you intended to insult the translation method of the NIV . I do not think you are being as transparent as the translation model you prefer . The NIV ( and the TNIV ) is essentially literal . No , I am not mistaking the NIV/TNIV for the ESV . The ESV is in the same territory as the NIV/TNIV . I do not think the TNIV should be classified as largely dynamic . It is somewhat , but not much moreso than the ESV .

Did I use the word "insult?" I don't think I did, but I can't find the post.

I've never read the TNIV, so I've never commented on it on.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Eschew obfuscation ? How about : Get rid of words that are not clear .

:laugh: i think the original was said in jest! good ole Wayne Leman, the translator who owns that resource site, has a gt sense of humour!

Yeah , I tend to agree with you FSiH .

hey thanks!! :wavey:

I do not think any translation method is without flaws . The FE and OE styles are both subject to weaknesses . It is rare for a translation to be entirely DE . The FE uses functional equivalence a good deal . There is no pristine pure translational methodology . For instance , the OE approach often adds words not found in the original . But I am not going to fault that particular translational philosophy for that . The OE model is better than a stricter FE manner many times .

i still haven't figured out OE (beyond the apparent pomposity of its name :tongue3; so it's hard for me to respond. also what translation method's preferred really depends on its intended use/audience. a translation written to accommodate high churchy liturgical suits may not be appropriate for interlinear-hungry seminary students, hearing impaired readers, ESL learners, or family altars.

which, praytell, is "optimum" as a translation philosophy? one that tends to set aside reader response? :saint:

 

[Phillip]

Since there are plenty of translations both DE and non-DE I haven't bothered to read the TNIV. I have not bothered to purchase it. I am disturbed with its dynamic changes of gender. In other words, if the GREEK says "brothers" when there is a GREEK word for "sisters" then it should NOT be translated "brothers and sisters". (I have read enough examples to comment about some of these.) Some of the gender changes are obviously okay, some are not. If the Greek did not have a word for "sisters" then this would be another issue. IMHO

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Since there are plenty of translations both DE and non-DE I haven't bothered to read the TNIV. I have not bothered to purchase it. I am disturbed with its dynamic changes of gender. In other words, if the GREEK says "brothers" when there is a GREEK word for "sisters" then it should NOT be translated "brothers and sisters". (I have read enough examples to comment about some of these.) Some of the gender changes are obviously okay, some are not. If the Greek did not have a word for "sisters" then this would be another issue. IMHO

this might possibly be right, but it's hard to know for certain (perhaps some real Gk expert--or access to the Louw-Nida lexicon--wld weigh in).

i do know, in English at least, that having an option linguistically does not obligate one to use it. for instance, there's a word GUY n a word GAL in English. in the plural, does one sometimes hear "u GUYS" in reference to an all-girl or a mixed group?

 

[John of Japan]

i still haven't figured out OE (beyond the apparent pomposity of its name :tongue3; so it's hard for me to respond. also what translation method's preferred really depends on its intended use/audience. a translation written to accommodate high churchy liturgical suits may not be appropriate for interlinear-hungry seminary students, hearing impaired readers, ESL learners, or family altars.

which, praytell, is "optimum" as a translation philosophy? one that tends to set aside reader response? :saint:

I still haven't figured out your view that "optimal" is pompous!

"op·ti·mal


(òp¹te-mel) adjective

Most favorable or desirable; optimum." (From Microsoft Bookshelf 98).​

To me it means doing my best. It means not saying, "I don't want to take time to look up that word in my Greek-Japanese lexicon. I'll just take a guess as to what a good Japanese equivalent would be." It means taking the time to figure out both the grammar and lexical meaning of the original and convey it as optimally as possible into the receptor language, preserving the nuances and ambiguities and layers of meaning as faithfully as possible.

"This principle of complete (optimal; JOJ) equivalence seeks to preserve all of the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form" (NKJV Preface).



Reader response in OE is secondary, as opposed to DE where it is primary. It is not a matter of "setting aside reader response." The meaning of the text is primary. If the meaning is conveyed properly and fluently, the reader's response will take care of itself.​

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

I still haven't figured out your view that "optimal" is pompous!

"op·ti·mal


(òp¹te-mel) adjective

Most favorable or desirable; optimum." (From Microsoft Bookshelf 98).​

Thx for defining! hmm, 2 things:

1. most desirable for what? if undefined, it's at best a motherhood statement to say a translation theory's "optimal."

2. if one's approach is "optimal," what does that make the others--suboptimal?
​

To me it means doing my best.

n the implication's that DE or FE translators are ...? :smilewinkgrin:

see why it might be construed as a tad pompous?

It means not saying, "I don't want to take time to look up that word in my Greek-Japanese lexicon. I'll just take a guess as to what a good Japanese equivalent would be." It means taking the time to figure out both the grammar and lexical meaning of the original and convey it as optimally as possible into the receptor language, preserving the nuances and ambiguities and layers of meaning as faithfully as possible.

that's all well n good. it's just that OE isn't descriptive of the method itself but is more or less (based on ur explanation) a self-accolade. perhaps it's better termed AE or NE (Ambiguity or Nuance Equivalency)?

"This principle of complete (optimal; JOJ) equivalence seeks to preserve all of the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form" (NKJV Preface).

again, i'll question "complete" equivalency, for DE has as one of its aims the preservation of all the meaning of the SL--implicit n explicit--n optimally presenting it in the TL to evince an equivalent response.

JOJ?

it's also important to define what's "good" in literary form. but i'll havta leave that for another day.

Reader response in OE is secondary, as opposed to DE where it is primary. It is not a matter of "setting aside reader response." The meaning of the text is primary. If the meaning is conveyed properly and fluently, the reader's response will take care of itself.

​

sure, if "properly n fluently" can be defined, n also the role of reader response in it. to the degree that it is defined, IMO, to that degree is that theory useful. the procedure needs to be articulated descriptively (e.g. FE n DE) sans the motherhood statements n lightweight modifiers--i can go on w some, e.g. "faithful equivalency," "reverent equivalency," "elegant equivalency." otherwise, won't we all wind up w translation theories (as i've pointed out in the case of the hijacked semidescriptive term "closest natural equivalence") like mine, that only pat their own backs? raise:


>>> apologies for the font variations ... i'm not sure what happened while typing, but i don't seem to be able to fix it. perhaps the Moderators wld know.

 

[John of Japan]

Thx for defining! hmm, 2 things:​

1. most desirable for what? if undefined, it's at best a motherhood statement to say a translation theory's "optimal."​

Stop looking at the term "optimal" by itself. It goes with the word "equivalent." So the effort is to make the equivalent fit the source optimally. What's wrong with that?

2. if one's approach is "optimal," what does that make the others--suboptimal?

If one's approach is "dynamic" what does that make the others--boring? Come on, you are playing with semantics here.​

​

see why it might be construed as a tad pompous?​

that's all well n good. it's just that OE isn't descriptive of the method itself but is more or less (based on ur explanation) a self-accolade. perhaps it's better termed AE or NE (Ambiguity or Nuance Equivalency)?
​

No, I don't see why it might be construed as a tad pompous. And yes OE is descriptive of the method. If you can't see that, sorry. No hair off my chin. And no I don't agree that it is based on a "self-accolade." It is based on a desire for excellence.​

​

>>> apologies for the font variations ... i'm not sure what happened while typing, but i don't seem to be able to fix it. perhaps the Moderators wld know.

No problem. A similar thing happened to a post of mine.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Stop looking at the term "optimal" by itself. It goes with the word "equivalent." So the effort is to make the equivalent fit the source optimally. What's wrong with that?

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

If one's approach is "dynamic" what does that make the others--boring? Come on, you are playing with semantics here.

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

http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/glossd.htm#dynamic
Dynamic

If a translation is dynamic we mean that the original meaning is communicated naturally in it, as well as accurately. Dynamic translation contrasts with literal translation, which often loses some of the original meaning in its attempt to retain the form of the original as much as possible. A dynamic translation pays careful attention to the natural features of the target language. It uses a vernacular (commonly used) vocabulary as opposed to a specialist vocabulary of the target language. A dynamic translation attempts to speak in the language of the average fluent speaker of the language. The terms dynamic translation and idiomatic translation are equivalent. Return to Index

Dynamic equivalence (DE)

Dynamic equivalence is a translation principle which was described by the Bible translation statesman Eugene Nida. With this principle a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the target language wording will trigger the same impact in its hearers that the original wording had upon its hearers. As some have mistakenly concluded, Nida never pitted "meaning" against "impact" (or reader "response", as he called it). Nida, as do all informed translators, understood that meaning is a totality ("bundle") which includes meanings of parts of words (morphemes), words themselves, how words connect to each other (syntax, grammar), words in communication contexts (pragmatics), connotation, etc. We always want a hearer to understand the same meaning as did hearers of the source text. That, essentially, is what Nida was saying.
But dynamic equivalence, as a concept, puts an overly narrow focus upon the response of hearers, perhaps sometimes at the expense of other factors which are also crucial to adequate Bible translation, such as accuracy of the message, the uniqueness of the original historical setting, etc. The term dynamic equivalence has often been mischaracterized. Because of this, and also because most translators recognize that translation adequacy calls for attention to a multiplicity of factors, most translators today do not use the term. Instead, as they characterize how it is often necessary to use different FORMS of the target language to encode the same MEANING as the original, they prefer to use terms which are easier to understand such as idiomatic translation, meaning-based translation#meaning-based, closest natural equivalent, and functional equivalence. A lay term used by some people is thought-for-thought translation. None of these terms is exactly the same as dynamic equivalence, although, like dynamic equivalence, all focus upon preservation of meaning, rather than form, when there is tension between the two.
The KJV translators understood that one cannot always translate the forms of a language literally and still retain the original meaning. There are several passages in the KJV which exemplify dynamic equivalence. For instance,
KJV Rom. 6.2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
The KJV exclamation "God forbid" of Romans 6.2, and numerous other verses in the KJV, is dynamic equivalence translation. It is not a literal translation of the original Greek, me: genoito "not may it be" ("may it not be" in more natural English word order). Instead, it is a strong English exclamation using God's name, a translation which the KJV translators felt was more natural in English and which has an impact which is, presumably, closer to what the impact of the original had upon its hearers than the literal "May it not be" would have on English hearers. With this dynamic equivalence rendering, the KJV translators place a higher priority upon how the original meaning will come across to the English hearers (that is, "reader response") than they do holding to the literal form of the original. They were translating total meaning of the Greek phrase here instead of simply (literal) meaning at the word level of language.
Compare Functional Equivalence. Visit the following webpages on dynamic equivalence:

• Dynamic Equivalence
• Dynamic Equivalence (Thought-for-Thought)

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

No, I don't see why it might be construed as a tad pompous. And yes OE is descriptive of the method. If you can't see that, sorry. No hair off my chin. And no I don't agree that it is based on a "self-accolade." It is based on a desire for excellence.

n what might DE n FE have a desire for? something suboptimal? :tear:

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