The Literal Is Not Best

[John of Japan]

Today in our translation committee we worked on revising our Japanese version of Acts 27-28. At one point Uncle Miya, our Japanese linguist, wanted to use a Japanese noun in place of a Greek adjective. Since Japanese had a perfectly good adjective to use, we went with that to preserve the grammatical structure of the original. We believe that there is revelation even in the grammar of the Greek NT. DE translators, on the other hand, might have stuck with the noun, believing that it didn't really matter as long as we were communicating.

Sometimes we can't translate the Greek grammar satisfactorily. This is especially true in the case of the Greek perfect tense, which has no direct equivalent in Japanese. So we look for the optimal equivalent, the best Japanese phraseology to translate the perfect understandably and with good syntax. This is often the Japanese simple past, but occasionally we can bring out the nuances of the original in other ways.

After that we worked on a tract translation for an American ministry. I had done the original rough draft literal translation, and we worked from there to get it into good Japanese. In one place we actually added a couple of words to adapt to the Japanese way of thinking. Why could we do this with a tract but try not to do it with the NT? Because the translation goals are different. The main goal of a tract translation is simply to communicate the Gospel. So we can be more free with it. And that's a report from the front lines. :type:

 

[Rippon]

JoJ, I think you are demeaning DE translators/translations when you casually suggest that as long as they are communicating,that's what counts.There is just as much care,if not more so, in a DE translation than in a more formally-equivalent one.

You mentioned that you added a couple of words to an original rough draft of a literal tract translation.Do you realize that the more FE Bible translations have done that also?It's necessary at times.Do you think you have translated word-for-word all along?

I don't have my NRSV handy at the moment,but I think that it ( and the RSV) had the motto :"As literal as possible,and as free as necessary." That should go for all Bible translations and not just Gospel tracts.

 

[John of Japan]

JoJ, I think you are demeaning DE translators/translations when you casually suggest that as long as they are communicating,that's what counts.There is just as much care,if not more so, in a DE translation than in a more formally-equivalent one.

You mentioned that you added a couple of words to an original rough draft of a literal tract translation.Do you realize that the more FE Bible translations have done that also?It's necessary at times.Do you think you have translated word-for-word all along?

I don't have my NRSV handy at the moment,but I think that it ( and the RSV) had the motto :"As literal as possible,and as free as necessary." That should go for all Bible translations and not just Gospel tracts.

Rippon, now that you are actually trying to give me advice on my own translation methods, I just have to ask: what qualifies you? Are you actually fluent in another language? Have you ever done translation work? Have you studied Greek and/or Hebrew?

 

[Rippon]

Rippon, now that you are actually trying to give me advice on my own translation methods, I just have to ask: what qualifies you? Are you actually fluent in another language? Have you ever done translation work? Have you studied Greek and/or Hebrew?

Nothing qualifies me to give you advice on your translational methods. I didn't think I was doing that. I am not proficient in another language.

But that has nothing to do with my prior post;does it?

 

[Rippon]

JoJ, I think you are demeaning DE translators/translations when you casually suggest that as long as they are communicating,that's what counts.There is just as much care,if not more so, in a DE translation than in a more formally-equivalent one.

You mentioned that you added a couple of words to an original rough draft of a literal tract translation.Do you realize that the more FE Bible translations have done that also?It's necessary at times.Do you think you have translated word-for-word all along?

I don't have my NRSV handy at the moment,but I think that it ( and the RSV) had the motto :"As literal as possible,and as free as necessary." That should go for all Bible translations and not just Gospel tracts.

JoJ, could you address this post? Could you try to answer my questions?

 

[John of Japan]

JoJ, I think you are demeaning DE translators/translations when you casually suggest that as long as they are communicating,that's what counts.There is just as much care,if not more so, in a DE translation than in a more formally-equivalent one.

Baloney. I haven't demeaned anyone. And I don't think it is germane to start comparing how much care is taken by the translators. That's not the issue. You can take all kinds of care but still get the translation wrong if your method is wrong.

You mentioned that you added a couple of words to an original rough draft of a literal tract translation.Do you realize that the more FE Bible translations have done that also?It's necessary at times.Do you think you have translated word-for-word all along?

If you were a linguist you would know that there are various times and ways to add words to the text. In Bible translation it is necessary when the grammar and/or vocabulary of the original suggests it. It is not necessary when it is with the intent of explaining the ambiguities of the text.

I don't have my NRSV handy at the moment,but I think that it ( and the RSV) had the motto :"As literal as possible,and as free as necessary." That should go for all Bible translations and not just Gospel tracts.

So I'll ask--what qualifies you to make this statement?

 

[Rippon]

Baloney. I haven't demeaned anyone. And I don't think it is germane to start comparing how much care is taken by the translators. That's not the issue. You can take all kinds of care but still get the translation wrong if your method is wrong.

Rip : Translating in the mode of functional-equivalence is not a slap-dash procedure."Taking all kinds of care" would be a rather reasonable thing to do with any translational method.You prefer your translational theory.You think it is the best.That's understandable.But,don't be so judgmental of the functionally-equivalent method.You could learn from translators from that school of thought.

If you were a linguist you would know that there are various times and ways to add words to the text. In Bible translation it is necessary when the grammar and/or vocabulary of the original suggests it. It is not necessary when it is with the intent of explaining the ambiguities of the text.

So the answer is yes. There are indeed times even with a more form-driven translation when one has to add words.I just wanted you to acknowledge that.

________________________________________________________________

I am not a linguist.I am not an expert in Bible translation. Most folks here,even on this Bible Translation forum have no background in either.But I don't think that should prohibit us from making comments and asking questions.Would you like to limit conversation to just two or three individuals? Would laypeople like myself just have to be content to remain on the sidelines until you gave us permission to speak?C'mon.

 

[John of Japan]

So the answer is yes. There are indeed times even with a more form-driven translation when one has to add words.I just wanted you to acknowledge that.

Well, duh. I've never denied it. The KJV does that and puts such words into italics.

I am not a linguist.I am not an expert in Bible translation. Most folks here,even on this Bible Translation forum have no background in either.But I don't think that should prohibit us from making comments and asking questions.Would you like to limit conversation to just two or three individuals? Would laypeople like myself just have to be content to remain on the sidelines until you gave us permission to speak?C'mon.

I've never said you should stop speaking about translations, and don't think it. I only suggest that perhaps a little humility is in order. You don't just ask questions and make comments, you make declarations. I suggest you don't speak so authoritatively as is your habit, and use such words as: I think, I believe, in my opinion, my preference.

In the meantime, spend some serious time and money learning the Korean language. It will greatly improve your life in Korea, and give credence to your expositions on Bible translation. :thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

Well, duh. I've never denied it. The KJV does that and puts such words into italics.

Rip : The italics thingie.That's soo old.And that's so ineffective.Do you think the KJV cited every instance when so-called extra words were added? And what about cases when less words are used?Is there a notation?Or should there be?

I really like the HCSB, but it tries the same thing with brackets. Do you think all Bible versions should put in italics or brackets?Does your translation do this?

I've never said you should stop speaking about translations, and don't think it. I only suggest that perhaps a little humility is in order. You don't just ask questions and make comments, you make declarations. I suggest you don't speak so authoritatively as is your habit, and use such words as: I think, I believe, in my opinion, my preference.

Hmm, I'll have tally the times when I've said "I think" in my posts on Bible translations. What about when I am citing facts?

I'll have to count your usages also.Even though you regard yourself as an expert of sorts, you may have the habit of issuing your own decrees from time to time.

 

[Fred Moritz]

Rippon:

I don't know you, but I know John well. He does not regard himself as an expert - He is an expert! Years ago his missionary mentor in Japan told me that he knew of no Japanese missionary who had a better facility in the language than John. That came from a man who had been there 35 or more years at the time. I have rubbed shoulders with John for a very long time, and I have even taught him in one graduate class just a few years ago. When it comes to language ability, he has it. When it comes to translation philosophy, he has studied it academically, thought it through philosophically and practically, and proven it in ministry. There is a broad range of literature written on this subject, and from my limited reading in the field he is right on target with an approach to accurately translating God's written revelation to the race. I would suggest you get and read Leonard Ryken's book The Word of God in English. He articulates the issue very well.

 

[Rippon]

Rippon:

I don't know you, but I know John well. He does not regard himself as an expert - He is an expert! Years ago his missionary mentor in Japan told me that he knew of no Japanese missionary who had a better facility in the language than John. That came from a man who had been there 35 or more years at the time. I have rubbed shoulders with John for a very long time, and I have even taught him in one graduate class just a few years ago. When it comes to language ability, he has it. When it comes to translation philosophy, he has studied it academically, thought it through philosophically and practically, and proven it in ministry. There is a broad range of literature written on this subject, and from my limited reading in the field he is right on target with an approach to accurately translating God's written revelation to the race. I would suggest you get and read Leonard Ryken's book The Word of God in English. He articulates the issue very well.

Thank you FM. I'm sure JOJ is very gifted. I have commended his efforts in his translation work.I think he is fine servant of the Lord. But I do not think he gives much respect to those who use a more functionally-equivalent approach in Bible translation.Both of us have been around the barn a few times in the past about it.We continue to have our differences.That's what a debate format is for.

As far as Ryken's bok goes,I have never marked a book up as much as that one. He makes some excellent points.But he also makes some significant errors as well. I have said repeatedly that I am a layman.Well, so is Ryken. He is not a translator.He's an English literature teacher;a famous and accomplished one, but that's it.From some book reviews that I have read (who weren't in the tank with the ESV'ers)Dr. Ryken comes up short with his findings.

You have to know,first of all, that he had an agenda. He wrote it to promote the ESV. What version out there,aside from the RSV bears the greats similarity to it?Yes, the NRSV. LR had these charts showing what he believed were deficiencies with a number of versions.Guess which version always outshined the others?You're right,the ESV.He did not mention that the NRSV had practically identical renderings.That was strictly hush,hush.He gave high regard to the KJV,as well as the NASBU, and NKJ. However, he saved his venom for the NIV.He could barely contain himself.The charts were rigged so he could prove his points.Those knowing Greek were bemused when he complained of the liberties which the NIV took with a number of passages.But,what he thought was the only correct wording was itself not necessarily right.If the NIV was so ineffective,well TNIV had to be a lot worse.Of course at that time TNIV was not fully released.That didn't stop him from rumor-mongering about it.

The NLT1 took some hits too.I don't have the book before me now.The NLTse came out in 2004. I think he could have quoted from it instead.Yet that wouldn't have given him as much ammunition in his charts.But he wanted to be sure that the NIV received most of the damage.If it could be established that the NIV was weak due to employing a dynamic-equivalence,then folks could surmise that the TNIV was far worse.

So, I do not think Dr.Ryken proved his case.I could start another thread about that book in the future.I forget if I have done so in the past.

Thank you for your thoughts on the subject FM.

 

[John of Japan]

Rippon:

I don't know you, but I know John well. He does not regard himself as an expert - He is an expert! Years ago his missionary mentor in Japan told me that he knew of no Japanese missionary who had a better facility in the language than John. That came from a man who had been there 35 or more years at the time. I have rubbed shoulders with John for a very long time, and I have even taught him in one graduate class just a few years ago. When it comes to language ability, he has it. When it comes to translation philosophy, he has studied it academically, thought it through philosophically and practically, and proven it in ministry. There is a broad range of literature written on this subject, and from my limited reading in the field he is right on target with an approach to accurately translating God's written revelation to the race. I would suggest you get and read Leonard Ryken's book The Word of God in English. He articulates the issue very well.

Thank you for the very kind words, Dr. Moritz. I value your friendship.

John

 

[John of Japan]

I really like the HCSB, but it tries the same thing with brackets. Do you think all Bible versions should put in italics or brackets?Does your translation do this?

No, we don't use italics or brackets. They are both foreign to the Japanese written language, especially italics. We occasionally put in a footnote.

And now that I believe I have made my point that a comic book translator is hardly the one to teach us how to translate the Bible, and Dr. Moritz (a mentor and teacher of mine) has kindly established my linguistic bonafides, I'll drop out of this thread.

 

[Pipedude]

Ever notice how, when you pick up fresh bread, your fingers leave indentations? Handle it enough and it becomes a mess.

In Bible translation, the goal should be to handle it as little as possible so as to leave the fewest fingerprints on it.

Once that has been accomplished, one's next, best efforts should be in learning how to use the "quote" function correctly on Internet bulletin boards.

 

[John of Japan]

Ever notice how, when you pick up fresh bread, your fingers leave indentations? Handle it enough and it becomes a mess.

In Bible translation, the goal should be to handle it as little as possible so as to leave the fewest fingerprints on it.

Once that has been accomplished, one's next, best efforts should be in learning how to use the "quote" function correctly on Internet bulletin boards.

Good one, Pipedude.

Thinking back I realized I had to add just one more post here. Rippon, not being a linguist, misunderstood what I was saying about adding words to a tract translation or a Bible translation. There are two times the translator might add words.

(1) When the added words are based on the syntax or vocabulary of the original. I would do this in a Bible translation or a tract translation. This is what the KJV does with the words in italics, which are almost always based on something in the original text.

(2) When the words are not based on the original, but added for the purposes of explaining or clarifying the original in the target language. This I would do with a tract translation but not in translating the Word of God.

 

[Rippon]

No, we don't use italics or brackets. They are both foreign to the Japanese written language, especially italics. We occasionally put in a footnote.

And now that I believe I have made my point that a comic book translator is hardly the one to teach us how to translate the Bible, and Dr. Moritz (a mentor and teacher of mine) has kindly established my linguistic bonafides, I'll drop out of this thread.

I'm glad italics or brackets are not used in Japanese versions.I only hope that the practice will cease in English translations also.

I had made the point that the comic book translator was just that.We can still learn from someone like that.Besides,you have forgotten his the purpose of his translation:"Aims at accuracy,conveying the intent and message of the author."You are not saying you disagree with that,are you?

 

[Rippon]

PD,sometimes when translating the bread of life from one language and culture to another one, human bakers may knead it.

 

[Deacon]

PD, sometimes when translating the bread of life from one language and culture to another one, human bakers may knead it.

ElShaddai Edwards expands this pun in his blog titled "He is Sufficient"

What type of bread is your translation?

Rob

 

[Rippon]

ElShaddai Edwards expands this pun in his blog titled "He is Sufficient"

What type of bread is your translation?

Rob

I note that Stan M. thinks TNIV is hearty,dependable and delicious bread.