Featured They, Them, Their

Is it?

 

What's to be surprised about? He's a secular scholar. But really, your apparent reaction is kneejerk rather than comprehending.

He actually opposes Grave's entire translation as being "fluent," by which he means adapted to the modern culture rather than clearly representing the ancient culture. (And it's "archaism," not "anarchism," a very different thing.) That's precisely what I oppose about many modern Bible translations. I believe in allowing the divine Author to speak for Himself, not adapting him to modern ears, such as those of Eugene Nida.

And your suggestion about how Venuti might translate the Bible is 100% speculation--not worthy of your usual excellent fact finding. Venuti has never translated the Bible, though other secular scholars have, such as Christiane Nord.

In a different book, The Scandals of Translation, Venuti decries how so many translators of ancient Greek works have covered up the reality of those days by leaving out the homosexual passages. Ancient Greece was very immoral.

 

We could go all day trading quotes. I've got a bunch more books and articles on translation. Here's the reality, though. Rippon believes in the importance of the comprehension of the modern reader over authorial intent.

And if Jerome is who I think he is (I'll never tell ), he's pro-functional equivalence.

 

What's that supposed to mean?

 

Nothing much. But are you pro-functional equivalence?

 

All very well and good as long as it accurately translates the original, which many modern translations do not. And occasionally, if it takes a little bit of awkwardness in the rendering, that's not necessarily bad if the reader can understand.

Not only that, but many times I've translated a word or verse accurately without completely understanding it. (And anyone who says he understands the entire Bible is lying, right? ) Then the translator's job is simply to translate.

 

I've been a Bible translator for about 20 years, and a Greek teacher since 1987 (though not every year) in two languages, so yes, often it is simple for me. However, occasionally I run across a difficult passage or word, such as when my final proofer objected to our rendering of σκοπός (skopos, "goal" in Philippians 3:14). There were about 5 possibilities, and after an hour or so of checking lexicons, other versions, etc., I finally came down on his second suggestion, designed to keep the Greek metaphor intact.

 

In case anyone is interested, you can check out the words for "goal" in Japanese here: goal #words - Jisho.org

The problem was that my team was using ゴール, a loan word from English written in katakana, the alphabet for foreign and modern words. (Japanese has two alphabets.) So my proofer alleged this to be an anachronism. However, it is the modern word used by Japanese for the goal line in a race. We settled on 目的地 (目的地 - Jisho.org) in order to preserve the metaphor.

 

People who spend valuable time searching for something someone said who knows when on the BB are...how can I say this gently...hard up for something to do with their time.

I don't have to worry about "they, them" in our Japanese translation, since the Japanese equivalents are clearly male and female: 彼ら for the male "they" and 彼女たち for the female "they." So carry on with your English Bible discussion., folks.

 

Yes indeed!

The whole thread begs the question of translation style: should the translation be colloquial, or should it be literary? Or something else (classical, for example)? The proofs presented that Conan and I and whoever else used the singular "they" on the BB are actually irrelevant. Conversation on the BB is colloquial. Sure, a colloquial translation could use the singular "they, them." But a more literary translation would eschew that usage. Maybe the founder of this thread should start a thread on translation style instead of this old chestnut, and that would be more relevant to actual translation work.