convicted1
Guest
Any body use this translation? Thoughts? What little I have read of it is really good. I started reading in the book of John...
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Ylt?
- Thread starter convicted1
- Start date
convicted1
Guest
The "YLT" in the thread title was supposed to be in CAPS. Will a mod/admin fix that for me?? Please?????
Won't make any difference Willis, everybody already knows you're from West Virginia.
convicted1
Guest
Won't make any difference Willis, everybody already knows you're from West Virginia.
Au contraire...I'm from Ky. I now live in WVa.....
convicted1
Guest
Bro. Larry, you use it...What's it highs and lows, in your opinion?
It's not a smooth read, I use it mostly for quick reference to see (as much as is possible for me) what the literal wording of the text is.
You mean "Young's literal translation?"
If yes, very close to being like the Asv was, a close word by word attempt to translate scriptures...
It's overly literal, but this is a help sometimes to someone who knows the original languages. I wouldn't recommend it to others. We've referred to it in our translation work.
The YLT does have one linguistic fault. Young believed that each word in the original should be translated by concordance--that is with every Hebrew or Greek word having only one word in the target document to represent it. This is not only semantically, but just plain wrong thinking.
Really? It's been a help to you?
Try his rendering of 2 Sam. 19:38 on for size:
With me doth Chimham go over, and I do to him that which is good in thine eyes, yea, all that thou dost fix on me I do to thee.
YLT is a mixed blessing in translation work. Sometimes it has helped me clarify the original language to my translation partner, other times it has confused him.
If one knows Hebrew, this is clear.
Would say thst his translation was one of the most lietral ones even done, can be useful at times, but would prefer to stick with my nasb/Niv/Esv versions, and look atv an actual interlinear at times...
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Why would an individual that knows the original languages refer to an overly literal English translation? Wouldn't it be better just to go directly to the Hebrew (or Greek, as the case may be)?
In translation work, though we translate from the Hebrew and Greek, it is still helpful to refer to translations in both English and the target language.
Would the YLT qualify as a real translation? Could it actually be said to be in proper English?
If you define an English translation as "a document in the target language in proper English" then no. But I don't know anyone who defines it that way. If you define it as "a document in the target language in understandable English" then it is a translation, even if it is poor and sometimes stilted English.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Yes, of course. I would expect that a translator would do so. But it sounded like you had found the overly literal YLT "helpful" in some sort of unique way.