peterkirk at qaya.org
Thu Jul 28 08:52:17 EDT 2005
On 28/07/2005 07:27, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>In my curriculum, when I studied applied linguistics at the University of
>Oslo, was the following book of Peter Newmark (1988) (who had spent several
>decades as atranslator) "A Textbook of Translation". (Newmark`s book was
>awarded the British Association of Applied Linguitics prize in 1988.). He
>writes (p. 2) "... The SL (source language) texts consist of words, that is all
>that is there, on the page." ...
Even the best qualified and praised writers can sometimes speak
nonsense, or they can be quoted out of context. Yes, the text consists
of words. It also consists of letters. It also consists of sentences. It
also consists of paragraphs. At a rather more abstract level it can be
considered to consist of morphemes and of phrases and clauses, maybe
other kinds of discourse unit. Yes, all that is on the page is words.
But equally, all that is on the page is sentences, and all that is on
the page is letters. It just depends how you choose to divide things up.
So this argument is not at all helpful in deciding whether the basic
unit of translation (if such a concept is meaningful) is the word, or
some other unit.
The concept of a word is anyway a rather artificial one. When two Hebrew
words are connected by maqqef, does that make one word or two? If you
say that there are still two words, is the preposition MIN still a
separate word when it is written in the prefixed form ME-? Or perhaps
you claim that the prefixed prepositions and conjunction are separate
words. Well, on what theoretical basis? After all, there is no word
division in the text in such a case.
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.6/59 - Release Date: 27/07/2005
More information about the b-hebrew