Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 3:15 "bruise"

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 3:15 "bruise"
  • Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:41:08 -0500

Peter:

I tried to download your file, and for some reason all I got was an error
message.

I see your point, I think.

For example, if I were to translate a Chinese sentence (used for neutrality
in this discussion) "Fire wagon yesterday day go across iron road upon" makes
no sense to someone who does not know Chinese, so a good translator then
paraphrases the sentence to "Yesterday the train went down the tracks." This
is where paraphrasing is used as a tool to help with translation. I don't
think you object to "paraphrase" being used in this context.

To give another example, there was a "translation" of the Bible made by
people who did not believe the stories contained therein, therefore they at
the beginning of one story "translated" WYHY as "Once upon a time..." which
elicited mirth among those who pointed it out to me. They, profs and fellow
students, called that a "paraphrase" which, strictly speaking, is a misuse of
the term. That is not a restating into more understandable language, which is
the strict definition of "paraphrase", but adding to the text, in other
words, a mistranslation. It is that misuse of the term "paraphrase" to which
you object. Am I right?

Further, my teachers taught that the more one paraphrases, the more likely
one is to pass from a legitimate use of paraphrasing as in the first example,
to adding or subtracting from the meaning as in the second example, therefore
paraphrasing should be done carefully and as sparingly as possible. The way
they used "paraphrase" came to mean untrustworthy to possibly incorrect
translation, a rather specialized use of the term. I was guilty in using the
term in a manner that reflected this meaning, and I think George meant it in
this way as well.

Yes, my use of the term was somewhat sloppy, following the example given
above. But does this post clear the question up, or is there further
clarification needed?

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>

>
> On 23/12/2004 02:16, Karl Randolph wrote:
>
> > Peter:
> >
> > When I hear "direct translation", most people are thinking of a
> > word for word translation. For reasons discussed before, that is
> > impossible.
> >
> > But the question is: how much paraphrasing can be done before it
> > crosses the line from merely making the ideas in one language
> > understandable in another, as a subset of translation, to
> > becoming an original work of art pushing its own ideas? All of us
> > have seen examples of such misuse of paraphrase, where it has
> > become the boss rather than the servant of translation, hence why
> > we are so leery of "paraphrase".
> >
> >
> >
> I am only leery of this continuing abuse of the word "paraphrase".
> For some of my thoughts on the other issues here, see my draft
> paper
> http://www.qaya.org/academic/bibletranslation/Holy%20Communicative.zip.
>
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page