Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 23/12/2004 18:41, Karl Randolph wrote:

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

I have just checked that this works. Try again. Or I can send it to you 
offlist as an attachment.

> 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.
>  

Yes, I do. Well, I accept that "Yesterday the train went down the 
tracks" can be described as a paraphrase of "Fire wagon yesterday day go 
across iron road upon". But I object to this description of how a good 
translator works. Maybe a bad translator first prepares a word for word 
translation and then paraphrases it. But a good translator reads and 
understands the Chinese sentence and naturally produces at the first 
attempt a good understandable meaning-based translation like your second 
version.

> 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?
>  

This version is indeed not a paraphrase, it is simply a bad translation.

> 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, your teachers were using the word "paraphrase" in their own 
idiosyncratic way as a pejorative term for an incorrect translation. And 
so was Jim, not George.

I agree that translation should be done carefully and with as little 
adjustment to the meaning as is necessary. But paraphrasing is not a 
widespread part of the Bible translation procedure. I suspect that your 
teachers just don't know how modern meaning-based translations are 
prepared. They are not prepared by paraphrasing of existing English 
translations, but direct from the original texts, although not without 
comparison with earlier translations.

> 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?
>
>  
I hope things are clearer now.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004