Biblical Hebrew Forum

["David Gray" <david_gray AT sil.org>]

Clay,

"...play by different sets of rules"

Completely different, or more like Rugby Union vs. Rugby League? Or Rugby vs. 
American Football? My understanding is that both literary critics and 
linguists carry out some kind of discourse analysis, only they come at the 
story or text from a different angle. Literary critics are much more 
interested in characterisation (compare 'participant reference') - and their 
first step often overlaps with that of linguists. It is when they start to 
apply their findings that we really notice differences in approach. Linguists 
don't tend to worry about the motives of characters, whether the characters 
come across as good or bad, mimesis or 'gaps'. Both linguists and literary 
critics are interested in 'major' and 'minor' participants, however (though 
again, literary critics use different terminology).

Anyway, in principle why shouldn't a linguist critique a literary critic's 
translation? It is there to be criticised, from any angle a reader (academic 
or not) chooses.

I also had a few questions to do with de Regt's criticism of the 'Noah walked 
with God' line. It seems to me to be so short that English can't do much with 
it. 'It was with God that Noah walked' would work, but only by adding several 
words. And it doesn't fit the cotext very well. The contrast is found in the 
first phrase about Noah finding favour in the eyes of the LORD v8 not in our 
phrase in v9. We could suggest 'Noah walked <with God>' using italics? As you 
say, ’In English the focus element is often marked by vocal emphasis and it 
can be clause final.'

Over to you, David Gray

______________________________________________
david_gray AT sil.org

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org 
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of C. Stirling 
Bartholomew
Sent: 07 July 2005 06:34
To: David Kummerow; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew and English word order

On 7/6/05 7:25 PM, "David Kummerow" <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com> wrote:

> de Regt is no "house painter" (to use your words). You could say his
> critique is "from the inside", as one "artist" to another.

David,

It was a poor analogy. My understanding is that Alter is a literary critic
and de Regt a linguist-philologist translation consultant.  It does strike
me strange that a linguist would 'bother' to take aim at a literary critic.
Linguists and literary critics play by different sets of rules and it seems
like a dubious project to measure Alter's work against the rules of
information structure framework in functional grammar. Perhaps not. I am
reading he article now.

On page 118 de Regt faults Alter for "Noah walked with God" Gen 6:9. Here
Noah is set in contrast to everyone else and de Regt claims that Alter to be
consistent with his stated policy should have translated this "With God Noah
walked". 

Two questions come to mind. Alter's stated purpose includes "... stylistic
and rhythmic integrity as literary English". I don't think "With God Noah
walked" meets this criteria. L. de Reqt is suggesting that "With God Noah
walked" reflects the information structure of the Hebrew Text placing the
focus element up front. But I don't think this is how English would handle
this. In English the focus element is often marked by vocal emphasis and it
can be clause final.
 

Clay Bartholomew 
 


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew