Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] verbs

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] verbs
  • Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:03:57 +0100

On 29/07/2005 14:37, Rolf Furuli wrote:

...


There is no opposition between using the word as the basic translation unit and
at the same time make an extensive use of the context in actual translation
work. ...


OK, I take this as qualification of your earlier "I argue against the view that single words are not important for translation, but units above the word must be used." In other words, you are not in fact arguing against the view that "units above the word must be used", but only against the straw man view that "ONLY units above the word must be used".

...

E.A. Nida was the one who took the lead in the abandonement of the word as the
fundamental translation unit. He was inspired by Chomsky`s "deep
structures," and on this basis he suggested the "kernel" as the translation
unit. The kernels are short expressions of the *idea* the translator gets
from a short sequence of words. (see E. A. Nida and C. R. Taber (1974). "The
Theory and practice of Translation"). I will use a NT example to illustrate
how the "kernel"- approach can mislead the reader. In Ephesians 1:4 the
literal rendering of KATABOLHS KOSMOU is "the foundation of the world," as
RSV renders the words. The kernel in this expression is "(God) creates the
world" according to Nida and Taber (pp. 35, 36), and NIV renders it as "the
creation of the world". A noun can even in a literal translation be redered
by a verb, ...


Well, this last point is of the essence in Nida's scheme as properly understood. In this scheme, in most cases one word or short phrase corresponds to one concept, but in some languages (especially Greek, less so Hebrew) there is often a mismatch between parts of speech and semantic classifications. Thus the Greek word KATABOLH, a noun, corresponds to the verbal concept "create" or "found". But the kernels are still divided up into separate concepts which in general correspond to words - or sometimes are implicit from the context, e.g. "God" in parentheses above. So, although the theoretical position is slightly more carefully stated than "a word (defined as a series of letters on a page delimited by spaces or punctuation, or as a purely phonological unit) is the basic translation unit" (and I guess that even you would accept that there are sometimes mismatches between orthographic, phonological and lexical words), according to this method extensive use is made in translation of words as well as higher level units.

... but the problem here is that "to create" and "to found" are not
necessarily the same. ...


This is a separate exegetical issue, independent of the translation principles discussion, and not for discussion here as it relates to the NT. The phrase can easily be expressed as a kernel according to your preferred exegesis, e.g. "(God) started the human family". Nida and Taber did not do so because they had a different exegetical preference.

...

I agree with Peter that if one word consistently is used for each SL word as far as possible, this can mislead the TL readers, because of the meaning and connotations of a word in their TL. However, the possibility of distorting the message with a non-literal translation, as in the example above, is more serious. And this is the case in hundreds of cases in modern Bibles. If the target group understands that they should take the core of each TL word (in their language) and find the Biblical nuances that do not occur in their own language by looking up the passages where this word occurs in the Bible, then a literal translation will serve its purpose.


But this method requires a highly sophisticated target audience. Nida's method was designed especially for audiences with little education and little background knowledge, and it is for such audiences (surely a majority of the world population) that it comes into its own.

Nida`s system with kernels is today followed by very few Bible translators. The system has been refined and refined, coming a little closer to the word. But still there is a great distance between the methods used by "orthodox" translators and those who take the word as the fundamental translational unit. And the basic problems created by Nida remain.


And so do the basic problems with taking the word as the fundamental translational unit, the very problems which led Nida to develop his theory in the first place - although these problems had been recognised long before Nida, e.g. by Jerome and Luther, both of whom criticised literal translation, and by the KJV translators who incorporated many non-literal wordings. Yes, Nida's theory needed refining, and some of that refining has been done. And the refined version of his theory produces a translation which is very much better for certain large target audiences than anything that the old literal method can produce. Further work is needed, of course, but not a return to the methods which have been recognised as lacking for centuries.

--
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: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.6/59 - Release Date: 27/07/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page