Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Kelton,

Thank you for your fine response where you deal with the issues in a
balanced way. Allow me a few comments.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <kgraham0938 AT comcast.net>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite)

> Dr:Furuli:> When I teach my students how to translate words (I mean
> "words," because
> > that is all that is on the page) from one language to another, I often
> > use
> > Ogden`s triangle of signification, with "sign," "concept," and
> > "reference"
> > at the three corners. It is of utmost importance to differentiate between
> > the
> > "concept" (=meaning in the minds of persons with the same presupposition
> > pool) and the "reference" (=the thing in the world denoted by the word).
>
> Response: Let me see if I am following you, the sign is the actual word
> itself 'OLAM, the concept is what existed in the mind of the Hebrew
> writters, the reference in basically what we define in the dictionary or
> what we use today in English to convey that idea?

You have understood the terms "sign" and "concept," but a few words are
needed regarding "reference". This term does not refer to the glosses in
English lexicons, although such a gloss sometimes (or often) comes close to
the actual references. If you are interested in the subject, you should read
some psycholinguistics in order to understand the way words (yes, I say
"words") are stored in the mind as concepts.

As already mentioned, a concept can hardly be defined, it must be known 
(this is achieved on the
basis of all the input a person receives from childhood until adulthood).
Therefore, a Hebrew concept cannot be transferred directly from Hebrew to 
English. In
order to translate in spite of this immense problem there are two basic
approaches, the concordant and the idiomatic approach.  And both are
valuable!

Those making the concordant translation try to find an English word that
represent the core of a Hebrew concept (represented by one Hebrew word) as
they understand this core. This English word is used consistently throughout
the English translation to represent the Hebrew word and its concept. The
target group can look up the occurrences of one particular English word, and
on the basis of its context one can get rid of unwanted English baggage, and
the readers come closer to the Hebrew concept that the word signals. From
one point of view one can say that a literal transltion is a
semi-translation, because the readers have a part in the very translation
process as described above.

Those making the idiomatic translation (there are many different models
here, from the rather literal idiomatic translation to the paraphrase), are
more interested in the references and uses of the Hebrew words than in their
concepts. This means that they ask how the word is used in this clause and
in this context. Therefore they use many different English words for each
Hebrew one. This is a fine method as well, but the readers have no part in
the translation process, because the decisions are taken by the translators.

The noun NP$ can illustrate the case. Concepts cannot be defined, but it is
often possible to say something about the core of a concept. In this case
the core meaning comes close to "a living creature". This core sense is even
found in the cognate Akkadian word NAPI$TU, even though Akkadian writings
speak about life in the Nether world, something that is absent from the
Hebrew Bible. Now, the NWT uses consistently the English word "soul" to
translate NP$. One drawback with this is the baggage of "soul," for example
the view of an "immortal soul". But the advantage is that the readers can
know where the Hebrew NP$ is found in the OT, and by looking up some of its
occurrences they can purge "soul" from its unwanted baggage.

A concept is a rather broad mental image; it has a core but it becomes more
fuzzy towards the edges. The ancient Hebrews had the concept NP$ in their
minds and they knew its meaning. Communication means to make a part of each
concept visible for the audience, and this is achieved by the context (the
combination of words, gammar, and syntax). In one context NP$ makes visible
animals (living creatures) and in other cases humans. Often the focus is on
the life of a creature or even on the creature´s right to live. Even a dead
corpse or a carcass (a previously living creature) can be referred to. These 
are not different "meanings" of NP$, but they show what is made visible of 
the concept in different contexts.

The translators of idiomatic translations are concerned with what is made
visible in each situation, and therefore they render NP$ by different words,
such as: "animal; everyone; means of preparing food to stay alive; corpse;
creatures; life: (they) wanted; appetite; mercy; people; breadth; person;
you; are willing; mind" to mention some. Sometimes the word is even 
translated "soul". The
food is chewed, and the readers only have to open their mouth. When one is
not interested in the original concept of NP$ and the deeper meaning of the
text, idiomatic translations serve the purpose.

So, glosses in Hebrew-English lexicons sometimes represent the references of
a Hebrew word, but this is not always the case.

As for (WLM, it has a concept, and the NWT translators tried to find an
English word  or word combination for that, and they ended up with "time
indefinite". The word "indefinite" has a baggage, or different applications,
if you will.  But from the point of view of the concordant method, when one
or two words need to be used for each original concept, no one has so far
come up with a better alternative.  And "eternal" as the word representing
the concept definitely is wrong. And again, the readers who read the text
and look at the context where "time indefinite" is used will understand its
use and come closer to the original concept that (WLM signalled.


snip

> Dr.Furuli:> No one today has the same presupposition pool as the Hebrews
> in ancient
> > days, and concepts can seldom be defined, they must be known. So the
> > lexical
> > semantics of classical Hebrew
> > is based on induction, and includes all the weaknesses and uncertaintees
> > of
> > this method. I think that the core of the cencept behind the root (LM is
> > something that is hidden (my thinking is also based upon induction).
> > Applied
> > to the nominal sphere with the form (WLM, I think the core meaning is
> > "hidden time" with an indifference regarding the length or nature of the
> > hidden time. In other words, the concept "long" is not a part of the
> > *meaning* of (WLAM. Nonetheless, in most cases the reference of (WLM is a
> > "long time", even "eternity". But beware of confusing "meaning" with
> > "reference"!
>
> Response:  Ok, but how did you come up with this core meaning of "hidden
> time?"  Did you base it off of context or did you do something special.
> Not arguing that you are wrong or right I just don't follow your train of
> thought here.
>
> I understand (well I think I do) your distinction between meaning and
> reference, but how did you conclude that the meaning of 'OLAM is "hidden
> time?"
>
> For instance when it says God of OLAM, do you think it means that God is
> the God of unknown time?  Or God of eternalty?

As already mentioned, induction  can be tricky, but that is the only thing
we have. If you look at the use of the verb (LM, the core concept is close
to "hide/hidden".  You can fine good discussions of this in lexicons and
articles. As far back as we have writings of the Hebrew sages, we find the
same views regarding this verb. When I look at the occurrences of the noun
(WLM in the Hebrew Bible, the common denominator (which may be
close to the original concept) I see is "time with a hidden length". In some
instances the modern word "eternal" will naturally be used in an idiomatic
translation (but this word is philosophically speaking very problematic). In
many other instances a "long time" is implied by the use of (WLM.  But a
common denominator should include *all* the uses of the word, perhaps even
glance at the root concept, and the narrowest term I find that includes
everything is "time with an undisclosed or hidden length".

By way of conclusion I would like to stress that to understand the logic and
practicality of using one English word for one Hebrew word one has to
detatch oneself from one´s traditional translation model and target group 
and study the
principles behind the concordant method.  The concordant translation conveys
concepts; the idiomatic translation coveys the uses of the concepts as the
translators understand these uses.

When I have translated works in different Semitic languages into Norwegian,
I have used the idiomatic method, though the rather literal variant of this
method. So, I see the need for both literal and idiomatic Bible
translations.



snip
> --
> Kelton Graham
> KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo