Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 16/11/2005 14:55, Rolf Furuli wrote:

> ...
>
> You turn the issue upside down because you look at it from your theoretical
> background as a translator; i.e., you look at it from the point of view of
> idiomatic translation. The discussion started when I said that "time
> indefinite" was an excellent rendering for (WLM in a literal translation,
> because a consistent use of this expression would help the readers to decide
> when the reference
> was a period without end and when it had an end.  Then Kelton said, "I am
> having a hard time understanding your view of OLAM and the NWT".  So the
> issue has been whether "time indefinite" is an adequate redering for Hebrew
> (WLM and whether this rendering is helpful for the target group of a literal
> translation such as NWT.
>  

I accept that if in your translation theory ""meaningfulness in English" 
is not a requirement", i.e. it is unimportant and unnecessary for the 
target language word, as generally used, to have any resemblance in 
meaning to the source language word, there is no reason to criticise 
this rendering. To put it another way, if you don't care that 
translation means the same as the original, but only about consistency, 
you can just choose a word or phrase at random as your consistent 
rendering of each original word.

> ...
>
> Once again I will remind the list-members that you should not criticize the
> choices of English words in a literal translation from an idiomatic point of
> view. But you must criticize the literal translation on the basis of its own
> principles and procedures. ...

Fair enough, but it is also quite reasonable to criticise your theory of 
literal translation. This could of course be considered off topic for 
this list, but then so could any discussion of the precise wording of 
any individual translation.

> ... One basic procedure is to find one single English
> word to represent each Hebrew word where this is possible. This English word
> should represent the core meaning of the Hebrew concept, and the target
> group should, on the basis of the use of this word in the Bible, be able to
> clothe this word "with flesh," exactly what was necessary in the case of
> Luther and the KJV.  Given the principles of a literal translation, it is a
> blind alley to ask what "time indefinite" means for the average English
> speaker and whether it is regularly used in daily speech (but it was of
> course proper for Kelton to ask about its meaning). The question is whether
> it adequately can represent the core meaning of the Hebrew word (WLM, and
> whether it effectively can be used by the English target group to get some
> idea of the Hebrew concept behind (WLM. My answer is Yes! ...

This is fair enough as a question. And my answer, as a native speaker of 
English, is No! For the core meaning of the Hebrew word is something 
like "eternity", and the phrase "to time indefinite" does not adequately 
represent this, because it suggests simply a time whose length is 
unknown, not one which is everlasting or even necessarily very long.

> ... BTW, I personally
> think the reference of Ecc 1:4 is eternality, but I think "to time
> indefinite" is the best rendeering inthis verse.
>
>  
Why? Is this because you think, incorrectly, that "to time indefinite" 
conveys the idea of eternity? Or is it because of the principle of 
consistency?

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