Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Translation theory and NP$

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Translation theory and NP$
  • Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:10:29 +0100

Hi Rolf,

actually, on thinking more about his, I think that 'creature' probably works the best in most cases.

James Christian

Quoting James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>:

Hi Rolf,

I can see what you are saying in principle. But I think that 'soul' is
perhaps the poorest choice of word possible if the aim is to guide a
reader to understanding of NP$ via consistent translation. The
majority of texts seem to place the semantic domain of NP$ as synonym
of life but with occasional more abstract shades (and occasional more
concrete shades). A good choice of word, in English, doesn't spring to
mind but whatever it is it should be a close synonym of 'life'.
English 'soul' doesn't really qualify as it carries with it all kinds
of semantic baggage that 'life' doesn't.

In fact, the more I think about it I don't really think it is possible
to choose 1 word in English which is a synonym of life and which works
in all contexts of NP$. But, I agree, that we could definitely do
better than using 30 different words of completely different meaning.

James Christian


Second, I would like to have a translation like Youngs literal
translation and the New World Translation that are very literal
(together with Wuest's Expanded translation). A strictly literal
translation is in a way a semi-translation. For example, when the NWT
consistently uses the one English word "soul" as a translation of
NP$, the readers must on the basis of the context find the references
of "soul". Therefore, the readers have a part in the very process of
translation.The advantage of a literal translation is that the
readers may come as close as possible to the original text through
their mother tongue. But this can of course be a real challenge. One
other advantage of such a translation, is that the readers can see
where other modern translations for different reasons have broken
fundamental translation rules and in effect has lead their readers
astray.

Third, I would like to have an idiomatic translation that is as
literal as possible, but not is a semi-translation. This means that
more than one word is used for NP$, but much fewer than the 30 or
more words that are used in modern translations, Footnotes with
alternative readings and alternative translation possibilities would
also be appreciated. When a person who does not know the original
languages works to get an understanding of Biblical passages, he or
she will learn a lot by comparing different translations. It is
impossible to transfer the whole original meaning of the verbs and
clauses from the source language to the target language-a part, great
or small, is lost in the process, and a part, great or small, is
added. Different translations may stress different sides of the
original meaning, and therefore it is an advantage to use several
translations.



--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.


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





--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page