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: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Translation theory and NP$
  • Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:53:42 +0100

Hi,

Quoting Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>:

Dear James,

When Martin Luther made his German translation, German was not fully
developed as a language, so he had to create new words, or chose old
words as "catchwords" signifying particular concepts. In time, all
these words were implemented in the religious and secular language,
and people used them.

When a native Hebrew speaker heard NP$, his mental concept signalled
by the word was activated, and on the basis of the context he would
ascertain which area of the concept that was made visible. The point
with a literal translation is to find a word close to the core
meaning of the concept, and let the readers look up its references,
to the point were the diligent reader will get a part of the
original concept in his or her mental lexicon.

If one chooses to make a literal translation, one should have Ogden's
triangle of signification in mind, with "sign," "concept," and
"reference" at the corners. In my view, it may be confusing if we
choose one of the references as the word representing the concept in
the target language. Therefore, I do not think "creature" is a good
choice, and "life" is even worse. The words "Sele," "soul," and
"sjel" (German, English, and Norwegian) have long been a part of the
vocabularies of the mentioned languages, so I find it to be an
excellent choice. The only disadvantage I can see, is that many
people combine immortality with it (an immortal soul), a concept that
is completely foreign to the Tanakh. But such a choice of one
English word for one Hebrew word gives the reader the opportunity to
have a part in the translation process, and the translation process
also consists of rejecting wrong ideas connected with a particular
word-the idea of an immortal soul will rather quickly be rejected of
the references of "sould" are looked up.

Yep. This was my basic experience. But not all people apply the same level of objectivity. I was thinking more of a translation for the masses that avoids that kind of mental effort.

James Christian


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



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