...
I don't think the idea of an implied contract between translator and
reader is understood or accepted by very many. Wayne Leman doesn't
appear to accept such an idea and those who criticise The Message because
``it isn't a real Bible'' don't either. ...
... My reason for using such
an idea is not to quibble with the translator's end of the contract.
It is to make clear to the reader that if they are going buy a literal
style version, e.g. NASB, then they have committed themselves to a lot
more work to understand the text they have in front of them than if
they buy a DE style version such as the TEV. Conversely if they buy
an DE style version then in many, many, places they are cutting themselves
off from the modes of expressions used by the original texts.
I can imagine the translators of the versions ranked poorly on Leman's
list shaking their heads and saying ``He just doesn't get it.'' If
you read the opening paragraph of Leman's study you will find he uses
a single standard for all versions. In my lingo he has one implied
contract imposed on all versions from the reader's point of view.
Given some translators worked to a different contract that's pretty
unfair.
I want people to ensure both they and their propective translationAgreed. But the version needs to be described accurately. If its publishers describe it as “suitable for any situation”, the implied contract (and arguably even the explicit legal contract, if the product is wrongly described in advertisements) is broken if any situation is found for which it is not suitable.
are using the same contract before money changes hands.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.