On 13/11/2005 08:20, Rolf Furuli wrote:
... 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.
Thank you for this interesting description. I can agree with you that a
concordant translation is a semi-translation. The translators have done
the easy part of the task, replacing each Hebrew word form with a string
of English letters found in an English dictionary (or similarly of course
for any other target language). But they seem to have done so with little
regard for the actual meaning of the Hebrew or English words, which very
often correspond only very approximately. But the translators have ducked
out of the main part of their job, which is to render the text in proper
meaningful English etc. In fact a computer could easily have produced this
semi-translation, but the more difficult part which the translators have
ducked out of is well beyond any computer, illustrating that the job is in
fact less than half done.
I agree with you that for some readers it is helpful to use such a
semi-translation or halfway house between the original text and a
translation, just as for some it is helpful to read the original Hebrew
text. But the great majority of non-specialised readers need a properly
completed translation.
I am still waiting for any evidence that "eternal" is not a reasonably
good translation of `olam, i.e.meaning that there will be no end to the
time period, at least subjectively for the experiencer such that
"lifelong" is sometimes more appropriate. Can anyone give me any
counter-examples?
--Best regards
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.