[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

post.prepared for anglican (reversible translation)

I am absolutely fascinated that no-one else has yet come up with an
alternative definition of the distinction between a translation and a
paraphrase.  I appreciate that my suggestion that a translation is
reversible, but a parapharase irreversible, may include too strict a
view of translation for some scholars.  But unless an alternative
objective test for distinguishing between translating and paraphrasing
is laid down, should we not draw the conclusion that they are one and
the same activity, and that when one person says something is a
translation he is simply affirming that it is the paraphrase he
subjectively prefers to other paraphrases?
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o

Brian E. Wilson

                  Please visit my homepage:  http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Follow-Ups: