[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: post.prepared for anglican (reversible translation)
- To: "Lee R. Martin" <lmartin@voyageronline.net>
- Subject: Re: post.prepared for anglican (reversible translation)
- From: Paul Zellmer <pzellmer@ix5.ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 00:44:15 -0400
- CC: b-greek@virginia.edu
- Organization: Southern Methodist Missions
- References: <zG8vZMAylpgzEwDl@twonh.demon.co.uk> <3383CF03.110E@voyageronline.net>
- Reply-To: pzellmer@ix5.ix.netcom.com
Lee R. Martin wrote:
>
> Comparing "paraphrase" to "translation" is like comparing apples to
> oranges. They do not belong in the same discussion. Paraphrase is the
> attempt to restate a meaning in different words. This principle applies
> only within the same language.
Lee,
In the purest form of the definition, I agree with your "same-language"
definition. However, in actual practice, the word "paraphrase" has been
used to describe translations based on translations, e.g.,
Koine-->English-->minority language. This is the reason most of what is
done by SIL is technically called paraphrase. The implication here is
that it is somewhat more dependent on an interpretation than would be a
translation directly from the original.
The characteristic which is more emphasized in "paraphrases" than in
"translations" is the dependency on interpretation. Generally, this
interpretation is what is being sought in a "same-language" transfer,
and so is much more obvious in that case. But word usage of
"paraphrase" necessitates a bit wider definition than that which you
have stated.
Peace, friend,
Paul
Follow-Ups:
References: