[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: post.prepared for anglican (reversible translation)
At 2:40 PM -0400 5/22/97, Paul Zellmer wrote:
>Lee R. Martin wrote:
>>
>> Paul Zellmer wrote:
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> Translators certainly use "paraphrase" in this way, but it is
>> misleading, as we can plainly see from the posts on this list. A
>> double-step translation is no more a paraphrase than a single-step
>> translation. It is a translation of a translation. Of course the
>> translators may then add the further process of paraphrasing their
>> retranslation.
>>
>
>Then, Lee, just a question that brings this back (somewhat) to the study
>of Greek. What determines the meaning of a word: its etymology, its
>original meaning, or how it is used in the context? Plainly, the line
>of the current posts are saying, "Don't worry about all the ways it IS
>currently being used. This is how it SHOULD be used."
>
>Perhaps it's time to put TDNT back on the list of approved sources of
>information. ;^> (Of course, I realize that the argument which put it
>"on report," so to say, was not the information it contained, but how
>that information was misused.)
Perhaps I am being very obtuse, but we seem to go through this whole
business about translations and paraphrases at least once a year, and it is
sort of fun, but I get the impression that people approach this topic with
pretty well pre-formed opinions and the hope to win others over to their
own viewpoints rather than to discuss the matter openly. How many minds
have been changed about the meaning of "paraphrase" and "translation" in
the course of this discussion? I do think I've become a bit clearer in my
own mind about what I think, but I have only had one little 2c worth in the
thread hitherto.
Now comes this curious question:
>Then, Lee, just a question that brings this back (somewhat) to the study
>of Greek. What determines the meaning of a word: its etymology, its
>original meaning, or how it is used in the context? Plainly, the line
>of the current posts are saying, "Don't worry about all the ways it IS
>currently being used. This is how it SHOULD be used."
I'm no longer sure whether we're talking about an English word
("paraphrase") as it is or should be used in the course of an argument, or
whether Paul is actually raising the bigger question (since he says it
brings us back to the study of Greek--albeit only "somewhat") of what
determines the meaning of a word in English OR in Greek OR in Swahili.
Ain't philology FUN? Do we love words or do we hate them? When Paul raises
(tongue in cheek, I assume) the question of TDNT as an authority for usage,
it looks to me like we're back to that other rather fruitless recurrent
discussion topic (I hope I can hint at it without unleashing a torrential
gush of posts on the topic!), inclusive language in Biblical translation.
People seem to approach issues like this with swords drawn and ready to
consign heretics at least to figurative (and electronic) fiery flames. It
appears to me that it is indeed a THEOLOGICAL attitude toward paraphrases
that is involved here: are they to be TOLERATED? Well, yes--or maybe,
reluctantly, so long as they are not confused with TRANSLATIONS, but one
must be very clear on the difference between a TRANSLATION and a PARAPHRASE!
Curious indeed! Friends, over on the Classics list my professional
colleagues are currently arguing, in terms of something comparable to their
own canons of critical orthodoxy and heresy, the merits and demerits of the
Fagles, Fitzgerland, and Lattimore translations of the Homeric epics. This
has been unleashed by what NBC spent millions on releasing to the American
TV audience: a four-hour Odyssey bearing minimal resemblance to anything
written by whoever Homer may have been. And there are echoes of the same
arguments we are hearing here: what NBC has given us they say, is not a
version of a Homeric epic, but raher a paraphrase of a paraphrase of a
translation of Homer, since it is quite clear that nobody involved in this
production has ever read Homer in Greek. So the question there is: who
gives us Homeric epic "like it is" (or "wie es eigentlich geschehen
ist")--or does anybody? It is the great quest for authenticity on both
lists, or perhaps it's what Martin Buber called "the struggle for the
revelation."
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
References: