[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: post.prepared for anglican (reversible translation)
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.
No, the point is that it is being used in many vague ways, which leads
to confusion.
> This is how it SHOULD be used."
If words are not used in some standard way, then nobody could
communicate.
--
Lee R. Martin
Adjunct Faculty in Old Testament and Hebrew
Church of God School of Theology
Cleveland, TN 37311
Pastor, Prospect Church of God
References: