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

Transparaphrasing

At 11:15 PM -0700 5/21/97, Lee R. Martin wrote:
>Micheal Palmer wrote:
>>
>I
>> recently read the introduction to a very non-literal new translation which
>> made the claim 'This is a translation, not a paraphrase.' Well, the editors
>> either didn't know the meanings of the terms or they were being
>> intentionally deceptive, since by virtually anyone's definition their work
>> IS a paraphrase. I would hasten to add that it is also a translation--just
>> a very non-literal one.
>
>Dear Michael,
>
>I would disagree with your statement above.  Such a translation is not a
>paraphrase of the Hebrew/Greek, rather it  is a paraphrase of their
>translation.  First, they translated the original text, then they
>paraphrased their translation.

Does anyone really do it in two steps like that? I never have. When I
translate, I simply read the Greek text, then state what I have understood
to be its meaning in the clearest idiomatic English I can. Sometimes the
result is very literal, but sometimes it is very non-literal, much like the
versions we are calling 'paraphrases.' I don't translate, then paraphrase.
I just 'transparaphrase' (or is it 'transparalate'?)  :-)

And no, it's certainly not 'paratranslate.'  :->


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal W. Palmer				   mwpalmer@earthlink.net
Religion & Philosophy
Meredith College

Visit the Greek Language and Linguistics Gateway at
http://home.earthlink.net/~mwpalmer/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------