>---Rolf Furuli wrote:
>
>[SNIP]
>
>> As far as I know, no research has yielded data suggesting that words
>are
>> stored in the mind as phrases or clauses, but the data suggest that
>each
>> word is stored in the mind of people with the same PP as a "concept"
>which
>> often has fuzzy edges. Because this concept is somewhat (but not
>much)
>> fluid, the same word used in different contexts illuminates or makes
>> visible different parts of the concept. So "concept" used in lexical
>> semantics has no meaning outside its PP, (therefore can we not use
>English
>> words to describe Greek concepts), it cannot be defined because it
>is only
>> apprehended by the minds of those sharing the same PP, and the only
>way to
>> express it is to say or write the word to which it is exclusively
>connected.
>
>Rolf,
>
>I would like to offer a text for the purposes of literary case
>analysis: John 11:3, 5.
>
>In John 11:3, the Lord is said to FILEIS Lazarus. Conversely,
>according to John, Jesus "loved" (HGAPA) Martha and Mary. Now what is
>John telling us here? Are we to suppose that Jesus had a close
>affectionate relationship with Lazarus, and not with Martha and Mary?
>
>This could be one way of looking at the text. But could it also be
>true that the words overlap in this context? Would the Greek mind
>differentiate between the two words in this context?
>
>Earle says that Jesus expressed "a higher kind of love" toward Mary
>and Martha over against the love he had for Lazarus.
>
>What do you think?
>
Dear Edgar,
The bone of contention in "one word-one concept" versus "one word-several
concepts" is who is going to do the interpretaion, the translators or the
readers.
Your question above can be used to illustrate the advantages of the
one-concept model of the two triangles. The model has been constructed for
the purpose of translating the Greek text with a minimum of interpretation
on the part of the translators, in order to let the reader work with the
text. This means that whether there is a difference between FILEW and AGAPH
is a matter for the reader to find out, not the translator. The
translator`s task (in this literal form of translation) is to find English
words which adequately signal two concepts which are equivalent to the two
Greek concepts.
I agree in almost everything you say in your next last post except that a
"concept" can stand for more than one word. Your discussion of the
diachronic use of hAMARTIA is excellent, but hardly relevant for my model
because I just need to find the synchronic (technical) "meaning" of the
concept signalled by the word, and then find one or two English words which
can signal "similar" concepts (In this we see the advantage of the fuzzy
edges of the concepts). I have not taken the time to look at all the 173
examples of hAMARTIA in the NT, but suppose we are translating a study
bible, what is wrong in using "sin" in all 173 instances, or at least in
most cases? Then the readers could study the context and the cotext and do
the interpretation. The opposite is the procedure of idiomatic
translations, that the translators process the food so thoroughly that the
only thing the readers must do is to open their mouths and swallow. Fine
indeed for those who want it that way - really bad for those who want to
work with the text on their own.
You write:
<SPERMA signalled to the Greek mind "seed." But "seed" is not specific
<enough. What type of seed are we talking about? Seed could have
<reference to "descendants" (John 8:33); agricultural "seed" (Matt.
<13:240; sperm (1 John 3:9); individual children (Gal. 3:16). If I said
<TW SPERMATI SOU ENEULOGHQHSONTAI to a native Greek, what "signals"
<would come to mind? How would the hypothetical Greek speaker know what
<I either "meant" or had reference to? What *sense* (concept) would be
<conveyed to the Greek speaker's mind. The only escape hatch from the
<problem (IMV) would be context and cotext. It would not be enough to
<just say SPERMA or SPERMATI. The word SPERMA would have to be viewed
<both contextually and cotextually. Even viewing SPERMA as "offspring"
<would be inadequate, because we also have to determine whether we're
<discussing individuals or a collective group. This is a problem I see
<with the one concept model. More emphasis needs to be placed on the
<context of the word.
Why not translate all occurrences of SPERMA as "seed" and let the readers
do the interpretation?
The reason why I strongly advocate "one word-one concept" is not only that
it constitute a fine foundation for literal translation, but rather the
overwhelming material showing that words are stored in our minds as sigle
entities, but in many different orders, as semantic domains, as word
classes, as collocations (salt & pepper, butterfly & net) and as other
systems. I suggest two books by Jean Aitchison: 1993,"Words in the Mind",
and 1995, "The Articulate Mammal".
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo