Dyn. Equiv.

• To: b-greek <B-GREEK@virginia.edu>
• Subject: Dyn. Equiv.
• From: George Aichele <0004705237@mcimail.com>
• Date: Sat, 30 Apr 94 09:24 EST

I appreciate the value of dynamic equivalence in breaking us free
from simplistic notions of meaning, & especially for stressing
the importance of context. What bothers me is the stress on
function which Mari Broman Olsen highlights. Nida & Taber compare
the Bible to a manual for airplane mechanics (Theory & Practice
of Trans., 1)! Yet as far as I can tell, the Bible contains very
little "how to" material, & a great deal of poetry & narrative
the function of which is far from clear. Even the function of the
legal material is not unambiguous, as Talmud, etc. shows.
 
George Aichele
(Adrian College)
470-5237@mcimail.com

PS -- while the differences are certainly important, dyn. equivalence *shares*
with both positivism & fundamentalism the notion of univocity, & that is the
problem which concerns me.

• Prev: Re: linguistis and positivism
• Next: Grammars
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread