From: Brian E. Wilson (brian@twonh.demon.co.uk)
Date: Thu May 15 1997 - 02:11:39 EDT
In message <863575468.05301.0@mail.Virginia.EDU>, bearded bill of
asheville wrote:
>So here's the mitten: Given the tendency of contemporary translational method
>to use dynamic equivalence as an excuse to label paraphrastic work translation,
>can anyone offer a concise, cogent statement of the difference between a
>paraphrase and a translation? Who will take up the mitten?
A translation is reversible. That is to say, if one person translates a
Greek text into English, and another translates it back into Greek, the
final result would be the original text.
A paraphrase is irreversible. If someone paraphrases the Greek text of
Romans 5.1-5 into English, the resultant English would not translate
back into the Greek text Paul dictated.
On this test, in my view, Todays English Version does not translate, but
paraphrases, Romans 5.1-5.
On the same test, in my opinion, the New International Version
translates Romans 5.1-5.
Brian E. Wilson
Please visit my home page:
http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/
-- Brian E. Wilson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:16 EDT