From: Lee R. Martin (lmartin@voyageronline.net)
Date: Thu May 22 1997 - 22:44:50 EDT
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:16 EDT