From: Jane Harper (jharper@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Thu Mar 19 1998 - 11:47:12 EST
> What is the point of a Gender Neutral LXX in English?
This is probably off topic, so I'll be brief.
If I understand correctly, there are two main theories of translation. One
emphasizes moving the syntactic units intact between the two languages, and the
other emphasizes moving the meaning to the reader. The issue of gender
neutrality, in my observation, affects the latter much more than the former.
The issues to be answered prior to any address of Clayton's question revolve
around whether the original readers of the LXX would have considered masculine
pronouns to have an inclusive function. In my courses I have always been told,
for instance, that ANQRWPOS was inclusive in meaning. I seem to remember that
there are analogous issues in Hebrew, especially in the creation accounts
(ADAMAH Vs ISH/ISHAH). If ANQRWPOS is translated 'man', then the meaning is
not being carried accurately to the English reader.
Surely, also, there are other discrepancies between the LXX and the MT that do
not focus on gender inclusivity, and it would be possible to portray these in
detail in an inclusive translation.
Jane Harper
just a Little Greek
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:14 EDT