From: Richard Allan Stauch (RStauch@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Sat Jul 28 2001 - 12:29:43 EDT
-----Original Message-----
From: Iver Larsen [mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org]
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 12:24 AM
>Hendiadys describes the semantic
>relationship between two noun phrases, not just two simple nouns. I think
>the label hendiadys was invented because the function of Greek KAI is
>different from the function of English "and". The English "and" implies
that
>the two coordinated noun phrases are semantically disjunct, that is, they
>have very little, if any, overlap in meaning. This constraint does not
apply
>to the Greek KAI. The two noun phrases may have significant semantic
>overlap. The Greek KAI is an "additive", more than a disjunctive, and it
can
>add a different aspect or fuller explanation to the same idea. This is
>especially common in Hebraic Greek. I am not so sure about other varieties
>of Greek.
>"mounted on a donkey and on a colt, the foul of a donkey"
>(the donkey and the colt refer to the same entity, the second being a more
>specific description. A generic reference followed by a more specific,
>detailed reference is very basic to Hebrew structure. This is one instance
>where the English "and" is clearly misleading.)
Iver,
In such cases (thinking specifically of your reference, Matthew 21:5), would
it actually be better to translate KAI as a comma (as the NKJ does), or
would you prefer "EVEN" (ALL CAPS indicating a citation to the OT) as in the
NAS? The second choice seems to be a little archaic for today's American
English readers; though generally understood, it would tend to brush them
back. The first choice removes the misleading aspects of "and" (as you
rightly point out) but drives "literalness" analysis towards the "free" end
of the spectrum -- if you catch my drift.
Not that I am complaining. I naturally want to be as tight as a gnat's
behind when it comes to translation, and leave interpretation to the
exegetes. Therefore, I am strongly averse to leaving words untranslated if
it isn't necessary.
Where I am going with this is that, while I am certain that a large
responsibility is on the translator to accurately translate the meaning of
the text in words and idiom, isn't it also a very large responsibility of
the readers' to actively participate in understanding that meaning? We, for
instance, use "and" in the same way (ergo, "He is mean and cruel"), so it
should not be impossible for a modern American English reader to understand
all those other versions that translate KAI with "and" at this point [so,
KJV, ASV, RSV, NRS.] In my example, "meanness" and "cruelty" could be seen
as facets of one aspect of a person's nature. So, if I had written "kind,
and cruel", I would have had to insert a comma, to indicate two different
aspects.
Well, just a little "cudifying," for what it's worth.
Richard Allan Stauch
Long Beach, CA
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:02 EDT