tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13493010.post114211213885506477..comments2011-10-05T17:55:15.179-04:00Pittsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701313028266975294noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13493010.post-1142521506525036392006-03-16T10:05:00.000-05:002006-03-16T10:05:00.000-05:00If you are talking about the letter-for-letter thing <I>that</I> is completely satirical.Pittsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701313028266975294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13493010.post-1142521299803499762006-03-16T10:01:00.000-05:002006-03-16T10:01:00.000-05:00There is some satire involved here. I am certain that <I>many</I> of those committed to a "word-for-word" translation readily acknowledge the wordiness of English that we have been talking about. Admitting the differences, they would probably want the English and the original to match as closely as possible in form.<BR/><BR/>The logical argument here, however overstated and unnuanced, was simply to point out how disparate "as closely as possible" (as represented by the NASB) still is.<BR/><BR/>On the other side, I think <I>others</I> committed to formal equivalency would be genuinely surprised to see how different Greek and Hebrew are from English. The numbers demonstrate that difference strikingly, if simplistically.Pittsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701313028266975294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13493010.post-1142474870300640662006-03-15T21:07:00.000-05:002006-03-15T21:07:00.000-05:00Do you really believe that this is a logical argument or are you engaging in a little satire?Davehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01143794098489633497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13493010.post-1142459082781274732006-03-15T16:44:00.000-05:002006-03-15T16:44:00.000-05:00Oh! You're right! All this time I've been thinking about word-for-word. We need to look at letter-for-letter.<BR/>Unfortunately...BW6 did not bother to include that stat for any of my versions. Apparently, they're out of the loop.Pittsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701313028266975294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13493010.post-1142455427763798612006-03-15T15:43:00.000-05:002006-03-15T15:43:00.000-05:00Pitts, what you need to do is add up how many letters occur in the GNT compared with letters in the NASB/NIV. Whereas the English includes a helping verb (say, 3 letters) to show tense, the Greek simply adds seven letters (3 for tense and, let's say, 4 for person)!jared comptonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03062842125347453282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13493010.post-1142438509176805672006-03-15T11:01:00.000-05:002006-03-15T11:01:00.000-05:00Barker,<BR/>I think most of the translations recognize a temporal participle when they see one and translate accordingly (at least some of the time). That would be one instance in which the Greek participle does not find a formally equivalent English particple.<BR/><BR/>The grammatically categories we use (e.g. participle) seem to be only roughly equivalent from language to language. That's why good English students still have to study Wallace when they get to second year Greek. If an English participle and a Greek participle had the same range of uses, everyone who paid attention English class would be all set. Because the languages are formally different, however, we have to learn what the Greek participle does that her English counterpart can't do (and vice versa). At least in those cases, it is imperative that we <I>not</I> use an English participle because the English participle can't do that. In those cases, it would be wrong outright to have a formal equivalent.Pittsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701313028266975294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13493010.post-1142435790786576302006-03-15T10:16:00.000-05:002006-03-15T10:16:00.000-05:00Good point, Pastor Frank. Making up words is not something most translators are in the business of doing.<BR/><BR/>The biggest reason for the difference is that English is a wordy language. Not only do we add helping verbs to render our verbs into different tenses and moods as you indicated, we also have both a definite and indefinite article for nouns. Neither Hebrew nor Greek use the definite article exactly the way English does, and neither language has an indefinite article. Aslo in translating both languages, we also "add" the word "of" to many of the nouns in the genitive case. After awhile these differences add up.<BR/><BR/>So here's my point: the languages are formally different. Why should we demand that translations be formally equivalent?Pittsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701313028266975294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13493010.post-1142433119785657922006-03-15T09:31:00.000-05:002006-03-15T09:31:00.000-05:00Pitt,<BR/><BR/>I am sure you probably understand this, but there may be some that do not.<BR/><BR/>One of the reasons why there are so many more words in a literal English translation than there are in the corresponding Greek or Hebrew is due to the nature of the languages. In English, for instance, we generally have to supply the subject for verbs. Many other languages (including Greek) have verbs whose declension tell you information that our verbs do not.<BR/><BR/>Most of us are more familiar with this from Spanish, for instance:<BR/><BR/> vamos = we go<BR/><BR/>Although the verb is a form of "go", the "we" is not really an extra supplied word because it is actually part of the verb (due to the ending). Thus the one word is <B>literally</B> translated with two words.<BR/><BR/>Likewise in the Greek the same thing exists:<BR/><BR/>In Hebrews 12:1 the Greek word "trechōmen" is tranlated as "let us run" in the King James Version so as to give the sense of the 1st person plural (us) and the subjunctive mood (let us). Thus, one word is <B>literally</B> translated as three English words. (Of course Robertson indicates that if you wanted to give the full sense of the verb, you could even make it "let us keep on running" (which we turn it into five words). <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I just wanted to bring this us for anyone reading who sees your post and comes to the wrong conclusion that the literal translation are making up or adding a bunch of words. As I said, I am sure you probably already understand this.<BR/><BR/>In Christ,<BR/><BR/>Pastor Frank Sansone<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>trechōmenFrank Sansonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17567442460683477776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13493010.post-1142261184605520552006-03-13T09:46:00.000-05:002006-03-13T09:46:00.000-05:00Question: What do you think about trying to translate from mother to receptor language in the case of the original? e.g. greek participle must be rendered as an english participle.Tim Barkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05485172792801695648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13493010.post-1142261115257027322006-03-13T09:45:00.000-05:002006-03-13T09:45:00.000-05:00I appreciate the declaration ofthe impossibility of word-word translation. As we are dealing with human languages that God has chosen to use, why would we expect something that cannot occur in any other human language translation to happen with the Bible? I mean there is not 1:1 correspondence consistently for any human languages. I agree Pitts well said. Spend our time in the mother language and know it well, yet give an excellent rendering in the receptor language for this is afterall the purpose of a "translation."<BR/><BR/>Sarcastic aside: I guess the reason NIV takes less words to express the original is because of all the doctrines they leave out!!! :)Tim Barkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05485172792801695648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13493010.post-1142257187024518612006-03-13T08:39:00.000-05:002006-03-13T08:39:00.000-05:00very interestingjared comptonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03062842125347453282noreply@blogger.com