![]() ![]() How one decides says a lot about the assumptions a translator brings to the text. or the Greek word pneuma in the Bible? Should they be translated as “wind,” “breath,” “spirit,” or “Spirit”? All are valid, but any one of these would give a different nuance to the translation. For example, how does one determine how to translate the Hebrew word rua h. These translation difficulties are heightened when the text being translated represents the word of God, because now we must also consider theological issues. “Translation thus requires a process of deducing and reducing meaning from relative chaos.” That is to say, the translator first analyses the message of the SOURCE language into its simplest and structurally clearest forms, transfers it at this level, and then restructures it to the level in the RECEPTOR language that is most appropriate for the audience which he intends to reach.” Further, a translator must grapple with what David Tuggy refers to as the “container metaphor.” This is “the idea that words and other linguistic structures are containers for meaning,” which can carry multiple definitional possibilities with differing and complex nuances attached to them. Eugene Nida argues, “The competent translator actually goes through a seemingly roundabout process of analysis, transfer, and restructuring. The reality is that translation is a very complex process and is, to an extent, a mixture of both techniques. This approach, in many ways, makes for a smoother and more elegant translation, but it also carries the danger of missing nuances from the original text. It is more concerned with what the original text meant than with the specifics of what it said. A functional-equivalence approach, on the other hand, is more concerned with how the translation flows in the receptor language than with how it was written in the original language. But one only needs to use a basic computer translation program to realize that this approach can sometimes lead to a stilted translation. The construction of Hebrew and Greek words and sentences are maintained, as much as possible, in the translation. If a word has numerous meanings, as most do, how does the translator decide which one to use? Should the translation reflect a word-for-word translation (i.e., formal equivalence), or should it reflect the idiomatic language of the receptor language (i.e., functional/ dynamic equivalence)? The major benefit of a formal-equivalence approach is that the translation maintains a feel for the language and format of the original text. The work of translation from one language to another is always fraught with difficulties-philological, contextual, and even procedural difficulties. She specializes in New Testament and Christian origins and has published on a wide variety of LDS scriptural topics. She received a BA and MA in ancient Near Eastern studies from Brigham Young University, and a PhD in religion from Claremont Graduate University. Gaye Strathearn is an associate professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |