tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post114191537700085737..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: Interpretation versus Translation -- Competition or Teamwork?Wayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1142293319587361632006-03-13T15:41:00.000-08:002006-03-13T15:41:00.000-08:00Michael wrote: "I don't think it's true that the w...Michael wrote: "<I>I don't think it's true that the words of Christ in the NT are in conversational style. ... So when I see Christ's words translated into an informal conversational idiom--as they are in the recent "common language" versions and paraphrases--I think the translation really gives a false impression.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Well, Michael, perhaps this is the centre of the problem. Are Jesus' words as reported in the Bible conversational, in the same sense as the literary examples we discussed concerning singular "they"? Or are they prepared discourses in highly polished formal style? Or somewhere in between? That certainly affects how they should be translated.<BR/><BR/>How do we decide this question? I assume that you are not taking a theological perspective that anything which Jesus said must have been in the most perfect and exalted language, so wonderful that it deserves to be printed in red whoever might have spoken it. If you look at the evidence, you will find that Jesus' words, as they appear in the New Testament (and so mostly not in fact his Hebrew or Aramaic <I>ipsissima verba</I>), are in the ordinary Koiné Greek of their period. But what particular register of Koiné Greek? I must say I don't know. It certainly wasn't the formal Greek of Luke 1:1-4, nor was it the involved argumentation of Paul's letters. To my non-expert eyes it seems to be down-to-earth conversational language, not generally polished at all, although scattered with sometimes cryptic sayings which do show some signs of careful wording. Well, this subject deserves a separate posting rather than a comment at the bottom of a long and old thread, so I will work on this.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1142260890095659182006-03-13T06:41:00.000-08:002006-03-13T06:41:00.000-08:00Michael, on your last point, I agree with you that...Michael, on your last point, I agree with you that English has become simpler and more ambiguous in a number of ways. But this is a very long standing characteristics of languages. But as precision is sometimes needed they invent new ways to indicate that precision when necessary, and what were previously particles and adpositions become affixes, and the whole process goes full circle after a few millennia. Or something like that. But we have to translate into English as we find it, not into some kind of romantically reconstructed obsolete, but allegedly more pure or precise, form which no one speaks and many don't understand.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile here are some of the examples which you have not commented on, in which the antecedent for singular "they" is incontrovertibly singular. I will try to find more context for you.<BR/><BR/><I>If a person is born of a gloomy temper ... they cannot help it.</I> - Lord Chesterfield, 1759. I can't find any larger context online.<BR/><BR/><I>There's not a man I meet but doth salute me,<BR/>As if I were their well-acquainted friend.</I> - Shakespeare. This is from <A HREF="http://www.shakespeare-literature.com/The_Comedy_of_Errors/9.html" REL="nofollow">The Comedy of Errors, Act 4, the start of Scene 3</A>. The speaker, Antipholus of Syracuse, speaks:<BR/><I> There's not a man I meet but doth salute me<BR/> As if I were their well-acquainted friend;<BR/> And every one doth call me by my name.<BR/> Some tender money to me; some invite me;<BR/> Some other give me thanks for kindnesses;<BR/> Some offer me commodities to buy:<BR/> Even now a tailor call'd me in his shop<BR/> And show'd me silks that he had bought for me,<BR/> And therewithal took measure of my body.<BR/> Sure, these are but imaginary wiles<BR/> And Lapland sorcerers inhabit here.</I><BR/>This doesn't look to me like deliberate copying of substandard speech or dialect. But the shift to "some" does suggest that even "a man" is not completely singular.<BR/><BR/><I>And how easy the way a man or woman would come in here, glance around, find smiles and pleasant looks waiting for them, then wave and sit down by themselves.</I> - Doris Lessing. I can't find any more context for this.<BR/><BR/><I>Little did I think ... to make a ... complaint against a person very dear to you, but don't let them be so proud ... not to care how they affront everybody else.</I> - Samuel Richardson. Again, I can't find more context.<BR/><BR/><I>But how can you talk with a person if they always say the same thing.</I> - Lewis Carroll. This is from <A HREF="http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap12.htm" REL="nofollow">"Through the Looking Glass, Chapter XII <I>WHICH DREAMED IT?</I></A>. Here are the first few paragraphs including this quotation:<BR/><BR/><I>`YOUR Red Majesty shouldn't purr so loud,' Alice said, rubbing her eyes, and addressing the kitten, respectfully, yet with some severity. `You woke me out of oh! such a nice dream! And you've been along with me, Kitty--all through the Looking-glass world. Did you know it, dear?'<BR/><BR/>It is a very inconvenient habit of kittens (Alice had once made the remark) that, whatever you say to them, they </I>always<I> purr. `If they would only purr for "yes", and mew for "no", or any rule of that sort,' she had said, `so that one could keep up a conversation! <B>But how </B></I><B>can</B><I><B> you talk with a person if they </B></I><B>always</B><I><B> say the same thing?</B>'<BR/><BR/>On this occasion the kitten only purred: and it was impossible to guess whether it meant `yes' or `no'.<BR/><BR/>So Alice hunted among the chessmen on the table till she had found the Red Queen: then she went down on her knees on the hearth-rug, and put the kitten and the Queen to look at each other. `Now, Kitty!' she cried, clapping her hands triumphantly. `Confess that was what you turned into!'</I><BR/><BR/>Is Alice talking about one kitten or many? It is hard to say. And I suppose you could argue that this is an attempt to render childlike talk, although I am sure that the great lexciographer Sir Henry Liddell (he of the Liddell and Scott dictionary) would never have let his daughter utter a word that was not correct English, or Greek or Latin. But then of course if Grudem and co won't read the father's works, why should they take any notice of his daughter's words.<BR/><BR/><I>Some people say that if you are very fond of a person you always think them handsome.</I> - "Henry Jones". This is in fact from <A HREF="http://www.online-literature.com/henry_james/confidence/17/" REL="nofollow">Confidence by the great <I>American</I> author Henry James, chapter XVII</A>. Here is some context, including another singular "they" a few sentences later, a lady, Blanche, is speaking:<BR/><BR/><I>Gordon is a perfect husband; I believe if I were to ask him for a present of his nose, he would cut it off and give it to me. I think I will ask him for a small piece of it some day; it will rather improve him to have an inch or two less. I don't say he 's handsome; but he 's just as good as he can be. Some people say that if you are very fond of a person you always think them handsome; but I don't agree with that at all. I am very fond of Gordon, and yet I am not blinded by affection, as regards his personal appearance. He 's too light for my taste, and too red. And because you think people handsome, it does n't follow that you are fond of them. I used to have a friend who was awfully handsome--the handsomest man I ever saw-- and I was perfectly conscious of his defects. But I 'm not conscious of Gordon's, and I don't believe he has got any.</I><BR/><BR/>Of course "a person" here is entirely generic and in some way refers to all people, but it is still singular. The point is not that the singular "you" here is fond of many people together, but is individually fond of probably just one, at least one at a time. Much like Revelation 3:20 in fact.<BR/><BR/><I>I know when I like a person directly I see them.</I> - Virginia Woolf. This is from <A HREF="http://www.online-literature.com/virginia_woolf/voyage_out/14/" REL="nofollow">The Voyage Out, chapter 14</A>. It is part of a conversation, of which here is a bit more:<BR/><BR/><I>"Well," she said, "d'you want to know any more about me?"<BR/><BR/>"But you?" he asked, "Who looked after you?"<BR/><BR/>"I've looked after myself mostly," she laughed. "I've had splendid friends. I do like people! That's the trouble. What would you do if you liked two people, both of them tremendously, and you couldn't tell which most?"<BR/><BR/>"I should go on liking them--I should wait and see. Why not?"<BR/><BR/>"But one has to make up one's mind," said Evelyn. "Or are you one of the people who doesn't believe in marriages and all that? Look here--this isn't fair, I do all the telling, and you tell nothing. Perhaps you're the same as your friend"--she looked at him suspiciously; "perhaps you don't like me?"<BR/><BR/>"I don't know you," said Hewet.<BR/><BR/>"I know when I like a person directly I see them! I knew I liked you the very first night at dinner. Oh dear," she continued impatiently, "what a lot of bother would be saved if only people would say the things they think straight out! I'm made like that. I can't help it."<BR/><BR/>"But don't you find it leads to difficulties?" Hewet asked.<BR/><BR/>"That's men's fault," she answered. "They always drag it in-love, I mean."<BR/><BR/>"And so you've gone on having one proposal after another," said Hewet.<BR/><BR/>"I don't suppose I've had more proposals than most women," said Evelyn, but she spoke without conviction.<BR/><BR/>"Five, six, ten?" Hewet ventured.<BR/><BR/>Evelyn seemed to intimate that perhaps ten was the right figure, but that it really was not a high one.</I><BR/><BR/>Here I would accept that Evelyn is speaking rather colloquially; this is not non-standard English so much as the informal conversation of those whose English is generally impeccable, by upper class British standards.<BR/><BR/>Well, I might agree with Random House that singular "they" is not acceptable in the most formal writing. But does that rule this construction out from Bible texts? Jesus was not speaking "the most formal writing" when he preached to the crowds or the disciples, or even when he appeared in Revelation. It is wrong to translate the Bible into a register of English quite alien to that of the original. Let's reflect Jesus' conversational style in our translations, complete with a few constructions "acceptable in all but the most formal writing."Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1142199065856924482006-03-12T13:31:00.000-08:002006-03-12T13:31:00.000-08:00Michael wrote: "In some of the examples you offere...Michael wrote: "<I>In some of the examples you offered, my examination showed that there was not even a good reason to think that the author was using the pronoun in a singular sense. In others, the context showed that a singular sense was not intended. And one of your examples was Scottish, and archaic Scottish at that.</I>" Yes, some of the examples could perhaps be discounted in this way. But others could not, where "they" can only refer back to an antecedent which is specified as singular. The claim which some of us made was that singular "they" exists. You wrote "<I>I have discussed several of the examples from your list already</I>", and you indeed showed that some of these examples are debatable. But there are other examples on the list which you have refused to discuss; these, or many of them, are not debatable, or at least no one has attempted to debate them. Your hypothesis of non-existence is disproved by just one example, unless you can find some way to explain away that example. I think there remain at least three or four of the original examples for you to explain away. If you cannot do so, or decline to do so, you must withdraw your hypothesis.<BR/><BR/>Against your evidence from the American Heritage panel, which was in fact a reversal of a previous decision I understand, I can quote the Random House dictionary as an example of one which allows singular "they". So the expert opinion is divided. In any case, the debate is not about whether singular "they" exists, only about whether it should be classified as a colloquialism not for use in the highest quality writing.<BR/><BR/>Also. Michael, you wrote with reference to singular "they" that "<I>the original text's focus on individuals is lost when we shift to plurals in English</I>". Do you have the same problem with the shift from KJV's "thou" to modern translations' singular "you"? I don't suppose you would agree, but to me singular "you" and singular "they" are very similar phenomena, except that singular "you" is unrelated to gender.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1142198238603452702006-03-12T13:17:00.000-08:002006-03-12T13:17:00.000-08:00Michael ended:But that is another matter, which I'...Michael ended:<BR/><BR/><I>But that is another matter, which I'm afraid we won't be able to discuss, because your "linguistics" approach to the issues is so fundamentally different from my "literary" approach.</I><BR/><BR/>Michael, we would welcome a literary approach here on BBB to Bible translation issues, as well as linguistic, anthropological, and other approaches. Feel free to compose one or more posts how your literary approach can lead toward better Bibles and we can post them from you as a guest contributor.<BR/><BR/>I wear several hats in life. I'm not just a linguist. I have taught English at the university level and have been an English editor for many years. So I do welcome literary studies, literary critique, and input from those who appreciate literary beauty.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1142181284327061712006-03-12T08:34:00.000-08:002006-03-12T08:34:00.000-08:00All of the examples are misleading in some way or ...<I>All of the examples are misleading in some way or other, if they are offered as proof that the "singular they" in the TNIV's rendering of Matt. 18:15, "point out the fault, just between the two of you alone.</I><BR/><BR/>Michael, my recall (not infallible by any means) is that you presented your concern about Matt. 18:15 in the TNIV rather recently (perhaps within the past two weeks) in our on again off again exchanges over the past several months about singular "they." Previous to that we had been discussing other contexts in which singular "they" is used. In any case, thank you for taking the time to explain your position. I think I understand it better now than I did before.<BR/><BR/>FWIW, Dr. Grudem often points out his concern about the use of singular "they" (he never calls it that) in Rev. 3:20, claiming that use of the syntactic plural "they" drains that verse of a focus on the individual. In your comment (above) on contexts where singular "they" has an indefinite pronoun as antecedent, you said:<BR/><BR/><I>Most of the "singular they" examples on your list had semantically universal antecedent like "everyone," and this is acceptable (though perhaps not best) in prose.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree with you that there is greater usage of singular "they" where the anaphora is to an indefinite referent. Would you be more accepting of the singular "they" in Rev. 3:20 than its usage in Matt. 18:15?<BR/><BR/>Since you say that contexts where singular "they" has a "<I>semantically universal antecedent like 'everyone,'</I>" are more "acceptable,", do you share Dr. Grudem's opinion that TNIV Rev. 3:20 drains the passage of a focus on the individual?Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1142126435274616312006-03-11T17:20:00.000-08:002006-03-11T17:20:00.000-08:00Michael, please list one or more sentences with si...Michael, please list one or more sentences with singular "they" which would have probative force for you.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1142116028332393142006-03-11T14:27:00.000-08:002006-03-11T14:27:00.000-08:00"Captious"? What does that mean. Michael? That I s..."Captious"? What does that mean. Michael? That I succeeded in catching you out? I accept that I was trying to find the holes in your argument, but isn't that what academic debate is about? Accept it, Michael, you were just unable to answer my convincing proofs that singular "they" has been used for centuries in high quality literature. As for "evasive", I deny this. I think I answered every one of your points. The only evasion here is from the one who evaded answering my last points, because he was apparently unable to do so.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile I was rather startled by an example of singular "they" I heard, spoken by a lady of about 80, the wife of a retired missionary and pastor, who is usually speaks very well and carefully. I told her something about my Korean colleague in my Bible translation project, but did not specify my colleague's gender. In reply she asked my something about my colleague and then proceeded to use the singular "they" to refer to him (for he is in fact male). She didn't seem at all embarrassed by this usage, although I would have expected either generic "he" or a slightly embarrassed "he or she" from her. I think I was more embarrassed, for I made sure that I specified his gender in answering her question. There was no question here of a covert plural or of gross colloquialism; rather it proves that at least here in the UK truly singular "they" is considered fully acceptable English.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1142098704514913002006-03-11T09:38:00.000-08:002006-03-11T09:38:00.000-08:00yo, son of abraham,"evasive and captious"!!! You'v...yo, son of abraham,<BR/><BR/>"evasive and captious"!!! You've got a great vocabulary and are a challenging poster. Do you have your own blog? Keep writing. I appreciate your input on this blog.David Kerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13140007604009678479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1142033384281762162006-03-10T15:29:00.000-08:002006-03-10T15:29:00.000-08:00On a more serious note than my last comment here, ...On a more serious note than my last comment here, I want to respond to Michael "son of Abraham" Marlowe's point. I have just done so in a new posting on this blog, <A HREF="http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/03/interpretation-versus-translation_10.html" REL="nofollow">Interpretation versus Translation: Debatable Exegesis</A>.<BR/><BR/>By the way, Michael, did you see my final comment on the posting <A HREF="http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/02/is-singular-they-colloquialism.html" REL="nofollow">Is singular "they" a colloquialism?</A> ? There I wrote of you that "<I>I must conclude that he has conceded his point by default.</I>" But it is not too late for you to come back to me if you wish.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1142031241032353882006-03-10T14:54:00.000-08:002006-03-10T14:54:00.000-08:00Nathan's comment "translations such as the NASB do...Nathan's comment "<I>translations such as the NASB do actually think about word order and nouns, verbs etc - trying their best to keep the same number of them in the English as are in their source language</I>" reminds me of something I heard a few years ago from a consultant who had visited local Bible translators in southern Russia. They were surprised that the consultant wanted to go through the text with them in detail, for they expected him only to count the words! It turned out that these translators, recruited from the local Academy of Sciences, had previously worked on translations of the works of Marx, Lenin etc. These translations were "checked" by officials sent from Moscow, but in fact all these checkers did was to check that the number of words in the translation matched that in the original - although the target languages had totally different structures from the Russian text they were working from! And the translators expected the same from the Bible translation consultant.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1142008871162142422006-03-10T08:41:00.000-08:002006-03-10T08:41:00.000-08:00son of abraham said, "That's why most translators ...son of abraham said, <I>"That's why most translators have preferred to keep the amount of interpretation in the version to a minimum."</I><BR/><BR/>If I understand Mike's comments correctly, that sentence is not correct, nor is it truly possible? Am I right?<BR/><BR/>Dick.minternationalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747517962783816504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1141981266615904472006-03-10T01:01:00.000-08:002006-03-10T01:01:00.000-08:00excellent post and one that we have been discussin...excellent post and one that we have been discussing in our bible studies lately. I think I will print this out and distribute it. Thanks.Live, Love, Laughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03888736764866973600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1141952091372140142006-03-09T16:54:00.000-08:002006-03-09T16:54:00.000-08:00Good post - I still use "interpreted" when I feel ...Good post - I still use "interpreted" when I feel that someone put their own meaning into a translation - but that just comes from my limited vocabulary.<BR/><BR/>If someone ever says to me, "We didn't interpret anything in this translation" it now raises a flag in my mind, "Oh really..."<BR/><BR/>One thing I wanted to comment on, actually not something you said, but someone you quoted, <I>"To quote Eugene Nida:<BR/><BR/> Professional translators are usually so concerned with the meaning of a text that they seldom give much thought to the grammatical structures of source or receptor languages, because their task is to understand texts, not to analyze them. If, as already mentioned, translators thoroughly understand a source text, they do not need to worry about whether to use nouns, verbs, and adjectives in a particular order so as to represent the meaning. These decisions are made almost automatically."</I><BR/><BR/>If I remember hearing correctly, translations such as the NASB do actually think about word order and nouns, verbs etc - trying their best to keep the same number of them in the English as are in their source language - trying for a word-for-word translation whenever possible (hence the sometimes bumpy reading in English). Have you heard that before?<BR/><BR/>Have a good day,<BR/>NathanNathan Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11590875357974623024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1141922973559870222006-03-09T08:49:00.000-08:002006-03-09T08:49:00.000-08:00And the reply to the introduction of Adam would ha...And the reply to the introduction of Adam would have been:<BR/><BR/>"Eve"Ruud Vermeijhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06947453585488967314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1141918363605784352006-03-09T07:32:00.000-08:002006-03-09T07:32:00.000-08:00In addition to the marvelous pun, you have "loosed...In addition to the marvelous pun, you have "loosed" a funny one yourself in your closing paragraph. I think you meant to say "loses".<BR/><BR/>Translation is hard. Who should do it? I can translate quite well from Portuguese to English but less so the other way around. What I produce may always be perfectly natural English even while I am unwittingly missing meaning that is not accessible to me as a non-native Portuguese speaker.<BR/><BR/>Finally, another palindrome:<BR/>"Madam in Eden I'm Adam."<BR/><BR/>Yours truly,<BR/><BR/>Doctor Otto RotcodDavid Kerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13140007604009678479noreply@blogger.com