tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post115378505595527525..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: translation checkingWayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1153870214074755212006-07-25T16:30:00.000-07:002006-07-25T16:30:00.000-07:00My own opinion on Matthew's comment is that:1) It ...My own opinion on Matthew's comment is that:<BR/><BR/>1) It would be possible to improve the naturalness of current English formal equivalence translations significantly, especially in terms of giving them a more contemporary and less formally literary feel, without compromising their general formal equivalence character;<BR/><BR/>2) There are limits to this process in that there is a fundamental contradiction between formal equivalence which means using the grammatical structures of the source text, and naturalness which implies among other things using grammatical structures which are natural in the target language. For there are bound to be places where the source text uses grammatical structures which are completely unnatural in the target language. At such places some generally formal equivalent translations do make some structural adaptations for the sake of naturalness, but where they do so they compromise their formal equivalence character. I don't consider this a bad thing, but some might!Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1153858302392942312006-07-25T13:11:00.000-07:002006-07-25T13:11:00.000-07:00Matthew asked:My question is, when a translation i...Matthew asked:<BR/><BR/><I>My question is, when a translation is rendered as natural sounding as possible, does this necessitate a more "dynamic/functional/closest equivalent" approach to translating in the first place? Or can a formal/literal translation be rendered as natural as a closest equivalent translation?</I><BR/><BR/>Very perceptive questions, Matthew. I would like to think that, as I tried to state in my post, natural language can be used with a variety of translation approaches. I suspect, however, that there are limits, that some translation approaches would not lend themselves well to being in natural language. Again, though, I do think there is a range of literary quality within which natural language can be used. And I think there are degrees of naturalness. Some wordings are more natural than others. I would have little problem if someone preferred a more "dignified" "sacred" "formal" sounding Bible, as long as it was written in natural dignified language. And there are registers of language which are more formal but still use natural phrasings at the social level of language.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1153851233779317242006-07-25T11:13:00.000-07:002006-07-25T11:13:00.000-07:00Maeghan asked:How do we know the versions we are u...Maeghan asked:<BR/><BR/><I>How do we know the versions we are using have actually gone through such a checking process?</I><BR/><BR/>The first version to do such a check will surely say so in its introduction. It will be such a breakthrough that its publishers will want to promote it.<BR/><BR/><I>Out of curiousity, how long would this checking process normally take?</I><BR/><BR/>It would depend on how large the checking team is. A single checker (there should be more) *might* be able to complete a naturalness check in a year.<BR/><BR/><I>As I would imagine it to be, having an entire new team looking into the translation would spark off another round of discussion/debates/what-have-you as there will bound to be disagreements.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, that is a possibility, but each team in a translation process can be trained to understand the boundaries for their own work. Checkers should not be making changes to the text itself. Instead, they should just flag wordings which appear inaccurate or unnatural to them. They should then send the translation back to the actual translators to make revision. This feedback cycling should continue until the translation passes translation checks. I probably did not make it clear enough in my post that checkers should only check and not translate. Each separate team has its specialized responsibilities in a translation project.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1153843262135516772006-07-25T09:01:00.000-07:002006-07-25T09:01:00.000-07:00English versions are often deficient precisely bec...<EM>English versions are often deficient precisely because they have not undergone such checking</EM><BR/><BR/>How do we know the versions we are using have actually gone through such a checking process?<BR/><BR/>Out of curiousity, how long would this checking process normally take? As I would imagine it to be, having an entire new team looking into the translation would spark off another round of discussion/debates/what-have-you as there will bound to be disagreements.<BR/><BR/>God bless,<BR/>Maeghanpearliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17142595255771626179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1153794942058808232006-07-24T19:35:00.000-07:002006-07-24T19:35:00.000-07:00Anon. (and ever and anon.?!),I have revised the po...Anon. (and ever and anon.?!),<BR/><BR/>I have revised the post slightly to address your question.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1153791876633100482006-07-24T18:44:00.000-07:002006-07-24T18:44:00.000-07:00Why do you qualify this as a criterion for Bible t...<I>Why do you qualify this as a criterion for Bible translation? </I><BR/><BR/>Thanks for asking this. I did not intend to limit this to Bible translation. I just happen to be in the Bible translation profession myself where employees in our organization are required to do such translation checking. I evaluate English versions as a sideline and I see that English versions are often deficient precisely because they have not undergone such checking which any kind of translation, whether of the Bible or any other text, needs.<BR/><BR/>The need for such checking exists for all kinds of translation, as you probably have noticed reading some websites created by non-native speakers of the language in which the website is written, or an appliance manual with the same issue.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1153787293501508092006-07-24T17:28:00.000-07:002006-07-24T17:28:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471792031082544671noreply@blogger.com