Comments on: Stylistic equivalent translation http://heissufficient.com/2008/08/21/stylistic-equivalent-translation/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=stylistic-equivalent-translation A personal walk in a wilderness of words Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:32:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ElShaddai Edwards http://heissufficient.com/2008/08/21/stylistic-equivalent-translation/#comment-3097 ElShaddai Edwards Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:56:34 +0000 http://heissufficient.net/?p=854#comment-3097 Honestly, John - I thought your translation was perfectly readable (and understandable) as modern English for someone who is willing to think in word images as part of a "fuller intellectual engagement", as you <a href="http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2008/08/the-pros-and-cons-of-esv-psalm-11-2.html#comment-127341292" rel="nofollow">recently wrote</a>, rather than woodenly read the literal words on the page. I really like your "walked:stood:sat" verb progression; it forces the reader to contrast the change in physical activity with the "rhetorical crescendo", whereas the ESV and NLT flatten the verbs and lose the effect. Even worse the HCSB: <blockquote> 1:1 How happy is the man<br />who does not follow the advice of the wicked,<br />or take the path of sinners,<br />or join a group of mockers!<br />1:2 Instead, his delight is in the Lord's instruction,<br />and he meditates on it day and night.<br /></blockquote> Finally, for the sheer sake of diversity, I'll add another modern translation to the mix, that of <a href="/2008/05/22/seerveld-psalm-51/" rel="nofollow">Calvin Seerveld</a>: <blockquote>1:1 That man or woman is a happy one<br />who does not practice the clever thought habits of godless people,<br />who does not go stand around the way sinners do,<br />or sit down with mocking, scoffing company.<br />1:2 That man or woman is a happy one<br />whose pastime rather is the torah of the Lord,<br />who ruminates on the torah of the Lord day and night.</blockquote> Honestly, John – I thought your translation was perfectly readable (and understandable) as modern English for someone who is willing to think in word images as part of a “fuller intellectual engagement”, as you recently wrote, rather than woodenly read the literal words on the page.

I really like your “walked:stood:sat” verb progression; it forces the reader to contrast the change in physical activity with the “rhetorical crescendo”, whereas the ESV and NLT flatten the verbs and lose the effect. Even worse the HCSB:

1:1 How happy is the man
who does not follow the advice of the wicked,
or take the path of sinners,
or join a group of mockers!
1:2 Instead, his delight is in the Lord’s instruction,
and he meditates on it day and night.

Finally, for the sheer sake of diversity, I’ll add another modern translation to the mix, that of Calvin Seerveld:

1:1 That man or woman is a happy one
who does not practice the clever thought habits of godless people,
who does not go stand around the way sinners do,
or sit down with mocking, scoffing company.
1:2 That man or woman is a happy one
whose pastime rather is the torah of the Lord,
who ruminates on the torah of the Lord day and night.

]]> By: John Hobbins http://heissufficient.com/2008/08/21/stylistic-equivalent-translation/#comment-3082 John Hobbins Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:13:05 +0000 http://heissufficient.net/?p=854#comment-3082 I didn't intend to make a distinction between LE and SE translation technique. The fact is, in my own translation, I try to avoid weird word order and odd syntax (a typical DE concern) combined with an attention to preserving semantic detail and metaphor (typical FE strengths). In any case, I'm more interested in substance rather than labels. What about my translation? What does someone take away from it if (1) they don't know Hebrew, (2) they don't know Biblish, or (3) they don't know the Bible pretty well already? I didn’t intend to make a distinction between LE and SE translation technique. The fact is, in my own translation, I try to avoid weird word order and odd syntax (a typical DE concern) combined with an attention to preserving semantic detail and metaphor (typical FE strengths). In any case, I’m more interested in substance rather than labels. What about my translation? What does someone take away from it if (1) they don’t know Hebrew, (2) they don’t know Biblish, or (3) they don’t know the Bible pretty well already?

]]>