Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!portc02.blue.aol.com!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!not-for-mail
From: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ellis-nfs.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <E16EB5.40p@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: The University of Chicago
References: <54q9ou$85o_002@dialin.csus.edu> <32923E97.6B85@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> <E15KD6.9Hv@midway.uchicago.edu> <329310BC.F34@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 15:42:40 GMT
Lines: 71
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.archaeology:56264 sci.lang:64593

In article <329310BC.F34@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>,
Saida  <saida@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>Daniel von Brighoff wrote:
>> 
>> Saida:
>> >So what?  You are completely misunderstanding the jist of what I said,
>> >which is that the English is NOT a literal translation.  What is the
>> >matter with you people?
>> 
>>         I don't know, but I have much the same "misunderstanding" as
>> Holoholona.  In your original post (quoted above), you seem to be saying
>> that the *styles* do not match:  That the Hebrew Bible is written in
>> simple prose, while the KJV is written in fancy and stilted prose.  (Have
>> I followed so far?)  Later, you say that the KJV is not a "literal
>> translation" of the Hebrew Bible, and call this the "jist" of your
>> argument.
>> 
>>         Speaking as a freelance translator, I hope you understand that
>> these two statements are not equivalent.  There is a great deal of
>> difference between a "literal" translation and a "faithful" one.  The
>> former tend to sound quite stilted because they make use of words and
>> expressions that are infrequent in the target language, if they appear
>> in it at all.
>> 
>>         No one has claimed that the KJV is a literal translation of the
>> Hebrew.  However, Mr. Dunsmuir and Holoholona have both said that is a
>> *faithful* one within the context of the time it was written.

>> Saida:
>> >May be now you're beginning to understand what I meant--a literal
>> >translation is virtually impossible then and now.  The languages are too > >different.
>
>Thou shallt not kill        Lo tirtza'ach    (Not will you kill)
>Thou shallt not commit adultery    Lo tinaf   (Not will you commit 
>adultery)
>Thou shallt not steal       Lo tignov  (Not will you steal)
>
>Actually, the "lo" simply means "no" and the verbs are in the form of 
>the second person singular, future tense.  That is the nature of the 
>Semitic languages--economy of words but a complicated grammar to learn 
>and remember.

	You completely ignored my reply and went on to post a couple of
examples which don't really do much but illustrate the distinction I
accused you of confounding in your previous replies.  I'm not sure what to
make of that.

	In any case, let me try to restate my point using these examples.
You have given us a transliteration of the Hebrew accompanied by a literal
translation to the right and a faithful (albeit archaic) one to the left.
Which sounds more stilted?  The literal translation, of course, as it uses
structures which have never been a part of natural English syntax.

	True, the archaic faithful translation sounds more stilted than a
modernised faithful translation (e.g. "You will not kill" or "Do not
kill") would.  But this is not because the prose is not "simple" or 
because the words are "fancy".  Indeed, how could a Jacobean writer state
"Thou shalt not kill" any more plainly?  
	
	All I believe we (if I may speak for Mr. Dunsmuir and Holoholona
for a moment) are saying here is that the KJV was a very faithful,
accessible translation *for its time*, which was centuries ago.  Given the
entirely different histories of English and Hebrew [the world's only
truely successful revived language--and I hope all you Kernewek
enthusiasts will forgive me for saying that], it's not suprising that a
Hebrew version composed over three milennia ago sounds more fresh to
your modern ears than a comparatively recent English translation 
-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
