Lost in translation

Originally posted by wolfgang59
This is nonsense!

You say The point is that theoretically a translator could capture the intended meaning of the original text with greater clarity in his own language than that of the original.

How would the translator know more about the intended meaning if his only source is the original text? Any change in meaning from the original (even ...[text shortened]... n added by the translator. It then becomes partly his work. Its his spin on the original surely?

How would the translator know more about the intended meaning if his only source is the original text? Any change in meaning from the original (even if you or anyone else believes it makes it clearer) has been added by the translator. It then becomes partly his work. Its his spin on the original surely?

Well, this isn't specifically a question for the translator. How does anyone know about the intended meaning of any text? Of course there are certain obstacles. A classicist reading Cicero has to overcome cultural, historical and linguistic differences. He must also accept that a lot of the ancient world is now lost, important texts which Cicero might quote are not accessible to him. Nonetheless, this does not mean that commentaries and scholarly writing on Cicero are redundant. Analysing the text, looking at its context, at Cicero's opera omnia, at the historical and social circumstances of the text, the translator can reach some conclusions about what Cicero probably meant.

Now obviously when someone translates a given work, they can come with their own bias and impose their own interpretation through the translation. I don't deny that. What I do believe is that at least some times the translator genuinely resolves an ambiguity in the original text on good grounds. Coming back to the example of the ophthalmos haplous, we see that there are a range of meanings of this word. Even when Blackbeetle claims that there is only one single meaning, he in fact gives three: plain, unadorned and unembellished all mean different things. I dount in this case haplous means any of those three things. It is clearly being contrasted with the poneros eye ('the wicked eye'😉. My feeling is that it means something like 'honest'. The good man is honest and you can see his good character; the evil man is deceitful concealing his character in his appearance. A translation can make this more perspicuous.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Apologies for being sloppy with the language! I meant translation of the bible. But really that is the problem here. The original bible you say is in Hebrew and Ancient Greek (although I presume Jesus's parables had to be translated from Aramaic to Greek).

My question is can any text be translated into another language and retain its full meanin ...[text shortened]... n English. (And lets not even consider how the English language has changed since James I)

You said, "(although I presume Jesus's parables had to be translated from
Aramaic to Greek)." What makes you think Jesus did not speak Hebrew
or Greek? Aramaic was not a common language in Israel at that time.
It didn't become common until after Israel was renamed Palestine in 132 AD.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]How would the translator know more about the intended meaning if his only source is the original text? Any change in meaning from the original (even if you or anyone else believes it makes it clearer) has been added by the translator. It then becomes partly his work. Its his spin on the original surely?

Well, this isn't specifically a question for ...[text shortened]... concealing his character in his appearance. A translation can make this more perspicuous.[/b]

Do not doubt at all! The meaning you are attributing (honest, frank) was applied to the word solely after the 7th century AC (and mainly due to the meaning the word was gaining because of the NT verses)!

The word haplous/ aplos has at least 9 different meanings according to specific contexts, and the meaning I offered (aperittos; for the english translation I proposed the homonyms plain/ unadorned/ unembelished. In your opinion, what other words can apply to aperittos? ) is the sole one accepted by all the Greek linguists and philologists regarding this specific NT context (Matt. and Luke). For further information regarding this matter check Babiniotis' Lexicon of The Greek Language, 2nd edition, p.233, ISBN 960-86190-1-7, www.lexicon.gr, info@lexicon.gr.


What are you thinking of the "babies", an archetype used in both the West and Eastern tradition? In their innocence/ naivete/ artlesness, have they a "honest" opthalmon, or an "aperitton" (plain/ unadorned/ unembellished) ophthalmon? Methinks Honesty is grounded on Morality, therefore a new born baby can be described as "honest" solely in a metaphorical sense; however, its ophthalmos is really aperittos
😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, here is a rather interesting take on the matter,

and then asking the question, what may hAPLOUS and POHNROS in these two
verses legitimately be understood to mean in the context? If one wanted
then to cite one or two versions that seem to the questioner to
misinterpret the original text, that would not hurt, but for this list the
real qu ...[text shortened]... Carl W. Conrad
Co-Chair, B-Greek List
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)

Oh well, methinks that Conrad is accurate
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Oh well, methinks that Conrad is accurate
😵

yes Conrad is correct in his approach, but the danger is looking at the text in isolation rather than its immediate context. In this instance the Christ before and after his text at Matthew 6:22 makes references to anxiety, to striving after material things which could provide a distraction to the adherent. Thus i think Vines own definition is best, to be divided, double hearted as he states, to unnecessarily complicate matters, the very antithesis of simple, although how he came to derive this definition from haplous, i cannot say. I am sure i read somewhere that etymologically haplous has to do with the twining of chords, as in a rope, but even this is quite vague.

edit: yes it comes from plekos, to braid together into a single chord, thus each strand is devoted to the single whole.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]How would the translator know more about the intended meaning if his only source is the original text? Any change in meaning from the original (even if you or anyone else believes it makes it clearer) has been added by the translator. It then becomes partly his work. Its his spin on the original surely?

Well, this isn't specifically a question for concealing his character in his appearance. A translation can make this more perspicuous.[/b]

no i cannot say that i agree with honest, the context clearly indicates something other than merely being honest, Christ speaks of storing up treasures and emphasises singleness of purpose, 'no one can slave for two masters (Matthew 6 :24) ', thus it appears to me to have to do with being focused (simple eye) as opposed to being distracted.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes Conrad is correct in his approach, but the danger is looking at the text in isolation rather than its immediate context. In this instance the Christ before and after his text at Matthew 6:22 makes references to anxiety, to striving after material things which could provide a distraction to the adherent. Thus i think Vines own definition is best ...[text shortened]... plekos, to braid together into a single chord, thus each strand is devoted to the single whole.

Hah, yes, from I.E. pel/ plek/ S. prasna (plegm), Slav pleto, Gr. pleko, anc. Ger. flechtan, Ger. flechten, Eng. flax, Lat. pleco as seen at the synth. im-plicare, ex-plicare, sim-plex, and now:
Anc. Greek haplous, I.E. smplos, Lat. simplex, Fr. and Sp. simple etc.

However I would dismiss Vines' definition because the etymology itself is a different horse than the actual meaning that is attributed to a word in a specific context, although I would agree that among the Greek followers of Jesus the most intelligent ones back would also understand and evaluate the verse this way too. But it's only me: I hate to keep up ad infinitum with endless notes and asterisks at my copy-edit texts and translations.
This just proves that our Conraux X knows what he is talking about when he talks about translations, and as a text narrator/ proof editor I agree that the task is indeed as hard as he said
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Hah, yes, from I.E. pel/ plek/ S. prasna (plegm), Slav pleto, Gr. pleko, anc. Ger. flechtan, Ger. flechten, Eng. flax, Lat. pleco as seen at the synth. im-plicare, ex-plicare, sim-plex, and now:
Anc. Greek haplous, I.E. smplos, Lat. simplex, Fr. and Sp. simple etc.

However I would dismiss Vines' definition because the etymology itself is a different s, and as a text narrator/ proof editor I agree that the task is indeed as hard as he said
😵

Yes the etymology of it may be different dear Beetle, however it may also lend itself , as a kind of circumstantial evidence to an understanding of how the word came to be used laterally. This coupled with the present understanding, put together within the context, compounded by how others have attempted to translate it provide like a basis for at least an attempt at accurate evaluation.

Id love to speak the Greek like a native Greek-Scot, in fact i may dig out my koine book, for about the fifth time and try to learn to read. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh,

(Matthew 10:34-36) . . .Do not think I came to put peace upon the earth; I came to put, not peace, but a sword.  For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be persons of his own household. . .

the words of the Christ I believe.

yes that's fine for Jesus he is God afterall and doesn't answer to us, but you still haven't answered my question...why are you so divisive?

Originally posted by Doward
yes that's fine for Jesus he is God afterall and doesn't answer to us, but you still haven't answered my question...why are you so divisive?

I have decided not to answer any more of these type of questions, why?

(2 Timothy 2:23-25) . . .Further, turn down foolish and ignorant questionings, knowing
they produce fights.  But a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be
gentle toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil,  instructing
with mildness those not favourably disposed. . .

therefore, if you wish to discuss anything in the actual Bible, you may take it from
there, otherwise, please spare me, i have better things to do.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have decided not to answer any more of these type of questions, why?

(2 Timothy 2:23-25) . . .[b]Further, turn down foolish and ignorant questionings, knowing
they produce fights.  But a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be
gentle toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil,  instruct ...[text shortened]... ual Bible, you may take it from
there, otherwise, please spare me, i have better things to do.[/b]

so then you admit that you are divisive? Good now we're getting somewhere! Perhaps someday we can get you to admit that Jesus is Lord and worthy of all honor praise and glory.

edit: I like this translation better, sort of good advice that you may weant to take to heart:

23 Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,


I would not regard you as kind Robbie, far from it. Foolish and stupid arguements? I hardly think the divinity of Christ is stupid...


edit 2: I would advise reading from verse 14 and read the passage as a whole. This is a direct admonition against people like the JW's

Originally posted by Doward
so then you admit that you are divisive? Good now we're getting somewhere! Perhaps someday we can get you to admit that Jesus is Lord and worthy of all honor praise and glory.

edit: I like this translation better, sort of good advice that you may weant to take to heart:

23 Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know th ...[text shortened]... 14 and read the passage as a whole. This is a direct admonition against people like the JW's

yes and perhaps someday you'll stop pontificating from your room full of mirrors, your
most illustrious holy eminence. Perhaps you shall issue papal bulls, edicts and start
selling indulgences as well, who knows, perhaps the unfortunate witness who chances
upon your door as he or she endeavours to share the goodness of Gods Kingdom shall
be racked up under an inquisitor general, anything is possible from a room full of
mirrors. . . .

Doward 4 Twit 0...I've decided to keep score at how many times I prove how ignorant you are - Doward

especially where a megalomaniac is concerned.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes and perhaps someday you'll stop pontificating from your room full of mirrors, your
most illustrious holy eminence. Perhaps you shall issue papal bulls, edicts and start
selling indulgences as well, who knows, perhaps the unfortunate witness who chances
upon your door as he or she endeavours to share the goodness of Gods Kingdom shall
be ...[text shortened]... I prove how ignorant you are - Doward[/quote]

especially where a megalomaniac is concerned.

Witnesses no longer come to my door. I have engaged more than a few in discussion, but the same ones never return. I guess I just wore them out, they were pathetically ill-equiped to attempt teaching anyone.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes and perhaps someday you'll stop pontificating from your room full of mirrors, your
most illustrious holy eminence. Perhaps you shall issue papal bulls, edicts and start
selling indulgences as well, who knows, perhaps the unfortunate witness who chances
upon your door as he or she endeavours to share the goodness of Gods Kingdom shall
be ...[text shortened]... I prove how ignorant you are - Doward[/quote]

especially where a megalomaniac is concerned.

especially where a megalomaniac is concerned.[/

you should know Robbie....


btw: any chance you'll answer my question; why are you so divisive?

Originally posted by Doward
Witnesses no longer come to my door. I have engaged more than a few in discussion, but the same ones never return. I guess I just wore them out, they were pathetically ill-equiped to attempt teaching anyone.

nope, we simply have better things to do than argue with people, for as the scriptures state, 'a workman of the lord does not need to fight'.