Talk:Dynamic and formal equivalence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Much of this page is inaccurate. The differences between various translation approaches do blurr, it's true, but this page clearly confuses different terms. In addition the description of Bible translations is inaccurate and the declaration of version popularity is... at least debatable and certainly unreferenced. Hopefully I will have time to edit this, but until I do... anyone else care to take a stab at it? Anne 1-July-2006

I removed the unnecessary claim "most popular", although the NIV is the best selling contemporary translation. I also removed the cleanup tag. It is more appropriate for poor grammar, spelling, or poorly formatted text rather than content concerns. --Blainster 15:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The two concepts should be two different articles frankly. 70.177.68.209 17:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Anne 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Until the article is expanded a lot more, splitting it seems silly. Policy supports having foo and bar articles (particularly for two opposites).
I would suggest that the article should possibly be renamed linguistic equivalence and some more general stuff about finding equivalent terms be put here too (maybe copied from translation). I suppose it could be merged into translation too, but that article is quite long.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 23:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Proposal to merge Bible version debate

After making a start at creating a more balanced presentation of Bible version debate, I realized that it is effectively a fork of the subject dynamic and formal equivalence, in other words a debate about the methods of Bible translation. Since debates generate more heat than light, I propose that that article be merged into this one. --Blainster 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me Blainster. The debate over Bible versions boils down to equivalence anyway --Raogden 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Might I also suggest that the merged entry be titled "Biblical Translation Philosophy" or some such. 'Bible Version debates' sounds like arguments waiting to happen. --Raogden 22:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I am FOR the merge. I suggest that the Dynamic and formal equivalence content is simply inserted into the section on the Bible version debate page before the section which discusses the debate between the two of them. I think calling the combined page "Biblical translation philosophy" is a bad idea, and support keeping the existing name, since it is an article about the debate (the debate is not causing much debate here on Wikipedia) but it is worth documenting the different sides of the debate, and worth calling it what it is. Brusselsshrek 16:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
AGAINST. The "Bible version debate" is NOT just about dynamic and formal equivalence; the problem is that the "Bible version debate" section talks ONLY about dynamic and formal equivalence. There are other issues too, such as WHICH text to use as a starting point, and how to handle extremely obscure Old Testament terms. But I agree with Raogden that "Bible version debate" is a bad name, and that another term like "Biblical Translation Philosophy" would be better. I think in a few moments I'll "be bold" and rename the article, and try to fix it along those lines. If it needs to be merged later, great, but I think it's best handled by having TWO articles, and have the "Philosophy" article reference the dynamic and formal equivalence page for details on that particular topic. -- Dwheeler 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
AGAINST. Translation of the Bible is related to the question of equivalence, but the question of equivalence applies to all translations today, and is a much studied term in translation theory. The Bible can be used as an example of a difficult translation, but it shouldn't take over the article on equivalence. -- Tales 13:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, good point - dynamic vs. formal equivalence is a general topic for ANY translation between languages, so it should be general. I agree, the Bible is an excellent example, though maybe adding a few examples from other works (Iliad? Qu'ran?) would make it clear that this a general issue, even though much of the original discussion involved how to translate the Bible. Conversely, the "Bible version debate" (or whatever it's named) should reference the general dynamic/formal discussion, but should focus on Bible-specific issues, and identify the OTHER issues specific to translation of the Bible. I think we're already headed this way, and it's a good thing. I think in the end we're going to have two separate articles, but the debate about merging has helped make sure that each article was focused on ITS topic. -- Dwheeler 15:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been over 2 months, and the articles have now diverged into covering different topics, making them LESS appropriate to merge... not MORE appropriate to merge. Unless someone says differently, let's just remove the "proposal to merge" notifications, and make sure that the two articles cross-link to each other. -- Dwheeler 22:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Against. I do not think that this article should be merged, because the style of translation is not the only debate in existence. However, this page can expand a section on examples of translations, and what the debate is over these.Austinian 04:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

After one month there was agreement, but only 3 responses. After three months 3 objections have turned up. There is presently no consensus to merge, so I have removed the template. --Blainster 07:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that is the right result, but thanks for proposing the merge. I think your proposal made it clear that articles that SHOULD have been different were too similar, and encouraged us all to move text into the "right" article. -- Dwheeler 22:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another category

Formal Equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence do not fully contain the spectrum of translations. Most of this applies to Bible translations, but I'm adding the comment here because this is the link page to the designations in the Bible translation info boxes. The various sources on the web and in print give at least three at any given time: Formal, Dynamic, and Paraphrase (such as the Zondervan site). Others have Formal, Free, and Paraphrase (such as the Master's Seminary site). The interesting thing is that the sources that use "Dynamic" start the designation as early as the RSV, but the ones that use "Free" don't start the designation before the NIV. With the spectrum running from most literal to most paraphrased, the versions are typically presented as something close to this: KJV, NKJ, ASV, DRA, NAS, NAU, RSV, ESV, NET, HCS, NRS, NAB, NIV, JNT, NJB, TEV, REB, NLT, Living, Phillips, Message. The ones in bold are most often at the boundaries between descriptions (i.e. people are more likely to debate their designation than others). If we follow those boundaries between the descriptions in the different sources, we are really looking at four categories:

Formal Equivalence: KJV, NKJ, ASV, DRA, NAS, NAU Dynamic Equivalence: RSV, ESV, NET, HCS, NRS, NAB, NIV Free Translation: JNT, NJB, TEV, REB, NLT Paraphrase: Living, Message, Phillips

And that doesn't even include the Cotton Patch Bible!

This isn't inventing anything. It's just using the sources that people can link to (such as Zondervan, Bible-Researcher, the Master's Seminary, Comfort's book, Metzger's book, etc.). My question is, how much information do we want to include on this page? Tim 19:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Merging with Translation

I propose that this article be merged with Translation -- for "dynamic and formal equivalence" have no meaning outside that practice -- and the the portions pertaining to the Bible specifically be folded into Biblical translation.Naturezak (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I partly agree, but at the same time the two articles (translation and equivalence) are pretty big; I'd say equivalence qualifies for its own article. No comment on biblical translatiom yet as I haven't studied the article. Tales (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The article is poorly written and bloated with extraneous information -- that's why it's big. Do you think the topic has a meaning outside of the concept "translation?" I'm arguing that equivalence is *only* an aspect of translation.Naturezak (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Naturezak's arguments, and second the proposal to merge "Dynamic and formal equivalence" into "Translation." Most of the essential ideas of the former article are already summarized in the latter, "Translation" article. Links could be provided to "Translation" from "Dynamic and formal equivalence," "Dynamic equivalence" and "Formal equivalence." Nihil novi (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Clear list of categories/examples

Under "Bible Translation" there is a rather cluttered and unclear lits of examples of Bibles which fall under the three categories (formal, mixed and dynamic tranlations).

I re-ordered this into three neat lists with bullet points, making it much easier to see. But this was undone. I guess I would like to know why. I think it was far clearer to see the three categories in bullet-point list form.Grand Dizzy (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The lists were undone when the article changes were reverted. I reverted them due to the clumsiness of the merged text concerning Nida. (I didn't have time to edit the merged text for clarity.) Otherwise I probably would not object to the lists. Nihil novi (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two sentences mentioning Eugene A. Nida

The article contains two almost identical sentences both mentioning (and linking to) the creator of the terms 'formal and dynamic equivalence'. I don't see why these two sentences shouldn't be merged into one? (I merged them but the change was undone.)

Could the person who undid my change please explain their actions? Grand Dizzy (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see above. Nihil novi (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)