[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: post.prepared for anglican (reversible translation)
- To: b-greek@virginia.edu
- Subject: Re: post.prepared for anglican (reversible translation)
- From: Bill Stonebraker <stoney73@gte.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 04:30:33 -0700
- MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at mail.virginia.edu
At 7:42 AM +0100 5/21/97, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
>I am absolutely fascinated that no-one else has yet come up with an
>alternative definition of the distinction between a translation and a
>paraphrase. I appreciate that my suggestion that a translation is
>reversible, but a parapharase irreversible, may include too strict a
>view of translation for some scholars. But unless an alternative
>objective test for distinguishing between translating and paraphrasing
>is laid down, should we not draw the conclusion that they are one and
>the same activity, and that when one person says something is a
>translation he is simply affirming that it is the paraphrase he
>subjectively prefers to other paraphrases?