[sword-devel] GNU and OS ideologies applied to translation

Chris sword-devel@crosswire.org
Sat, 22 Dec 2001 10:15:10 +1100

Michael Rempel wrote:

>>>You cant fix a problem that is intrinsic to the design method you
>>>'path' might go from say interpretive to literal and back to poetic
>>>suit some fool's idea of a good thing. It is easy to do anyway, but dont
>>>make it any easier please. To put texts together like that and call it a
>>>version, is to make crossing interpretive traditions on a whim credible.
>>>is not credible. If you are going to be literalist, then stick to
>>>literalist, poetic, stick to poetry, and so on. Each style has problems
>>>you should know, so it is enough to limit the problems to one choosen
>>Who said anything about mixing styles? The main point is choosing styles.
>So what are sliders for? I am confused. How do multiple paths work?
Well if sufficient work was done.... If there was a slider that went 
from Interpretive to Literal,
and that slider was in a particular position, then one would hope all 
the text would comply.
Of course that means the existance of enough translations to suit all 
combinations, which may
not be as hard as it sounds but would require extra work on the part of 
the translators.
For example if there was a second slider for language simple -> 
difficult, and you chose
literal but simple. The literal/difficult language interpretation of Ro 
3:25 "whom God displayed publicly as a
propitiation in His blood through faith" might change to "whom God 
displayed publicly as a
sacrifice of atonement in His blood through faith". The interpretation 
is still as literal as
possible given the requirement to avoid difficult words.