Magus55

Isn't it true that in basic linguistics, there are some things you can't translate from one language to another and get the same meaning?

For example, Hebrew has many verses and words that do not translate into English, and have no comparable word in English, correct?

In the translation of the Bible from Hebrew or Greek to English, is it likely that some verses that made sense in the original language had to be changed when switching to English, and don't convey quite the same meaning?

I'm having trouble coming up with examples since I'm not familiar with Hebrew or Greek, but I always thought there were certain cases where you just can't convey the same meaning by translating into English.

Splarnst

I don't know what you mean by "basic" linguistics, but it's a well-known fact that many words cannot really be translated from one language to another, at least not very precisely. There are too many shades of meaning. Even very basic words that seem the exactly the same in two languages are very often not completely synonomous. The same is true within a single language because even synonyms have slightly different meanings.

That said, you can almost always convey the idea of a text, but it may involve a lot of paraphrasing and extra explanation. It probably won't be as poetic and elegant as the original, but it's the best we can do.

Tigers!

For our American friends.
Try translating Crikey!

Gamera

This isn't a linguistic question but a cultural one. Presumably there is no concept described in any language which cannot be described in another language. Or at least we have never encountered such a concept.

That said, since culture, not just language, influences the significance of concepts, the significance of the thing translated may not accord with what it meant in the original culture/language. Old English, for instance, used a different 'register' to describe colors, focussing in on shinyness rather than hue. Thus, famously in The Wayfarer, the sea is described as "yellow," using a cognate of ModE yellow, but what the author presumably meant was not the hue, but the quality of being very shiney, like a yellow thing.

See, we just translated a very difficult alien concept. It just took some doing.

This problem is particularly grievous when we are talking about an ancient or extinct culture, so we can't ask a native speaker to explain.

spin

Umm, Jiminy??

Alf

I believe it is always possible to translate something so that it conveys all meanings from the original language and no additional meanings The problem is that some things do not translate directly. You have to explain context and background and perhaps explain that this and that phrase have a double meaning in the original language which is lost in the direct translation and must be made explicite. In the reverse situation - that the original has one meaning while the translation has a double meaning - you can always manage by explaning more explicite which of the meanings you are talking about.

So yeah, you can ALWAYS translate a given meaning to any language. Any language can express any idea or thought or meaning or collections of same. However, it some times requires that you go beyond a word-by-word translation and usually require that you are familiar with the context and culture of the source.

For example the english expression "On the other hand" can be translated to norwegian to "On the other side" (i.e. a word by word translation of 'on the other side' will give the equivalent norwegian expression). Translating it word by word to "On the other hand" would just sound weird in norwegian. It is a kind of norwegian you would have to know english to understand! In such cases you can easily translate it by simply referring to the equivalent expression as used in Norwegian.

A harder problem is when you refer to word-play etc that is used in the source language. For example the gospels was originally written in greek and the gospel authors have Jesus to make use of word-plays which was particular to the greek language and never used in arameic. Jesus who presumably spoke arameic would never had expressed himself in such a manner - hence we can conclude that these are phrases and words that were placed in Jesus' mouth and not historically statements uttered by Jesus himself.

In addition, many of these word plays are of course lost when translated to other languages such as latin, english or norwegian and so readers of the gospels in these languages never recognize the phrases to be word-plays and ambiguities in the greek language. Thus, you get various "interpretations" where some people try to interpret a huge significance into phrases and statements by over-analyzing them even though they are not and cannot have been originally arameic.

Nobody said that translation was simple.

Alf

Magus55

Thanks Alf. What do you mean by "word-play" though?

I started this thread because I'm debating with RR literalists about the possibility of different meanings in the Bible when translated from Hebrew/Greek to English.

Like Eretz. One word in Hebrew has 20 meanings in English. How do we know Earth, implying global ( for the flood story) was the correct usage, when eretz doesn't mean global, but can mean region or inhabited land?

Lugubert

If I may answer for him, Math. 16:18 "Thou art Peter and upon this rock..." might be an example. The Gen. 2.23 explanation of Eve's name is another.

Of course it's a problem when word can have many meanings in our languages. In many cases, the context solves it. But metaphors and the like can be difficult: Is "foot" "a foot" or "a penis", which "know" really mean "get to know" and which "carnal knowledge" etc.

And in some cases, the older text without vowels may lead to that even more words can be proposed. There's a thread running somewhere here on Ps. 22:17 "lion" or not.

An even worse problem is if the word or expression in question isn't found anywhere else.

And the incompatibility between Semitic and Indo-European verb systems is a constant challenge to translators. Is the young girl in Isaiah 7:14 pregnant, or will she be? From my limited Bible Hebrew, I prefer the present tense.

Sheshbazzar

"Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth; and he said Sibboleth;"

Why? Could not, or would not?

Dean Anderson

I can't give you any example from Greek, but I can give you a few examples of wordplay and how choice of word in English translations gives rather different meanings than the Hebrew text from the Genesis 2-3 story of Adam and Eve...

1) The "Garden" of Eden. In English, the word "garden" conjures up some kind of paradise with neatly trimmed grass and flowers and so on - a well kept garden. The Hebrew word ("gan") merely indicates an enclosed space; anything from an enclosed walled garden to a valley surrounded by mountains. Referring to the "Valley of Eden" gives a very different visual image to an English speaker than the "Garden of Eden" does.

2) The snake is described as "more subtle than" any other animal (or sometimes "more crafty than"). Both of these English words have negative connotations, implying that the snake is scheming with evil intent. However, the Hebrew "arum" can just as easily be translated as "sensible" or "prudent". The story takes a completely different twist if the snake is "sensible" rather than "subtle".

3) When questioned, Eve claims (in the English) that the snake "beguiled" her. Again, this is a word chosen for its negative connotations. The Hebrew "nasha" can also mean a more neutral "persuaded" or even a positive "opened" (as in opening one's mind to new possibilities). Once again, the story takes a different twist if Eve is saying that the snake "enlightened" her about the fruit, rather than saying that it "beguiled" her into eating it.

4) The Hebrew words for "snake" ("arum") and for "naked" ("arom") seem to have been chosen as a deliberate pun by the author. Because of the "arum", they realise that they are "arom".

Obviously, a story where a "crafty" snake "beguiles" a woman into taking the fruit has a very different theme to one where a "sensible" snake "enlightens" the woman to the properties of the fruit. In the first instance, the snake is the enemy tricking her, but in the second it is the ally helping her and God is seen as the bad guy (but then the ancient Hebrews never said that God was a nice guy).

Indeed, the story as written by an ancient Hebrew is very different from the story as interpreted by a modern Christian, and given the context of the rest of the Genesis 2-3 story, I would guess that the snake-as-liberator is a more accurate reading than the snake-as-deceiver one. See this post for a more detailed descriprion of the differences.