<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Top Translation Traps:  Relying on Structure</title>
	<atom:link href="http://goddidntsaythat.com/2010/03/08/top-translation-traps-relying-on-structure/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://goddidntsaythat.com/2010/03/08/top-translation-traps-relying-on-structure/</link>
	<description>Bible Translations and Mistranslations</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 19:16:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Always Pick On The Correct Idiom &#171; God Didn&#039;t Say That</title>
		<link>http://goddidntsaythat.com/2010/03/08/top-translation-traps-relying-on-structure/#comment-3681</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Always Pick On The Correct Idiom &#171; God Didn&#039;t Say That]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:20:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goddidntsaythat.com/?p=1798#comment-3681</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] What makes his example work is that the meaning of &#8220;pick on&#8221; doesn&#8217;t come from the meanings of &#8220;pick&#8221; and &#8220;on.&#8221; More generally, phrases, like words, are not the sum of their parts. (I have more here.) [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] What makes his example work is that the meaning of &#8220;pick on&#8221; doesn&#8217;t come from the meanings of &#8220;pick&#8221; and &#8220;on.&#8221; More generally, phrases, like words, are not the sum of their parts. (I have more here.) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary Simmons</title>
		<link>http://goddidntsaythat.com/2010/03/08/top-translation-traps-relying-on-structure/#comment-2963</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gary Simmons]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jun 2010 20:47:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goddidntsaythat.com/?p=1798#comment-2963</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jamie: no languages are &lt;i&gt;completely&lt;/i&gt; different, so long as both are used by humans. And if they&#039;re (proper spelling!) not completely different, then they obviously have some things in common. If for no other reason, then simply by virtue of the fact that they are used by people.

Example: &quot;by virtue of&quot; is a prepositional phrase that uses the archaic sense of virtue as in &quot;power.&quot; On its own, virtue today means roughly the same thing as &quot;integrity.&quot; Greek, actually, has a similar expression but uses charis (grace) rather than arete (virtue).

Among English, Greek, German, and Hebrew: prepositions and other words strongly affect the meanings of verbs. It&#039;s not that words have no meaning. It&#039;s just that a word&#039;s expected meaning &lt;i&gt;may&lt;/i&gt; be suppressed or overwritten completely by the phrase it is found in. Often, though not always, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jamie: no languages are <i>completely</i> different, so long as both are used by humans. And if they&#8217;re (proper spelling!) not completely different, then they obviously have some things in common. If for no other reason, then simply by virtue of the fact that they are used by people.</p>
<p>Example: &#8220;by virtue of&#8221; is a prepositional phrase that uses the archaic sense of virtue as in &#8220;power.&#8221; On its own, virtue today means roughly the same thing as &#8220;integrity.&#8221; Greek, actually, has a similar expression but uses charis (grace) rather than arete (virtue).</p>
<p>Among English, Greek, German, and Hebrew: prepositions and other words strongly affect the meanings of verbs. It&#8217;s not that words have no meaning. It&#8217;s just that a word&#8217;s expected meaning <i>may</i> be suppressed or overwritten completely by the phrase it is found in. Often, though not always, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jamie</title>
		<link>http://goddidntsaythat.com/2010/03/08/top-translation-traps-relying-on-structure/#comment-2946</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jamie]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:35:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goddidntsaythat.com/?p=1798#comment-2946</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You cannot (logically) use word meanings to prove that words don&#039;t have meaning. Your whole argument about words not having meaning is built on the assumed premise that what you are saying is being communicated clearly and that we understand what you mean!! Its like the person who says &quot;there is no absolute truth&#039;, yet his statement is an absolute truth claim, so it is logically unsound. His statement disproves his statement.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You cannot (logically) use word meanings to prove that words don&#8217;t have meaning. Your whole argument about words not having meaning is built on the assumed premise that what you are saying is being communicated clearly and that we understand what you mean!! Its like the person who says &#8220;there is no absolute truth&#8217;, yet his statement is an absolute truth claim, so it is logically unsound. His statement disproves his statement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jamie</title>
		<link>http://goddidntsaythat.com/2010/03/08/top-translation-traps-relying-on-structure/#comment-2945</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jamie]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:28:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goddidntsaythat.com/?p=1798#comment-2945</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You use English as &#039;proof&#039; that we cannot know phrases by there parts. But aren&#039;t these two completely different languages? That&#039;s a Non-sequitur argument. You haven&#039;t demonstrated anything. You pick some random phrases from English and somehow this proves that we cant know the whole by its parts in Hebrew. Well, the problem with this is: You would have to know what something means at the start to prove the other method is wrong. You can say with certainty &quot;drive-through-window&quot; doesn&#039;t actually mean I&#039;m about to drive through a window because its known at the start that&#039;s not what it means.But what good does that do us in Hebrew? One of your arguments is that we cannot know what the words mean... So on your premise You cannot demonstrate that the parts do not make sense of the whole because in order for the argument to work you have to know what the words mean in order to demonstrate that the said method is fallacious. So you either know the words or you don&#039;t. And if you don,t, it would be better to just close up shop and go home!!!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You use English as &#8216;proof&#8217; that we cannot know phrases by there parts. But aren&#8217;t these two completely different languages? That&#8217;s a Non-sequitur argument. You haven&#8217;t demonstrated anything. You pick some random phrases from English and somehow this proves that we cant know the whole by its parts in Hebrew. Well, the problem with this is: You would have to know what something means at the start to prove the other method is wrong. You can say with certainty &#8220;drive-through-window&#8221; doesn&#8217;t actually mean I&#8217;m about to drive through a window because its known at the start that&#8217;s not what it means.But what good does that do us in Hebrew? One of your arguments is that we cannot know what the words mean&#8230; So on your premise You cannot demonstrate that the parts do not make sense of the whole because in order for the argument to work you have to know what the words mean in order to demonstrate that the said method is fallacious. So you either know the words or you don&#8217;t. And if you don,t, it would be better to just close up shop and go home!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WoundedEgo</title>
		<link>http://goddidntsaythat.com/2010/03/08/top-translation-traps-relying-on-structure/#comment-1697</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[WoundedEgo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:32:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goddidntsaythat.com/?p=1798#comment-1697</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&gt;&gt;&gt;...Secondly, phrases are just like individual words in this regard...

Idioms... for example, in Spanish...

&quot;Hay que tener cuidado&quot;

would literally be &quot;There is that to have been cared&quot; or something like that. In actuality, it means &quot;Be careful!&quot;

Thus, I have a saying for those of us who may be wound too tightly about literalness and formal equivalence (two values I prize highly):

&quot;Hay que tener cuidado&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;&gt;&gt;&#8230;Secondly, phrases are just like individual words in this regard&#8230;</p>
<p>Idioms&#8230; for example, in Spanish&#8230;</p>
<p>&#8220;Hay que tener cuidado&#8221;</p>
<p>would literally be &#8220;There is that to have been cared&#8221; or something like that. In actuality, it means &#8220;Be careful!&#8221;</p>
<p>Thus, I have a saying for those of us who may be wound too tightly about literalness and formal equivalence (two values I prize highly):</p>
<p>&#8220;Hay que tener cuidado&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WoundedEgo</title>
		<link>http://goddidntsaythat.com/2010/03/08/top-translation-traps-relying-on-structure/#comment-1696</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[WoundedEgo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:28:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goddidntsaythat.com/?p=1798#comment-1696</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I subscribe to Merriam-Webster&#039;s &quot;Word A Day&quot; email. As I was reading the word for today (&quot;archetype&quot;) I was struck with the zigzag they provide from what was often a very &quot;true-to-structure&quot; usage to more modern day &quot;not-so-close-to-structure&quot; usage. Here&#039;s the link, if anyone is interested in subscribing:

http://www.drhinternet.net/mw/display.php?M=1506089&amp;C=d9446392906c7ab7f357939a9cc4d67c&amp;L=6&amp;N=1908]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I subscribe to Merriam-Webster&#8217;s &#8220;Word A Day&#8221; email. As I was reading the word for today (&#8220;archetype&#8221;) I was struck with the zigzag they provide from what was often a very &#8220;true-to-structure&#8221; usage to more modern day &#8220;not-so-close-to-structure&#8221; usage. Here&#8217;s the link, if anyone is interested in subscribing:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.drhinternet.net/mw/display.php?M=1506089&#038;C=d9446392906c7ab7f357939a9cc4d67c&#038;L=6&#038;N=1908" rel="nofollow">http://www.drhinternet.net/mw/display.php?M=1506089&#038;C=d9446392906c7ab7f357939a9cc4d67c&#038;L=6&#038;N=1908</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Top Translation Traps: Myopic Translations &#171; God Didn&#39;t Say That</title>
		<link>http://goddidntsaythat.com/2010/03/08/top-translation-traps-relying-on-structure/#comment-1684</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Top Translation Traps: Myopic Translations &#171; God Didn&#39;t Say That]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:06:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goddidntsaythat.com/?p=1798#comment-1684</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] phrase-level issue is pretty close to internal structure, which I discussed last [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] phrase-level issue is pretty close to internal structure, which I discussed last [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary Simmons</title>
		<link>http://goddidntsaythat.com/2010/03/08/top-translation-traps-relying-on-structure/#comment-1642</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gary Simmons]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:54:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goddidntsaythat.com/?p=1798#comment-1642</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I still think &quot;legacy&quot; might work for &lt;i&gt;toldot&lt;/i&gt;.

I love the drive-through window example.

And with &quot;dangerous/endangered&quot; in Hebrew, I could imagine some comical situations in a zoo based off that misunderstanding.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I still think &#8220;legacy&#8221; might work for <i>toldot</i>.</p>
<p>I love the drive-through window example.</p>
<p>And with &#8220;dangerous/endangered&#8221; in Hebrew, I could imagine some comical situations in a zoo based off that misunderstanding.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Sangrey</title>
		<link>http://goddidntsaythat.com/2010/03/08/top-translation-traps-relying-on-structure/#comment-1640</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Sangrey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:25:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goddidntsaythat.com/?p=1798#comment-1640</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the best examples I&#039;ve seen regarding the difficulty of &quot;connecting&quot; the internal structure of phrases with the meaning is from Ron Moe.  This is in reference to building dictionaries:

&quot;&#039;On the other hand we wore our washing machine out.&#039;

&quot;The phrase ‘on the other hand’ has the internal structure of a preposition[al] phrase but functions as a conjunction syntactically and semantically. It is a fixed phrase in that it cannot be varied in any way. None of the constituent words can be replaced or inflected and no other words can be inserted in it. The phrase ‘washing machine’ is actually a compound noun. It can be pluralized, but otherwise is fixed. The phrase ‘wear out’ can have other words inserted in it and the verb ‘wear’ can be inflected. Glossing sentences like this are going to be a challenge. Developing dictionary entries for different kinds of phrases will also require insight.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the best examples I&#8217;ve seen regarding the difficulty of &#8220;connecting&#8221; the internal structure of phrases with the meaning is from Ron Moe.  This is in reference to building dictionaries:</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8216;On the other hand we wore our washing machine out.&#8217;</p>
<p>&#8220;The phrase ‘on the other hand’ has the internal structure of a preposition[al] phrase but functions as a conjunction syntactically and semantically. It is a fixed phrase in that it cannot be varied in any way. None of the constituent words can be replaced or inflected and no other words can be inserted in it. The phrase ‘washing machine’ is actually a compound noun. It can be pluralized, but otherwise is fixed. The phrase ‘wear out’ can have other words inserted in it and the verb ‘wear’ can be inflected. Glossing sentences like this are going to be a challenge. Developing dictionary entries for different kinds of phrases will also require insight.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Ker</title>
		<link>http://goddidntsaythat.com/2010/03/08/top-translation-traps-relying-on-structure/#comment-1637</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Ker]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:39:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goddidntsaythat.com/?p=1798#comment-1637</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Terrific. A lot to chew on here.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Terrific. A lot to chew on here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

