Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Transliterate or not to transliterate?
#1
Readers of the Bible simply say: "The translation must be exact and right."

But in practice, it's easier to say than to practice.

At this moment, I have TWO translations, one 'christian' edition, having Jesus Christ and LORD instead of Jeshua Messiah and JHWH.

The other translation is 'messianic' (more or less). This translation has all names, transliterated. So; not damasc, but 'darmsuk', not Jesus, but Jeshua Messiah.
Not Moses, but 'Musa' etc.

However, I'm hesitating about e.g. Egypt. Must this be translated as 'Mishreen'?
Greek: Must this be translated as 'javanoith' ?

If I -do- translate it phonetically, I really doubt if readers would value this. Since 'Greek' vs. 'javanoith' or 'Javanaya' is too far from our world.

What's your thought about this?

ps: This translation is still being prepared.
Reply
#2
Personally, I think if the reader is at least given ample heads-up by means of a Glossary or translation glosses or footnotes, it is in no way improper to give alternative spellings/words for a proper noun. The idea of 'standards' today is extremely overemphasized and creates a false mindset toward these things.

But the Aramaic form of Egypt is Mesrein (and the Hebrew is Mitsrayim). I think at least if one is trying to keep the original words, the original pronunciation should be striven for: Grecian would be Yawnayith rather than Javnayith or the like (J does not exist in Aramaic or Hebrew; V rather than W arose from modern Hebrew pronunciation).

It does take great consideration though, in that one must decide between referring to a Greek as in accordance with the Aramaic tongue (Yawnaya) or as in accordance with the Greek tongue (Hellen). So there's many factors behind choosing to opt for Aramaic with respect to this. But to say that Egypt is any more nonpartisan than Misrayin or Mitsrayim would be falling pray to the false standards, as Egypt clearly derives from the Greek Aiguptas. But one must never put aside the fact that the source from which we're translating is at least a spoken Aramaic tradition (if one does not subscribe to Aramaic primacy), and this is what is being represented by translation.

I hope that helps in this decision <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Peace and blessings
Reply
#3
My intent with the Peshitta NT, or with any text, is to transliterate proper nouns as the source text shows them. So instead of translating metsreyn as "Egypt", I would transliterate it as Metsreyn, with perhaps a footnote or other method of indicating its tie to "Egypt". And as Aaron mentioned, it would be Mitsrayim if transliterating Hebrew source text.

But I know of no particular rule or convention for doing it one way or another. Each to their own I guess.
Reply
#4
Shlama,

when it comes to translating / transliterating any text, and especially so with Scripture, my motto is:

"the text demands our integrity."

i can't choose to use modern transliterations acceptable to the masses and still expect to convey the true "feel" of the text. furthermore, bowing to the weight of tradition and pc only perpetuates the problems of inaccurate transliterations, such as we have today with the modern English transliteration of Jesus, a transliteration of a transliteration of the original Semitic Name, which has had the unfortunate side-effect of producing all kinds of error in the realm of how it was originally pronounced, etc..

as i translate books personally, i include a glossary that gives the Aramaic and commonly-accepted English versions for the reader to access at their own discretion, but in the text, i very stringently transliterate every proper name and place. sometimes it makes for an odd-sounding result, but that is only to our "Western" ears! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

as long as the content remains readable, transliterating proper names and places shouldn't be a significant problem, just a point of clarity.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#5
Jeremy: What do you think regarding these scenarios?
What do you do when dealing with an Aramaic transliteration of a Greek...
...word (such as euangelian)?
...transliteration of a Hebrew name (such as Azotas in Acts 8:40)?

Personally I think keeping the Greek word euangelian in the translated text is at least misleading because of the religious clout behind the English loan-word evangelize (which does not exactly mean 'to proclaim good tidings' but rather 'to cause to convert'). In both of these scenarios, a footnote would be needed, especially with the latter one which is rather anomalous.
Reply
#6
Thank you all for your valuable input!

May God bless you
Reply
#7
Aaron S Wrote:Jeremy: What do you think regarding these scenarios?
What do you do when dealing with an Aramaic transliteration of a Greek...
...word (such as euangelian)?
...transliteration of a Hebrew name (such as Azotas in Acts 8:40)?

Personally I think keeping the Greek word euangelian in the translated text is at least misleading because of the religious clout behind the English loan-word evangelize (which does not exactly mean 'to proclaim good tidings' but rather 'to cause to convert'). In both of these scenarios, a footnote would be needed, especially with the latter one which is rather anomalous.


Shlama, akhi,


if it is a word in the text, and not a name or place, i will ALWAYS translate it, so that the only Aramaic terms in my translation will be names or places, so that it really is a legitimate translation, and not sprinkled with Semitic words in the text, which i personally do not care for. footnotes are my preferred means of clarifying the nuances in the text, as well as explaining the reasons for choosing certain words over other more common readings, so there is nothing wrong with throwing one in to give the reader the best position from which to approach the text.

as for Hebrew transliterations into Aramaic, i still use what is in the Aramaic text. for instance, i translated HEBREWS last year, and in doing so came across the following detail in 11:32 about the man we know from Scripture as Jephthah --

The reading in the Aramaic text is actually Naphtakh, an obvious difference from what should be Yaphtakh. In the Aramaic script, it is very simple to confuse the letter yodh and the letter nun. The two shapes are almost identical except for a slight size difference. That is the situation here with the Peshitta. The person intended is in the Hebrew Yeephtach, beginning with a yud. This same pronunciation of Naphtakh is also preserved in the Peshitta AN?K, in the book of Judges, where this man?s story is to be found. At some point during copying, the scribe did not distinguish that the yodh was the correct transliteration into Aramaic, and so the error was promulgated. So although the Khabouris text clearly reads Naphtakh, the reading of the name should be Yaphtakh, but for the sake of clearly representing what is in the text of the Peshitta, the Aramaic form has been retained.

so i err on the side of consistency in the matters of transliteration, and explain all details in my notes, for the benefit of the reader. i know this is not how it is usually done, but hopefully the reader who does not read Aramaic yet can at least know that i am indeed being faithful to the text to the point of including such awkward pronunciations! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

what are your thoughts on that?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)