Quote
john said:
So let me try to clarify to make sure I am understanding your point. In your example, you used "lamb" and "pig", where pig is the closest equivalent word in the target language. Your suggestion is that when there is no word in the target language, that the original word be left untranslated? Therefore, you would not use "pig" or "a new word", but leave it as "lamb"? Therefore, the reader is required to look up what the word "lamb" means in the original language, or at least to be aware that here is a word that he doesn't know the full meaning of.

John
Exactly...... I am an advocate of a "literal" word-for-word translation method as opposed to a "Dynamic Equivalence" method. Lamb should be translated as "lamb", even if there is no word in the target language for a lamb. How one would actually do that is a matter for discussion, e.g., whether one would use an Anglicized word, etc.. wink. But I am opposed to substituting an inspired word for one which is known to the people of the target language and unrelated to the original, e.g,. substituting "pig" for "lamb" because there is no word for lamb in the target language.

Again, the responsibility of the translator is just that... TRANSLATE, not interpret, define, etc. That responsibility belongs to those who will teach.

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]