This monograph describes the basic problems of the translation work in the Slovak project of Commentaries to the Holy Scripture. It also offers solutions – most of which have been adopted into the translation part of the Commentaries....
moreThis monograph describes the basic problems of the translation work in the Slovak project of Commentaries to the Holy Scripture. It also offers solutions – most of which have been adopted into the translation part of the Commentaries.
Although there are several Bible translations in Slovak, a new one was prepared for this project. It was required that the new translation should be suitable as a basis of a scholarly commentary. This led to reflections about types of biblical translation and different translation techniques. As the Bible belongs among the literary works of antiquity (and me being a Classicist), it seemed appropriate to begin in this wider context – studying techniques used for translation of ancient literature of this wider spectrum. This theme is tackled in the chapter 1, Translation of Ancient Literature. Three techniques are described – linguistic (commentary), philological and cultural translation. All three of them are “legitimate”, i.e. they are based in correct linguistic analysis of the original, which is then correctly reconstructed in the recipient language. The differences among them consist in further processing of the text. In this chapter also the literal translation is dealt with, though not a “legitimate” translation technique, because of the existing tradition of biblical translations (and also in connection with school language teaching).
In the environment of Biblical studies – both professional and amateur – there is a strong stream of admirers of literal translation, who believe this is the most faithful means of interpretation. It was especially against this stream that it was necessary to delimitate our position. Our adopted technique of linguistic translation has some seeming similarities with the literal translation, but also significant differences. This leads to a paradox criticism – our linguistic translation is considered by some to be literal, by others not literal enough...
Linguistic translation is basically a correct linguistic analysis of the original and a correct reconstruction in the recipient language without any further stylistic adaptation (by which it differs from the philological and cultural translation types). It is a scholarly translation that reflects each linguistic item of the original and processes it in an adequate way (direct translation, transformation, transposition, compensation, suppression...) and it deals with both lexis and grammar in a consistent way. This strategy is described in detail in chapter 2, Consistency as a Characteristic of Linguistic Translation.
In a linguistic translation there are several types of stable correspondences between the items of the original and of the translation – “one-to-one”, “one-to-several” and “several-to-one”. In lexis we strive for maximum “one-to-one” correspondences, therefore we avoid variations of synonyms for purely stylistic reasons. If the semantic field of the original item is wider, the meanings are defined and stable lexemes appointed as their equivalents. So we have a tree of “one-to-several”, which on a lower level keeps the correspondence “one-to-one” again. Correspondence “several-to-one” appears when the recipient language does not possess sufficient lexical material.
The same attitude is maintained in translating grammatical features. In most cases there is “one-to-one” correspondence. With related languages it is not rare if a certain structure of the original corresponds not only in its meaning, but also in its form, to the analogic structure of the recipient language. Functional and formal equivalence may be united. Occasionally, correspondence “one-to-several” appears (e.g. existential verbs in the negative or participles). The branching of this tree is always based on linguistic analysis and on lower levels “one-to-one” correspondence is preserved. Rarely also correspondence “several-to-one” is necessary if several expressions of the source correspond with one expression in the recipient language (e.g. expressions of purpose, manner, figura etymologica).
These three types of correspondences naturally appear in every translation. The quality of a linguistic translation is assessed not according to their presence or absence, but whether there are good reasons for the respective type. Translation equivalents must not vary because of negligence or caprice, but the decision for their variant use must be based on complex linguistic analysis.
Chapters 3 and 4 further develop the theme of grammatical consistency illustrated on two complex problems of Greek verbs – interpretation of the aspect and voice (or its absence). In both these cases also English translation equivalents are tackled, because English, present day lingua franca of scholarly world, poses additional linguistic interference.
In Chapter 3, Verbs (1): Verbal Aspect, this grammatical phenomenon is briefly characterized. Verbal aspect is a combination of two categories: grammatical aspect and actionality (lexical aspect). Grammatical aspect expresses perfectivity and imperfectivity, which have their own forms in the verbal system of a language. Actionality is a situation type, a basic semantic feature of a given verb. Various situation types give rise to various pairs of aspectual oppositions: state/ingressiveness, progressiveness/result, attempt/ result, process/result, one appearance/repetition, complexive/progressive durativity, open/closed series. In Greek these aspectual oppositions are regularly expressed with the grammatical means of the respective forms of the present and aorist stem. In Slovak these oppositions usually can be expressed with the pairs of perfective and imperfective verbs. So in translating this grammatical phenomenon into Slovak we can achieve very high level of “one-to-one” correspondence.
In Chapter 4, Verbs (2): Reflexivity, pPassivity and Intransitivity, we briefly describe the phenomenon of transitivity and intransitivity and the category of verbal voice that is observed with transitive verbs. Then we focus on the Greek means for expressing reflexivity, passivity and intransitivity and their respective Slovak translation equivalents. This is an area where many misunderstandings occur because of the overlapping correspondences “one-to-several” and “several-to-one”. Slovak reflexive verbs are functional equivalents not only of the Greek reflexive forms (reflexive middle), but also of the passive and intransitive meaning, though the latter two can also be expressed in other ways as well. The problem is most conspicuous in the passive aorist, which may have either passive or intransitive meaning – both of them can be rendered with a reflexive verb in Slovak. To avoid misunderstandings, the intransitive meaning can also be expresses with an active verb in the impersonal construction (roztrhla sa vs. roztrhlo ju); the passive meaning can be made explicit with the compound passive (bola roztrhnutá). Unfortunately, using this only unmistakeable means of expressing passivity for the Greek aorist is problematic for other reasons. The passive participles of Slovak perfective verbs often have the meaning of final state, rather than that of the perfective action. So the formal construction of the compound passive (auxiliary verb + passive participle) does not primarily express the past action, but the following state (like Greek pluperfect). This can be avoided only with the use of the reflexive passive.
Chapter 5, The Methodology of Translating the Septuagint, deals with some specific translation problems which appear with this unique phenomenon of world literature and culture and which are not found with other works of antiquity. The most obvious is the problem of Semitic language interference. LXX originated as a translation, but soon it detached from its Hebrew background and became a normative biblical text for many centuries. So the LXX text can be interpreted in several historical contexts: (1) in the bilingual environment where it was born, (2) in the monolingual environment of Hellenistic Jews, (3) in the monolingual Christian environment. It is this original connection of the LXX with the Hebrew text that causes interpretation problems and differences, because it still remains present in some form. The translator must deal with it in a way corresponding to the chosen interpretation context. Then we have a look at some specific challenges in the interpretation of single lexical items and of calques. In both cases an older scholarly approach insisted too much on the dependence of the LXX on the Hebrew text. Greek translation equivalents were ascribed Hebrew meanings of the original, though in many cases the Greek meaning is shifted. If the LXX is studied as a Greek work in Greek language environment, the Greek meaning must be respected, even if it differs from Hebrew.
