Talk:Dynamic and formal equivalence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Much of this page is inaccurate. The differences between various translation approaches do blurr, it's true, but this page clearly confuses different terms. In addition the description of Bible translations is inaccurate and the declaration of version popularity is... at least debatable and certainly unreferenced. Hopefully I will have time to edit this, but until I do... anyone else care to take a stab at it? Anne 1-July-2006

I removed the unnecessary claim "most popular", although the NIV is the best selling contemporary translation. I also removed the cleanup tag. It is more appropriate for poor grammar, spelling, or poorly formatted text rather than content concerns. --Blainster 15:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The two concepts should be two different articles frankly. 70.177.68.209 17:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Anne 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Until the article is expanded a lot more, splitting it seems silly. Policy supports having foo and bar articles (particularly for two opposites).

I would suggest that the article should possibly be renamed linguistic equivalence and some more general stuff about finding equivalent terms be put here too (maybe copied from translation). I suppose it could be merged into translation too, but that article is quite long.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 23:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge Bible version debate

After making a start at creating a more balanced presentation of Bible version debate, I realized that it is effectively a fork of the subject dynamic and formal equivalence, in other words a debate about the methods of Bible translation. Since debates generate more heat than light, I propose that that article be merged into this one. --Blainster 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me Blainster. The debate over Bible versions boils down to equivalence anyway --Raogden 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Might I also suggest that the merged entry be titled "Biblical Translation Philosophy" or some such. 'Bible Version debates' sounds like arguments waiting to happen. --Raogden 22:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am FOR the merge. I suggest that the Dynamic and formal equivalence content is simply inserted into the section on the Bible version debate page before the section which discusses the debate between the two of them. I think calling the combined page "Biblical translation philosophy" is a bad idea, and support keeping the existing name, since it is an article about the debate (the debate is not causing much debate here on Wikipedia) but it is worth documenting the different sides of the debate, and worth calling it what it is. Brusselsshrek 16:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

AGAINST. The "Bible version debate" is NOT just about dynamic and formal equivalence; the problem is that the "Bible version debate" section talks ONLY about dynamic and formal equivalence. There are other issues too, such as WHICH text to use as a starting point, and how to handle extremely obscure Old Testament terms. But I agree with Raogden that "Bible version debate" is a bad name, and that another term like "Biblical Translation Philosophy" would be better. I think in a few moments I'll "be bold" and rename the article, and try to fix it along those lines. If it needs to be merged later, great, but I think it's best handled by having TWO articles, and have the "Philosophy" article reference the dynamic and formal equivalence page for details on that particular topic. -- Dwheeler 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

AGAINST. Translation of the Bible is related to the question of equivalence, but the question of equivalence applies to all translations today, and is a much studied term in translation theory. The Bible can be used as an example of a difficult translation, but it shouldn't take over the article on equivalence. -- Tales 13:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, good point - dynamic vs. formal equivalence is a general topic for ANY translation between languages, so it should be general. I agree, the Bible is an excellent example, though maybe adding a few examples from other works (Iliad? Qu'ran?) would make it clear that this a general issue, even though much of the original discussion involved how to translate the Bible. Conversely, the "Bible version debate" (or whatever it's named) should reference the general dynamic/formal discussion, but should focus on Bible-specific issues, and identify the OTHER issues specific to translation of the Bible. I think we're already headed this way, and it's a good thing. I think in the end we're going to have two separate articles, but the debate about merging has helped make sure that each article was focused on ITS topic. -- Dwheeler 15:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been over 2 months, and the articles have now diverged into covering different topics, making them LESS appropriate to merge... not MORE appropriate to merge. Unless someone says differently, let's just remove the "proposal to merge" notifications, and make sure that the two articles cross-link to each other. -- Dwheeler 22:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Against. I do not think that this article should be merged, because the style of translation is not the only debate in existence. However, this page can expand a section on examples of translations, and what the debate is over these.Austinian 04:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

After one month there was agreement, but only 3 responses. After three months 3 objections have turned up. There is presently no consensus to merge, so I have removed the template. --Blainster 07:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that is the right result, but thanks for proposing the merge. I think your proposal made it clear that articles that SHOULD have been different were too similar, and encouraged us all to move text into the "right" article. -- Dwheeler 22:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)