Terminology

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

W,X,Y,Z

Accuracy

Accuracy, generally speaking, refers to how closely a result obtains the true value. Within the context of Bible translation, accuracy refers to preserving the meaning of the original text. Meaning is the measure.

The term accuracy is essentially synonymous with the term faithfulness, but some translation theoreticians differentiate between the two terms. A translation which is accurate is faithful to the intended meaning of the original author.

In this glossary we distinguish between exegetical accuracy and communicative accuracy.

Meaning occurs at many different levels of language, including the levels of the word (lexicon), phrase, clause, sentence, and discourse. The best translations have thorough accuracy, that is, accuracy at all levels of language. A translation can be accurate, at least in a commonly used sense of the term, at the word level, but not at higher levels of language. For instance, a single word of an idiom (an idiom itself is typically composed of several words) may be “accurately” translated, but if the meaning of the whole idiom is not communicated adequately in the translation, then that translation is not accurate for that idiom.

A claim for some Bible versions is that they are “literally accurate“. It is not clear exactly what this refers to, especially since a literal translation can often be shown not to be the most accurate translation, so the term would then be an oxymoron. But we suspect the intended meaning of this term is that it refers (usually quite positively) to form-equivalent or word-for-word translation philosophies. Compare Literal translation.

Addressee

The person or persons to whom something is spoken or written.

Alliteration

Alliteration is the repetition of a consonant sound at the beginning of two or more words which appear close together in speech. Alliteration is a rhetorical device typically used to grab the hearer’s attention or add poetic pleasantry to an utterance. Alliteration can sometimes be used wisely in translation, as in the ISV rendering of Hebrews 12.2, where we are asked to focus our attention on “Jesus, the Pioneer and Perfector of faith.” The delightful alliteration of the p-sounds linguistically enhance our spiritual focus.

Allusion

Allusion is an indirect reference to something else, often another piece of writing. Speakers use allusions, assuming their audiences will understand what they are referring to. There are some allusions in the Bible. The translator of these allusions must decide how he will supply enough information for their own hearers to understand the original allusion.

Alphabet

An alphabet is a writing system for a language, using alphabetic characters (letters) which, in general, correspond to individual sounds of the language. See Orthography.

Anachronism

Anachronism, as used by translators, refers to some wording which is out of place in terms of the historical setting of the source document. Sometimes the redundant term, historical anachronism, is used, with the same meaning. Sometimes when a translator uses a cultural substitute for a concept which does not exist in the target language, an anachronism is introduced.

Anaphora

Anaphora is a means of referring back to the same individual or entity (referent) within a discourse. Languages use different forms or strategies to indicate anaphora. One of the most common is pronominalization, such as when referring to an earlier introduced character named John by the pronoun “he”. Some languages use definite articles or demonstratives to indicate anaphora. The translator should use the natural forms of the target language to preserve anaphora of the source text.

Anthropomorphism

Anthropomorphism is when human characteristics are attributed to nonhuman objects. In the Bible, God is frequently described with anthropomorphisms. Anthropomorphisms enable humans to more easily relate to God:

God was said to have eyes:
Genesis 6.8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord (KJV).
2 Chronicles 16.9 For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of [them] whose heart [is] perfect toward him (KJV).

God was said to have a face:
Exodus 33.11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face (KJV).

God was said to have a face, hand, and “back parts”:
Exodus 33.23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen (KJV).

God was said to have hair and a head:
Daniel 7.9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire (KJV).

See these other webpages on anthropomorphism:

Antithetical parallelism

Antithetical parallelism is a kind of rhetorical parallelism in which the repeated terms of a poetic couplet are opposite in meaning.

Antithetical parallelism contrasts with synonymous parallelism.

Proverbs 12:5 exemplifies antithetical parallelism:
The thoughts of the righteous are right,
But the counsels of the wicked are deceitful. (NKJV)

In this couplet “thoughts” and “counsels” are synonymously parallel, but “righteous” and “wicked” are antithetically parallel, so the couplet, as a whole, is an example of antithetical parallelism.

Apocrypha

The Apocrypha are some books accepted as part of the Old Testament by some Christians, but not by others. See also Apocrypha.

Apostrophe

Apostrophe is a figure of speech in which the speaker turns away from the actual audience to address an absent or imaginary person or a personified abstraction or thing. Translators will often need to make adjustments to this figure so that the meaning of the original apostrophe will be understood in the target language:

An inanimate location is addressed as if it were people:
Matt. 2.6 And you, Bethlehem,…are by no means least. (NRSV)

Someone is addressed who is not present or not the recipient of the letter:
Rom. 2.1 You [singular], therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else. (NIV)

Death is addressed:
1 Cor. 15.55 O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting? (NASB)

Aramaic

Aramaic was the common language in Palestine at the time of Jesus and his disciples. Aramaic [dead link] was a Semitic language related to Hebrew. There are short portions in the Bible which are written in Aramaic.

Archaism

A word or phrase which is no longer used in a language. See Obsolescent.

Artificial construction

A form which does not occur naturally in a language and which is created for a translation. Artificial constructions should be avoided if a translation is to be understood by ordinary, fluent speakers of a language. Instead of creating artificial constructions, a translator should select equivalent forms already used in the language which have the same meaning as the source language form. See Neologism and Synonymous.

Audience

Audience refers to those who hear or read something. Translators must be well aware of who their audience is, to be most effective in translation. They must translate for their audience, using vocabulary and grammatical patterns which are well understood by that audience.

Some versions of the Bible are translated with particular audiences in mind, such as certain age groups or educational levels. The NCV was originally designed to be read by children and it is still marketed with names that indicate this, such as International Children’s Version and the Odyssey Bible. The TEV was originally translated for those who speak English as a second language. The Message is written for an audience which can understand its relatively sophisticated North American English idioms.

Authorial intention

Same as Intention.

Autographs

Original documents, usually written in the author’s own handwriting. None of the autographs of the Bible exists today. Instead, there are thousands of copies of the original documents. Sometimes called original texts.

Back translation (BT)

A literal translation of a translation, which can be understood by a translation consultant or other speakers of a national language. A back translation is created to enable the consultant or other speakers to know what a translation means in a target language and how that translation is expressed in the forms of that language. A back translation should be as literal as possible so its reader can observe the forms in the target translation, yet restructured enough to enable it to make sense to the consultant or other readers of the back translation. A back translation helps a translation consultant determine if the original meaning has been preserved in the target language. Abbreviated as BT.

Following is an important saying in the the Cheyenne language, along with English back translation. Notice how the back translation sounds awkward in English. This is so because it is a literal translation. But this literal translation serves the function which literal translations best perform, that is, to allow us to see as closely as possible the forms into which the meaning was translated.

Névé’novôhe’étanóme mâsêhánééstóva, onésetó’ha’éeta netáhoestovevoo’o, onésêhestóxévétáno mâsêhánééstóva!

Back translation:

Don’t race in craziness, try to stop your mounts, try to come in last in terms of craziness!

An idiomatic translation of the Cheyenne would be:

Don’t live foolishly. Slow down. Don’t live a rushed life.

Return to Terminology index

Base text

The term “base text” in Bible translation refers to a literal English (or other national language) text that would be close to the original in form. Translators use the base text as a standard (or plumbline) for their translation. Examples of base texts would be fairly literal versions such as the RSV or NIV. Compare Model text and Front translation.

Return to Terminology index

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is a revision of the Hebrew Bible reconstructed by Kittel. It is based on the Masoretic text and is the Hebrew text used by most translators today.

Return to Terminology index

Biblical languages

Biblical languages are those languages in which the Bible was first written. The three main Biblical languages were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, while the New Testament was written in a dialect of Greek called Hellenistic or Koine (“common language”) Greek.

Return to Terminology index

Biblish

Biblish is a colloquial term used to refer to the dialect of English found in many English Bible versions. This dialect of English is usually only spoken by church people who are familiar with the Bible and the “sacred language” which is found in some versions of the Bible and in the church environment. Biblish includes vocabulary found in Bible versions which use this “sacred language,” rather than ordinary English, as well as non-English syntax which is borrowed from the original Hebrew and Greek biblical languages. Biblish contrasts with the use of vocabulary, syntax, and discourse patterns which are Natural in the translation language.

An example of Biblish is found in Romans 8:1, NASB:

“Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”

Contrast this same verse, worded in natural English, from the CEV:

“If you belong to Christ Jesus, you won’t be punished.”

Return to Terminology index

Borrowing

When speakers of a language take a word from another language. The specific item borrowed is called a loan word.

See also Loan translation.

Return to Terminology index

Calque

A word which is created through loan translation. The meaning parts of the source word are directly translated to meaning parts of a new target word, creating a neologism. The English word superman is a calque from the German word Übermensch.

Return to Terminology index

Canon

Canon refers to the totality of a literary collection. The Biblical canon refers to the total of all the books regarded by the Christian Church as belonging in the Bible.

See also:

Return to Terminology index

Chiasmus

Chiasmus (sometimes called chiasm) is a rhetorical structure of four parts in which the second and third parts are linked to each other and the first and fourth parts are linked to each other.

In whom should we have faith?

Many Biblical scholars believe that there is a chiasmus in Philemon 5. Those who find chiastic structure here base their conclusion on the frequent occurrence of chiasmus in the Bible and the theological implications within this verse. That is, does Philemon have faith in other saints as well as the Lord Jesus, or only in the Lord Jesus? Whether or not there is a chiasmus determines how the verse will be interpreted (Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek). The formally equivalent NASB retains the form of the original Greek:

NASB Philemon 5 because I hear of your love, and of the faith which you have toward the Lord

Jesus, and toward all the saints.

The four parts of the structure in question are:

(1) love

(2) faith

(3) toward the Lord Jesus

(4) toward all the saints

The NASB wording seems to say that Paul has heard of the (2) faith that Philemon has toward two different referents (grammatical indirect objects), first (3) the Lord Jesus, and secondly, (4) all the saints. The use of the comma after “Lord Jesus,” however, allows for the possibility that the NASB translators noticed chiastic structure here. If they did, the comma may have been intended to cause the reader to pause, to allow for the chiastic reading that Philemon’s (1) love was toward (4) all the saints, while his (2) faith was toward (3) the Lord Jesus. One would doubt that translators would put such heavy responsibility upon a single punctuation mark, the comma, however. And even if they did, no English readers would know that the comma was intended to link parts (1) and (4), unless they had enough guidance or background in chiastic structures to be alert to the possibility of a chiasmus here. Normal rules of English structural interpretation call for an interpretation of the NASB reading to be linear, rather than chiastic, that is, that Philemon’s faith is toward both (3) the Lord Jesus and (4) all saints.

Other versions which, similarly, do not make a chiastic reading of this verse clear are KJV, NKJV, RSV, Wms, JBP, REB, NJB, NAB, ISV, LB, HCSB, and ESV.

This list includes all of the most commonly used formally literal versions, that is, those which place a higher premium upon preserving the form of the original when possible, except for the NRSV, plus a few others which are not (JBP, REB, LB, NJB; the ISV promotes itself as “literal-idiomatic”).

The non-chiastic translation in the ISV is unexpected, since one of its translators is Dr. David Alan Black who recognizes the chiasmus of Philemon 5, as noted on page 134 of his book, Linguistics For Students of New Testament Greek. Dr. Black correctly states:

“Failure to recognize chiasmus can sometimes lead to a misunderstanding of a passage (see Matt. 7:6 and Philem. 5).”

The NIV gives a chiastic reading, linking Philemon’s (2) faith to (3) the Lord Jesus, and his (1) love for (4) all the saints:

NIV Philemon 5 because I hear about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints

The TNIV retains the chaism in translation but revises the word order to be closer to that of the

underlying Greek:

TNIV Philemon 5 because I hear about your love for all his people and your faith in the Lord Jesus

Other versions which indicate the chiastic relationship between the first and fourth parts of the Greek of Philemon 5 are Barclay, Wuest, NRSV, TEV, CEV, NCV, GW, NLT, and NET. The NET footnote about the chiastic wording is interesting.

Books describing chiastic structure are:

The following webpages are devoted to Biblical chiasmus:

Return to Terminology index

Choppy

Same as Disjointed.

Return to Terminology index

Clarity

The quality of being clear, easy to understand, lucid, free from unnatural forms or expressions which hinder understanding. Clarity is one of the three most important qualities required of a good translation, the other two being accuracy and naturalness.

Same as Perspicuity.

Clear

Easy to understand because something is expressed in ordinary, natural language forms, using vocabulary known to the target audience. English Bible versions which are translated in Plain English will usually be clear to their readers. See Clarity and Perspicuity.

Closest natural equivalent

This is a form of idiomatic translation. The translators of the recent God’s Word English version state that the philosophy they used was that of closest natural equivalent (Preface, page xii):

The first consideration for the translators of God’s Word was to find equivalent English ways of expressing the meaning of the original text. This procedure ensures that the translation is faithful to the meaning intended by the original writer. The next consideration was readability. The meaning is expressed in natural American English by using common English punctuation, capitalization, grammar, and word choice. The third consideration was to choose the natural equivalent that most closely reflects the style of the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek text. This translation theory is designed to avoid the awkwardness and inaccuracy associated with form-equivalent translation, and it avoids the loss of meaning and oversimplification associated with function-equivalent translation.

The GW translators seem to be using the terms closest natural equivalent and “function-equivalent” (more often called functional equivalent translation) in non-standard ways. It is not at all clear to the editor of this glossary how closest natural equivalent translation differs from functional equivalence translation. As I understand these two terms, they are equivalent. Oversimplification is not necessarily associated with functional equivalence translation or any other translation philosophy, for that matter.

Oversimplification simply reflects lack of adequate discipline to find equivalent ways to express the same meaning as the original.

Return to Terminology index

Coherence

Coherence and cohesion are closely related. At the Literary Features website, for a text to be coherent it must make sense. If it does not, it is, by definition, incoherent. One of the qualities that contributes to textual coherence is cohesion.

For further reading, consult the following:

Return to Terminology index

Cohesion

Cohesion is the quality of well-formed discourses (texts) that gives them an internal unity, making them “hang together.”

Sentences flow smoothly from one to another within that discourse. There are appropriate interpropositional relations marked, either explicitly or implicitly. There is a unity of vocabulary. Pronominalization natural to the language enables the reader to know that he is reading about the same participant (topic) introduced earlier in that discourse. Halliday and Hasan were two linguists who published good studies of cohesion within English discourse.

Every language has its own cohesion strategies. Those strategies must be followed for that language in order for a translation to be clear and natural, with a high degree of readability. The translator should not simply follow the cohesion strategies of the source text. For instance, if the source language repeats proper names for the same participant within a discourse, the translator should not simply repeat the same proper names in each instance, instead of changing the appropriate ones to pronouns for smooth topicality flow. Otherwise, in some languages, we may be giving the inaccurate message that each reiteration of the proper name introduces a new character with the same name as the previous one. More literal English versions of the Bible often lack appropriate English cohesion signals, and so they sound disjointed, “choppy.”

Return to Terminology index

Collocational clash

A collocational clash (see Baker 1992:14-15; Beekman and Callow 1974; Blight 1992:13-14; Larson 1984/1998) occurs when words are placed together which should not occur together, according to the rules or usage of a particular language. Languages treat the collocation of various words and concepts differently, so words which can properly occur together in one language may not properly occur together in another. Typically, a collocational clash is due to some semantic or pragmatic incompatibility between the words. Translators need to be aware of collocational clashes. They often occur when a translator preserves the collocation of forms which can properly occur together in the source language, but not in the target language.

In Spanish one can say “Voy a dar un paseo,” literally, “I’m going to give a pass,” which translates correctly to English as “I’m going for a walk.” Spanish allows the collocation of “dar” (“to give”) and “un paseo” (“a pass”). But in English we create a collocational clash if we translate this Spanish literally, since, unlike Spanish, English grammar does not allow the collocation of the verb “give” and noun object “pass.”

In English the following words collocate acceptably in these idioms:

He’s taking a trip.

He’s taking a nap.

He’s taking a chance.

But some similar words collocationally clash. We note the grammatical unacceptability with the

standard linguistic symbol for such unacceptability, the asterisk (*):

He’s taking a *jump.

He’s taking a *sleep.

He’s taking an *idea.

Collocational clashes sometimes occur in English Bible versions:

RSV Luke 21.15 “for I will give you a mouth and wisdom”: It is appropriate in English to collocate “give” and “wisdom”. But in English the verb “give” does not collocate with the noun object “mouth”. To properly express the meaning of “give a mouth”, a translator needs to find a synonymous wording, which will collocate properly, according to English lexical rules (“give” and “words” collocate for some speakers of English, and this happens to be the collocation used in the NIV, TEV, GW, and NRSV).

NIV 2 John 6: “his command is that you walk in love”: “walk” and “love” do not collocate naturally in English, but they apparently did in Greek. If someone wishes to translate to English without collocational clashes, they would find a substitute for “walk” which will have the same meaning and can occur naturally with “love.” Greek “walk” in this verse referred to how one lives, so the collocational clash can be easily resolved by substituting the word “live” for “walk”. In addition, “in love” is not a very natural English phrase, so it would be better to substitute the equivalent adverb “lovingly” which can be used here naturally. A resultant natural rendering would be: “his command is that you live lovingly.” (Because the Greek metaphor of “walk” meaning ‘live’ is so common in the Bible, many English translators choose not to remove this particular collocational clash.)

Return to Terminology index

Colloquialism

An utterance which is characteristic of informal, typically spoken, language. Colloquialisms are often short-lived, fad sayings. It is appropriate that Bible versions avoid colloquialisms if they are intended for use by the general public. The reason they should be avoided is that they have a shorter lifespan than ordinary language and they often are used by only a limited portion of a language population. Some English colloquialisms are: bummer, cool, dude, spiffy, uptight, radical, and high on Jesus.

Return to Terminology index

Commentary

A commentary explains the meaning of a text. Those who study the Bible often use commentaries to help them understand the meaning of various parts of the Bible.

Following are some online commentaries on the Bible:

Return to Terminology index

Committee translation

Translation done by a group, rather than a single individual. Some English versions made by a single person have been The New Testament In the Language of the People (Charles B. Williams), The New Testament in Modern English (J.B. Phillips), The New Testament: An Expanded Translation (Kenneth S. Wuest), The New Testament: A New Translation (William Barclay), Living Bible (Kenneth Taylor), and The Message (Eugene Peterson). Translations done by a single individual often have better style, since their stylistic features of creative individuals are not “leveled out” by committee work. But committee translation has distinct advantages, also, especially in increased accuracy that comes from the checks and balances process of committee work. Vernacular translations produced under the United Bible Societies are typically committee translations.

Return to Terminology index

Common language translation (CLT)

A common language translation is a version of the Bible which is in the “plain”, ordinary language of the average speaker. It follows an idiomatic translation approach. The vocabulary and grammatical constructions are chosen carefully to ensure that they are in common usage by ordinary speakers of the language. A common language translation for English would be in Plain English. The TEV and CEV are common language translations. The book Bible Translations for Popular Use, by William L. Wonderly, was about common language translation. A common language translation in Spanish is titled Dios Llega al Hombre (“God Comes to Man”). A number of other common language translations have been produced in the past three decades. The United Bible Societies, with national offices in many countries, often lead the effort to produce common language translations in national languages, such as Korean, Polish, Norwegian, and Ilocano. See Vernacular translation.

Return to Terminology index

Communicative accuracy

As used in this glossary, communicative accuracy refers to the degree to which the original meaning in a source text is understood by the users of a translation. It is possible for a translation to be technically or exegetically accurate, and yet be worded in such a way that the original meaning is not communicated to the users of a translation. Communicative accuracy depends on naturalness in translation, but naturalness by no means guarantees communicative accuracy: a translation can be worded naturally yet not be accurate.

Communicative accuracy is relative to the background that any particular audience or individual brings to a translation. For instance, seminary professors are often well-versed in the metaphors and idioms of the biblical languages. They can understand literal translations of those metaphors and idioms more accurately than can someone who is not familiar with them.

Return to Terminology index

Community testing

Field testing a translation among fluent speakers of a wide range of ages, educational backgrounds, social levels, and knowledge (or lack thereof) of the Bible. The process tests a translation for accuracy to the original, naturalness in the target language, comprehension, and clarity of understanding. All translations should be community tested, including those which are done in majority languages, such as English, French, and Spanish, by theologically trained fluent speakers of those national languages. Every translation should be tested by speakers other than the translators themselves or anyone else on a translation committee. Following initial community testing, a translation is revised and further tested until the desired meaning, clarity, and naturalness levels are reached.

Return to Terminology index

Complete equivalence (CE)

Complete equivalence (CE) translation is a relatively new term and not often used in discussion of Bible translation approaches. The NKJV claims to be a CE translation. In the Preface to the NKJV CE is defined as seeking “to preserve ALL (emphasis theirs) of the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form”.

The Bible being produced by the Original Bible Project is also said to be of the CE translation approach, which seems to be regarded as synonymous with “literal translation” at the OBP website.

The book Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), by James Price, argues for CE translation.

Return to Terminology index

Comprehension check

One of the checks during community testing. A comprehension check tests to determine what speakers understand the meaning of a translation to be. The understanding desired is the same as the meaning of the original text.

During comprehension testing, the examiner should avoid using yes/no questions, that is, questions which can be answered with a “yes” or “no,” such as “Did you understand this?” Such yes/no questions often yield little useful information to the translator. Sometimes those being questioned will answer “yes” because they feel it is the socially polite response, or because they do not want to disappoint the persons who have worked hard on the translation. Instead the tester should use content questions. Some useful content questions are:

  • Tell me in your own words what this means.
  • What are the main points you got from that?
  • What do you think Jesus meant when he said that?
  • Who was that about?
  • What kind of person was he talking about?
  • What is the connection between the last part of what I read to you and the first part?
  • When would you use that word?
  • Who do you think would normally say that word?

Return to Terminology index

Concordance

Concordance is when a translator seeks to translate a word of the original by the same word in the target language wherever it occurs. Sometimes concordance reduces accuracy in translation, because it does not take into account the differing senses of meaning that a word has in varying contexts. This is one of the difficulties with literal word-for-word translations.

Return to Terminology index

Connotation

See the following website:

Compare Denotation.

Return to Terminology index

Construction

Construction refers to any language form, or structure, in other words, some particular way that language parts relate to each other. Linguists essentially use the terms construction, form, and structure as synonyms.

English usually indicates possession with a noun phrase consisting of possession marked by a possessive suffix on the possessor followed by a noun, the object which is possessed, as in:

John’s book

In Cheyenne, possession is marked on the object possessed, not on the possessor:

John he-môxe’ėstoo’o

John his-book

This construction means, literally, “John his-book”.

To indicate possession, Greek uses a genitive construction, in which the genitive case is marked as a suffix on the possessor:

biblivon Iwavnn-ou

book John-of.him

Formally, the Greek would correspond to English “book of John”, which is a literal translation of the Greek construction. This, however, would not be the best translation for English, since English possession would normally be indicated with the possessive noun phrase “John’s book.” Use of the English possessive phrase is the most accurate and natural (therefore, idiomatic) translation of the Greek genitive possessive.

Return to Terminology index

Context

Context refers to the environment or setting in which an utterance occurs. There are various contexts which are crucial for a translator to be aware of. The immediate linguistic context consists of words, phrases, and sentences which surround the utterance in question. This is discourse or textual context. The linguistic context also includes the situational context, that is, the social context in which the utterance was made. This includes the identity of speaker and addressee, their relationship, and the purpose of the utterance in the mind of the speaker. This social context is the concern of pragmatics. Ultimately, the pragmatic context also includes the time, place, and culture in which the utterance was made. So a translator must be aware of the historical, anthropological, and sociological environment in which the utterance he is translating was made.

Return to Terminology index

Critical apparatus

A critical apparatus is a section of a text which gives information on variants found in manuscript copies of its own textual history, which are relevant to determining the most likely form of its original text.

Return to Terminology index

Critical text

Text of the Greek New Testament determined through textual criticism.

There are two main New Testament text traditions today (with various subtypes), the critical text, based on the text types which have the oldest copies available today, and the Majority Text, which gives priority to the text types with the largest number of text copies available today. The critical text is also known as the eclectic text.

The main critical text of the New Testament used today is the Nestle-Aland text, which appears in another edition as the UBS text. See Textus Receptus.

Return to Terminology index

Cultural clash

A cultural clash occurs when something in culture of the source language has a distinctly different cultural value from the same thing in the culture of the target language. In such cases, the translator should keep the original meaning by adjusting the form of the cultural symbol or adding enough background information to indicate to the target language users what the original cultural value was. Otherwise, the users of the translation will get the wrong meaning, and preservation of original meaning is the highest priority for a translator. Here is an example: a Jewish man who had taken a Nazirite vow would cut his hair to indicate the end of that vow. But a Cheyenne man (of the North American Indian tribe) cuts his hair to indicate that he is in mourning. The same symbol, cutting one’s hair, has different cultural meanings. So when one translates that a man cut his hair (to show the end of his Nazarite vow), the meaning of the cutting would need to be made clear in Cheyenne translation. If not, Cheyenne readers could easily assume that the original man cut his hair in mourning. Such adjustments are NOT adding any meaning to Scripture. They are simply making explicit meaning that was implicit to the original hearers. In fact, if we do not make such implicit information clear, when it is not understood by current readers, we are actually taking away part of the original meaning.

Return to Terminology index

Cultural substitute

Use of a different translation term for an item from the source language text which is unknown to the target language hearers. Translators must be prudent in the use of cultural substitutes. They should not introduce anachronisms. A cultural substitute should have the same function in context as the original item, be as similar in form as possible, and be compatible with Biblical culture. (Blight 1992:19) In Matt. 26.20 it was legitimate for the KJV translators to use the cultural substitute “sat down” for the original term “reclined” (a prone position, used for eating in Jesus’ day). The two terms are not literally the same, but the two bodily positions have the same function in the context of eating within the original and target cultures.

Compare Transculturation which is a different phenomenon from cultural substitution.

Return to Terminology index

Denotation

See the following website:

Compare Connotation.

Return to Terminology index

Descriptive grammar

Descriptive grammar is the study and description of how people actually speak. As such, it contrasts with prescriptive grammar which attempts to say how people should speak. Modern linguistics is concerned with descriptive, rather than prescriptive, grammar.

Return to Terminology index

Dictionary

A dictionary is a book which lists words of a language along with their meanings. Dictionaries can have a variety of formats and purposes.

See Lexicon.

Return to Terminology index

Donor language

Same as source language.

Return to Terminology index

Discourse

Discourse refers to the entirety of an utterance. When recorded it is called a text. A discourse may be one of several overall types of genre and it can be composed of more than one embedded genres. Sensitivity to discourse factors is crucial for a translator, since any word or sentence takes part of its meaning from its discourse context.

Return to Terminology index

Discourse analysis

The study of discourse, its genres, structures, importance of discourse to understanding the meanings of its parts, including words in discourse context.

See the following books and webpages on discourse analysis, see:

Click here for the Discourse analysis section on the Bible Translation website.

Return to Terminology index

Disjointed

Disjointed refers to any utterance or writing in which its words and phrases do not connect smoothly with each other. There is a lack of literary flow. The speaking or writing sounds choppy. Typically, disjointedness occurs because there has been insufficient attention paid to including cohesion devices of the language. A translation will often sound disjointed if it is translated literally from the source language. In such a process the translator often assumes that meaning is essentially found in individual words, and does not understand that crucial meaning is also found above the word level, connecting words to each other and sections of discourse to each other. A translator must fully understand what the devices are in his own language for connecting words, phrases, and larger portions of discourse, and use those devices to translate the devices which have the same function in the source language.

Return to Terminology index

Doublet

A doublet is the use in some languages of two (or more) terms conjoined to create an expression which typically intensifies the meaning of either term used alone. The two parts of a doublet are either synonymous or have a generic-specific relationship. In literature on Biblical rhetorical structures, doublets are usually referred to as rhetorical parallelism or synonymous parallelism. See the book Doublets In the New Testament, by Bruce R. Moore, for good discussion and a thorough listings of Biblical doublets.

NASB Eph. 2.19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household.

“Strangers” and “aliens” are synonyms, referring to a single status of “outsiderness” which the Ephesians Christians previously had, before they became Christians.

NRSV Psalm 118:24 This is the day that the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.

We consider “rejoice” and “be glad” to be synonyms and their conjoined structure to be a doublet. For languages, such as English, which do not seem to have doublets as part of their grammatical inventory, this verse would accurately and naturally be translated as:

“This is the day that the LORD has made; let us be very glad about it.”

Doublets are similar to hendiadys.

Return to Terminology index

Dynamic

If a translation is dynamic we mean that the original meaning is communicated naturally in it, as well as accurately. Dynamic translation contrasts with literal translation, which often loses some of the original meaning in its attempt to retain the form of the original as much as possible. A dynamic translation pays careful attention to the natural features of the target language. It uses a vernacular (commonly used) vocabulary as opposed to a specialist vocabulary of the target language. A dynamic translation attempts to speak in the language of the average fluent speaker of the language. The terms dynamic translation and idiomatic translation are equivalent.

Return to Terminology index

Dynamic equivalence (DE)

Dynamic equivalence is a translation principle which was promoted by the Bible translation scholar Eugene Nida. With this principle a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the target language wording will trigger the same impact in its hearers that the original wording had upon its hearers. As some have mistakenly concluded, Nida never pitted “meaning” against “impact” (or reader “response”, as he called it). Nida, as do all informed translators, understood that meaning is a totality (“bundle”) which includes meanings of parts of words (morphemes), words themselves, how words connect to each other (syntax, grammar), words in communication contexts (pragmatics), connotation, etc. We always want a hearer to understand the same meaning as did hearers of the source text. That, essentially, is what Nida was saying.

But dynamic equivalence, as a concept, puts an overly narrow focus upon the response of hearers, perhaps sometimes at the expense of other factors which are also crucial to adequate Bible translation, such as accuracy of the message, the uniqueness of the original historical setting, etc. The term dynamic equivalence has often been mischaracterized. Because of this, and also because most translators recognize that translation adequacy calls for attention to a multiplicity of factors, most translators today do not use the term. Instead, as they characterize how it is often necessary to use different FORMS of the target language to encode the same MEANING as the original, they prefer to use terms which are easier to understand such as idiomatic translation, meaning-based translation, closest natural equivalent, and functional equivalence. A lay term used by some people is thought-for-thought translation. None of these terms is exactly the same as dynamic equivalence, although, like dynamic equivalence, all focus upon preservation of meaning, rather than form, when there is tension between the two.

The KJV translators understood that one cannot always translate the forms of a language literally and still retain the original meaning. There are several passages in the KJV which exemplify dynamic equivalence. For instance, KJV Rom. 6.2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

The KJV exclamation “God forbid” of Romans 6.2, and numerous other verses in the KJV, is dynamic equivalence translation. It is not a literal translation of the original Greek, me: genoito “not may it be” (“may it not be” in more natural English word order). Instead, it is a strong English exclamation using God’s name, a translation which the KJV translators felt was more natural in English and which
has an impact which is, presumably, closer to what the impact of the original had upon its hearers than the literal “May it not be” would have on English hearers. With this dynamic equivalence rendering, the KJV translators place a higher priority upon how the original meaning will come across to the English hearers (that is, “reader response”) than they do holding to the literal form of the original.
They were translating total meaning of the Greek phrase here instead of simply (literal) meaning at the word level of language.Compare Functional Equivalence.

<!–Visit the following webpages on dynamic equivalence:

–>
Return to Terminology index

Eclectic text

Same as critical text. Greek text of the New Testament which gives priority to the oldest known copies of the original text. Compare Majority Text. See Textual criticism.

Return to Terminology index

Ellipsis

Ellipsis is the deliberate omission of some aspect of language form whose meaning can be understood from the context of that form. Ellipsis is sometimes called gapping by linguists. Languages vary in whether and how much they allow ellipsis. So translators must sometimes supply in a translation what is ellipted in the original, so that the meaning of the original will be preserved in the translation.

Return to Terminology index

Epistle

An epistle is a letter, a literary composition which serves as correspondence between individuals or groups. The epistles of the Bible are largely written in hortatory genre. Additionally, some scholars conclude that the epistles were written in a unique genre of Greek called epistolary.

Return to Terminology index

Epistolary

Epistolary is a distinctive discourse genre claimed by some to characterize Greek letters, of which the epistles of the New Testament

would be examples.

Return to Terminology index

Equivalent

Equivalent refers to having the same meaning and function. Theoretically, absolute equivalence between forms in the same language or between different languages may never be possible, but equivalence for all practical purposes is often possible and is a foundational concept for translation theory.

Equivalence of translated forms to those of the source language is analogous to synonymy within a single language.

Return to Terminology index

Essentially literal translation

The translators of the ESV promote it as:

an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise
wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is
on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking

into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.

It appears that an essentially literal translation may have some more natural wordings than a literal translation, and so is easier to read. The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) is probably another essentially literal translation.

Return to Terminology index

Euphemism

Euphemism substitutes an acceptable, inoffensive expression for one that is socially unacceptable, offensive, or which may suggest something unpleasant (Beekman and Callow, Translating the Word of God, page 119):

KJV I Cor. 11.30 For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Original Greek “sleep” was used by Paul here as a euphemism for being dead. In many cultures, it is inappropriate to speak about death directly. English speakers use a number of euphemisms for death, in the attempt not to speak too directly about this unpleasant topic. Examples are: “expired,” “deceased,” “gone to his reward,” “gone home,” and “passed away.”

Return to Terminology index

Exact equivalence

As far as we know, the term exact equivalence has not been used in the context of Bible translation. The nearest term may be complete equivalence.

Exact equivalence refers to when a term in the target language is identical in meaning and scope to a term in the source language (this usage of the technical term scope may be close to another term, semantic range, which refers to all possible meaning senses for a word) . The two terms of the source and target languages which are exact equivalents are exact semantic matches.

Return to Terminology index

Exclusive language

Language forms which are perceived to exclude some members of a society. For instance, for many English speakers today, the word “man,” when used generically to refer to “humanity,” is perceived to exclude females (within its referential meaning).

The opposite of exclusive language is inclusive language.

Return to Terminology index

Exegesis

Exegesis is the analysis of a Biblical text to determine its meaning. Before one can translate a Biblical text, he must exegete it to know its meaning. See Hermeneutics.

Return to Terminology index

Exegete

An exegete is someone who studies to determine the meaning of a Biblical text. At least one person on a Bible translation team needs to be an exegete, so that the meaning of the original text is determined, before that text can be translated to the target language.

Return to Terminology index

Exegetical accuracy

Exegetical accuracy refers to how closely a translated text preserves the meaning of the original text. See also Accuracy and Faithfulness. In this glossary we distinguish between exegetical accuracy and communicative accuracy.

Return to Terminology index

Explicit information

Explicit information is overtly stated. It contrasts with implicit information.

Return to Terminology index

Expository

Expository discourse explains or describes something.

Return to Terminology index

Extended metaphor

An extended metaphor is a metaphor which is extensively developed. Typically, there is a relatively large amount of discourse devoted to this figure and there is theological focus placed upon it. Some extended metaphors used in the Bible are:

  • body, referring to a local group of believers and/or all Christians
  • bread of life, referring to Jesus
  • vine, referring to Jesus, who gives life to believers, figuratively, the branches.

Simple metaphors often cannot be translated literally to another language, because they will not be understood with their original intended figurative meaning. But the translator must usually find some way to retain extended metaphors because so much of Scripture refers to them in their figurative sense. One solution is to translate an extended metaphor as a simile in the target language, if this can be done. For instance, one might translate, “A group of believers is like a body….”

Return to Terminology index

Extraneous information

Extraneous information is material which is included in a translation which is not found explicitly in the source text, nor can it legitimately be considered to be implicit in the source text to the degree that it is necessary for communicating the central message of the source text. Inclusion of extraneous information can be one cause for criticism that a particular translation is interpretive. If extraneous information is true and relevant to helping one better understand the background or meaning of a passage, it belongs in a commentary, not in the translation itself. Compare Implicit information and Explicit information.

Return to Terminology index

Faithfulness

Faithfulness refers to how closely a translation preserves the meaning of the original. It is synonymous with fidelity, and essentially synonymous with accuracy, but translation theory sometimes differentiates slightly between faithfulness and accuracy. Faithfulness can, and should, also refer to how closely a translation honors the natural lexical and grammatical patterns of the target language. Faithfulness should look both directions, toward the source and toward the target.

Return to Terminology index

Fidelity

Fidelity refers to the quality of being accurate. It is the same as faithfulness.

Return to Terminology index

Field testing

Field testing is testing a translation to determine if it communicates the meaning of the source text accurately, clearly, and in natural forms of the target language. Field testing is done among a range of speakers if a translation is targeted to be used by a range of speakers, such as speakers of different age, educational, and social groups. Field testing is the same as Community testing.

If I’m testing to determine if the English idiom “Are you pulling my leg?” is understood by a group of ESL (English as a Second Language) students, I would read to them a short paragraph, such as this:

“John went to the mailbox and brought in the mail. He looked at the envelopes. He opened one of them and said to his wife, “Hey, Mary, we just got a leter from the Publisher’s Clearing House Sweepstakes. We’ve won $1 millon.” Mary laughed and said, “Are you pulling my leg?”

Hypothesis: The ESL students may not yet understand the meaning of the English idiom, “Are you pulling my leg?”

Field test question: “What does it sound like to you that Mary said to John?”

If test subjects simply repeat Mary’s actual words, we cannot tell if they understand the idiom, so if they just repeat, then we would follow up with the next question:

“What do you think that means?”

Field testing works for testing how any subject pool understands the meaning of any utterance in any language, including wordings from translations of the Bible.

The last chapter of the book “Meaning-Based Translation,” by Mildred Larson, is on field testing and gives good advice for constructing appropriate questions to test a number of different linguistic issues in a text.

Figure of speech

A figure of speech is any of several kinds of non-literal usage of words. Figures of speech are used to achieve an effect beyond the range of ordinary language. Some figures of speech described in this glossary are:

See also Idiom.

These websites feature figures of speech in the Bible:

Return to Terminology index

Form

Same as Construction.

Return to Terminology index

Formal equivalence translation (FE)

Same as Form-equivalent translation. This refers to a translation approach which attempts to retain the language forms of the original as much as possible in the translation, regardless of whether or not they are the most natural way to express the original meaning. Sometimes when original forms are retained, the original meaning is not preserved. Usually, when this happens the translator is not aware of it. Field testing is required to help the translator discover when original meaning has not been preserved in the translation. When people speak of some versions of the Bible being literal, they are referring to ones which have been translated with a formal equivalence translation approach.

Formal equivalence translation is essentially the same as word-for-word translation. Word-for-word translation is a lay term, while formal equivalence translation is a technical term.

Although formal equivalence translations have weaknesses in terms of readability, overall preservation of original meaning, and impact, they are useful for helping one understand HOW meaning was expressed in the original text. They can help us see the beauty of original idioms, rhetorical patterns, such as Hebrew poetic parallelism, and how individual authors used certain vocabulary terms uniquely. It is not so easy to appreciate these factors from reading idiomatic translations, because these factors are related to form and idiomatic translations are willing to lose original form to maximize preservation and understandability of original meaning.

Visit the following webpages on formal equivalence:

Return to Terminology index

Form-equivalent translation

Same as the more commonly used label, formal equivalence translation.

Form-equivalent translation is described in the preface to the God’s Word translation (page xi):

The oldest theory of translation is form-equivalent translation (often inaccurately called literal translation.

In this type of translation, the translator chooses one of a limited number of meanings assigned to each Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek word. The translator fills in the words that belong in the sentence but folows the word arrangement and grammar that is characteristic of the original language. Such a translation is often viewed as accurate. However, it can result in awkward, misleading, incomprehensible, or even amusing sentences. For instance, a form-equivalent translation of 1 Samuel 9:2 could read: ‘From his shoulders upward Saul was taller than any of the people.’ In English this implies that Saul had a misshapen head and neck. Translations using this theory have made the Bible more difficult to read and understand in English than it was in the original languages.

Return to Terminology index

Free translation

A free translation is one which preserves the meaning of the original but uses natural forms of the target language, including normal word order and syntax, so that the translation can be naturally understood. Free translation is a kind of idiomatic translation. For examples of free translation see the Cheyenne story in the entry Interlinear translation.

Return to Terminology index

Front translation

A specially designed tool to assist a native translator. It is prepared by an advisor for a specific translation project for the mother tongue translators under his supervision. The advisor creates a front translation with the goal of making the meaning explicit and as easy as possible for the mother tongue translator, whose ability in English (or another national language, such as Spanish, French, or Indonesian) is limited, to use. The advisor studies (exegetes) a passage of the Bible, then writes up an accurate front translation based on this exegesis. The front translation contains all the meaning of the original, including implicit information which may need to be made explicit in the translation. The front translation has a structure that takes into consideration the unique vocabulary and grammatical patterns such as word order, phrase and clause structure, and idioms of the receptor language.

Return to Terminology index

Fullness of meaning

A term used by some translators to refer to translation which attempts to preserve all aspects of original meaning, including denotative meaning, connotative meaning, emotive meaning, associative meaning, nuances, and ambiguity.

Return to Terminology index

Function

In terms of language study, function refers to the purpose for which a language form or phenomenon exists. More broadly, function refers to the purpose for which any utterance is made. An utterance can be any length of speech that communicates some meaning. Function refers not only to individual words and how they relate to each other, but also to how words are used. For instance, in some languages it is possible to repeat something for some effect. A translator needs to know what that effect is, that is, what is the function of repetition in the language under study. It is the function itself which must be translated, not necessarily the way (form) that function is encoded in a language. For example, some languages do not permit repetition, as did New Testament Greek with its frequent occurrences of what is translated as “Verily, verily,” in English (for example, John 3.3; 3.11; 5.19 . But if we know what the function of repetition in the source language is, we can look for an equivalent structure (or process) in the target language which has the same function. This approach is referred to as functional equivalence translation.

The translator should constantly ask, “What is the function of this particular language phenomenon in the language from which I am translating?” He then matches the same functions between languages, regardless of what forms are used to carry out those functions. Forms communicate meaning through various functions required of language. If functions are not the same, then meanings will not be the same. And the purpose of translation is to transfer meaning.

Language must perform a wide range of functions. Some of the most important functions that we call upon our speech to perform are:

  1. To inform
  2. To question
  3. To command
  4. To deny
  5. To emphasize
  6. To sequence narration of events
  7. To indicate logical relationships, such as causality
  8. To indicate continuity of participants
  9. To indicate continuity of actions
  10. To contrast

Linguists who regard discovery of language function as a primary task of linguistics are called
functionalists. Their approach to language study is called functional linguistics and functionalism.

Return to Terminology index

Functional equivalence

Functional equivalence translation is a subcategory of what many call idiomatic translation. Bible translation consultants de Waard and Nida updated Nida’s previous term, Dynamic Equivalence, to functional Equivalence in their book, From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986.

The translators of the God’s Word (GW) English version describe this philosophy of translating (which they call function-equivalent translation) as follows (their Preface, page xii):

A newer theory of translation is function-equivalent translation (often inaccurately called paraphrasing). In this type of translation, the translator tries to make the English function the same way the original language functioned for the original readers.

The preface continues with statements that I am not sure I can agree with, but they do reflect opinions about this translation philosophy which are held by an important percentage of those who evaluate Bible versions:

However, in trying to make the translation easy to read, the translator can omit concepts from the original text that don’t seem to have corresponding modern English equivalents. Such a translation can produce a readable text, but that text can convey the wrong meaning or not enough meaning. Furthermore, function-equivalent translations attempt to make some books readable on levels at which they were not intended. For instance, Song of Songs was not written for children. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians is very sophisticated and not intended for novices.

This preface does not identify which versions its authors regard as function-equivalent translation, but by process of elimination with the two other philosophies described in the preface, form-equivalent translation and closest natural equivalent translation (used in GW), we can guess that the GW translators are referring to versions such as LB, TEV, CEV, and NCV. We also do not know which translation approach the GW translators would regard as underlying more literal translations such as NIV, ISV, NET, and NLT, which are not precisely form-equivalent translations, yet they do not seem to fit into the function-equivalent category, as described in the GW preface. The GW translators contrast their approach, closest natural equivalent translation, with function-equivalent translation, but we do not know if they view GW as the only closest natural equivalent translation. It seems clear that not all who critique Bible versions use the same terms to describe translation philosophies, nor do they use all the terms in exactly the same way.

The editor of this glossary is more comfortable with the terms formal equivalence and idiomatic translation, approaches to translation which appear on opposing ends of an idiomaticity scale. Some English translations cluster near either end of this scale while others are best described as being somewhere in between. Creating new terms such as closest natural equivalent translation may be helpful, but those who use them should describe them well enough so that it can be better understood how they relate to terms already in use such as idiomatic, dynamic, and meaning-based translation.

Return to Terminology index

Functional linguistics

Functional linguistics (also known as functionalism) attempts to find explanations for language phenomena outside of these phenomena themselves. The explanations typically have to do with cognitive processes, memory limitations, sensory perception, conservation of energy via retention of morphological paradigms, the human capacity (and need) for design and patterning, etc. The work of functionalists contrasts with those who pursue formal linguistics, which typically (a la Chomsky) defines linguistics (especially syntax) as a self-contained field of study, and finds “explanations” in formal notations. Functional linguists pursue a variety of theoretical approaches to language but are united in viewing language function of primal importance. Linguists who have approached language functionally include Wallace Chafe, Simon Dik, William Foley, Talmy Givón, John Haiman, Michael Halliday, George Lakoff, Ronald Langacker, Ellen Prince, Sandra Thompson, Teun van Dijk, and Robert Van Valin. Functional linguistics and Relevance Theory are two areas of linguistics today which have great value for translation theory.

The following books focus on functional linguistics:

Return to Terminology index

Gender

Gender is a grammatical means of classifying entities referred to by a language according to a variety of factors, typically including biological gender. Gender marking in a language can include feminine, maculine, and neuter, as well as other categories not associated with biological gender, such as animacy. Gender is often marked on nouns or their modifiers. It can be signaled on pronouns and verbs through agreement with the gender of the nouns with which they are syntactically associated. Some gender marking in languages is purely arbitrary, such as the fact that Spanish la pluma “the pen” is feminine, but the semantically related el lápiz “the pencil” is masculine. In New Testament Greek, theos “God” is masculine but “Holy Spirit” is neuter.

Return to Terminology index

Gender accuracy (inclusive language)

Gender accuracy (with related labels of inclusive language and gender-neutral language) refers to accurately translating the original according to its intended meaning with regards to gender, not simply according to its literal gender form. There are examples in the KJV where its translators translated what they believed to be the gender meaning when it is different from the grammatical gender of the Biblical forms. For instance, note the difference between the NASB and KJV renderings of this beatitude:

NASB Matt. 5.9 Blessed are peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

KJV Matt. 5.9 Blessed are peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.

The NASB literally translates the original Greek word huioi “sons” here as English “sons”, even though the Greek word often was used with a secondary, extended sense to refer to any children, whether sons or daughters, and many exegetes, including those on the KJV translation team, believe it had this secondary gender-neutral meaning in this beatitude. The KJV translates the original meaning as “children”. The KJV translators were not influenced by any social agenda outside of Scripture when they translated the Greek with its broader (secondary) gender-neutral meaning in this context. Instead, they simply translated what they believed to be the original meaning to English, without theological or social bias. They used an English form to match the Greek original form, even though the primary meaning (“sons”) of the Greek was different from that of the English word used, “children.”

Currently there is an animated, often divisive, debate among conservative Christians over how much inclusive language should appear in English versions of the Bible. There is a growing literature on inclusive language in Bible translation.

My own opinion is that for as much as accuracy in labeling can help (and it often doesn’t, as we’ve seen with other divisive issues), it would be best to refer to this issue in translation as one of gender accuracy, rather than inclusive language or gender-neutral language. Our aim, with regards to translation of gender, must be, as already stated, accuracy to the meaning of the original text. Our aim is not to neuter Scripture, to feminize it (or masculinize it, for that matter), but, rather, to be as accurate to the original meaning as possible in translation. Notice that I keep repeating “accuracy to the meaning of the original.” I am not emphasizing “accuracy” to the form of the original. Form is always important. Form conveys meaning. But form is always relative to the structure of a particular language, including the structures (lexicon, syntax, rhetoric) of the original Biblical languages. For languages which have grammatical gender (typically masculine, feminine, and sometimes neuter, but often other genders such as animate versus inanimate, people versus animals), the language itself often REQUIRES assignment of gender to various words, and sometimes that assignment is relatively arbitrary. For instance, for the two very similar writing implements, pen and pencil, Spanish assigns different gender. “Pen” is feminine, “la pluma,” while “pencil” is masculine, “el lápiz.” There is nothing in the nature of pens or pencils that determines their Spanish gender.

And translation of gender must be accurate with regards to meaning in the target language, no less than meaning in the original. At one point in the history of the English language, the word “man” could be understood as an inclusive term, when appropriate, to refer to any person, regardless of whether they were males or females. But English has changed so that that sense of the meaning of “man” has obsolesced for many speakers. “Man” no longer has this inclusive sense, for many English speakers. If we continue, therefore, to use “man” with a meaning that has obsolesced for many speakers, hoping that current readers of our Bibles will understand the correct inclusive meaning of “man,” we may communicate the wrong meaning. And we are mistaken in thinking that an educated clergy (or English teachers) can teach an obsolescent meaning to current readers so that they will understand it properly each time they encounter inclusive “man” in the Bible; people do not respond well to being taught meanings of words different from the meanings they already know for those words. To the degree that we have not translated for CURRENT understanding and usage of the English language, we have not translated to the vernacular, as William Tyndale and John Wycliff called for so sacrificially.

Hence, today, with at least some, if not many, English speakers no longer easily understanding “man” as a gender-inclusive word, it is no longer accurate to translate the original Greek relative pronoun “tis” of 2 Cor. 5.17 as “man”:

KJV 2 Cor. 5.17 Therefor if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature …

Instead, “tis” is accurately translated as “anyone”:

NKJV 2 Cor. 5.17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation …

Of course, we then have to wrestle with the knotty problem of the masculine pronoun “he”, which refers back to “anyone” in this verse. Just as “man” no longer has an inclusive meaning sense for a majority of speakers, there is an increasing number of speakers for whom “he” and “him” are no longer inclusive pronouns. The issue over how to translate such inclusive pronouns most accurately for current English speakers will continue to be debated for some time among conservative Christians. There are solutions which are discussed in the literature today, but there is not as yet a consensus among conservative Christians as to which ones best address accuracy in English language usage as well as accuracy to the original Biblical text. My own opinion, as a linguist and Bible translator, is that we need to test our translations carefully with a wide range of speakers to determine if they have reached the level of accuracy in English which we desire to be faithful to the meaning of the original texts. If they do not, we must revise our translations until they do. We must not give up accuracy to the original, but we also must not give up accuracy in the target language. If adjustments in the rendering of English pronouns are required by current speakers so that they will understand intended gender of the original text, then so be it. There may not be a “perfect” solution in the near future to how to translate inclusive pronouns, so until English usage settles on pronouns which most speakers are comfortable with, we many continue to experience social and theological tension over this issue. In time, I believe, as our language continues to change (as all languages do), enough speakers will use some pronoun forms that truly SOUND inclusive to their ears, and then it will be clearer for translators of English Bible versions which pronouns to use to most accurately convey the inclusive meaning of the original texts.

For many years I have found myself using the so-called “singular they” of English as a pronoun with singular inclusive meaning, although it is grammatically plural in form. (I also sometimes use the pronoun “he” as an inclusive pronoun.) Use of the singular “they” is one inclusive language solution for many speakers of English. It has a long history of usage within the English language, and has been used by many authors, including the translators of the KJV, Shakespeare, C.S. Lewis, and Dr. James Dobson of the Focus On the Family radio program. For instance, I naturally say and hear as “grammatically correct”, sentences such as:

Everyone should bring their own notebook to class.

I was strictly taught “schoolbook English grammar” (that is, prescriptive grammar) in my early school years. I was taught that the “correct” pronoun to use here is “his”, not “their”. This was considered to be so since “everyone” was, and still is for some speakers, considered a singular noun in this context. Since my childhood, however, my pronoun usage here has been changing, whether consciously, to avoid using masculine sounding prescriptively taught “inclusive” pronouns, or unconsciously. Along with a large percentage of the English speaking population, I have, therefore, shifted to use of “their” in this sentence above, instead of my earlier use of “his.” Today “his” doesn’t sound right to my ears. It doesn’t even sound “grammatical”. For many speakers, including myself, the “every” of “everyone” causes it to sound like a plural pronoun in this context, not a singular, and so, for them, the “correct” (possessive) pronoun, for pronoun number agreement in this sentence, is “their”. (At this point in my life, partly because my childhood was so long ago, I cannot actually recall if “his” in this sentence ever sounded right to my own ears. It may have simply been something I was taught is “correct.”) As an important aside, my own pronoun usage here is mixed, since I still treat “everyone” as a singular with regard to subject-verb number agreement, as in:

Everyone has their own notebook.

“has” is inflected as a singular verb, as opposed to “have” as in:

The girls have their own notebooks.

Let us continue to uphold accuracy in translation as a primary goal, with accuracy referring both to faithfulness to the original texts as well as the natural language structures of target languages into which we translation. Let us listen carefully to each other in the debate over inclusive language. And let us move forward in translation so that more and more people throughout the world can hear God’s written Word accurately, clearly, and naturally. Naturalness, of course, directly reflects language usage. Issues concerning gender accuracy in translation depend crucially on language usage of current speakers in any language. And let us speak, and debate, with as much Christian grace as possible, on this and other issues of Bible translation.

Three books recently published on the topic of inclusive language in Bible translation are:

Return to Terminology index

Genitives

Greek genitives (one of the cases of the inflectional system) are notorious for giving translators difficulties. Some genitives may be translated to English using a corresponding form (usually an English prepositional phrase) without loss of meaning, but often the English form must be adjusted in order to preserve the original meaning of the genitive most accurately. As always, meaning must take priority over form whenever there is translational tension between the two. Some linguists use the term genitives to include English possessors.

Click on the following link to read our discussion about translation of the genitive in 2 Cor. 5.14:

2 Cor. 5.14
Whose love guides us?

Click on the following link to see how various English versions have translated 2 Cor. 4:6, which has a long string of Greek genitives:

2 Cor. 4:6

See Genitive case.

Return to Terminology index

Genre

Genre (sometimes called text genre) refers to a distinctive type of discourse. Some common genres in languages of the world are

One of the most common types of genre in the Bible is narrative, typical of the action sections of historical books such as Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles.

The epistles consist of large portions of hortatory discourse.

A translator must be aware of genre, since language features will often vary depending on which genre is being translated.

Return to Terminology index

Gist

Gist (or précis) is an important translation concept. It appears to be very similar to what the linguist van Dijk called macrostructure. It is crucial that a translation adequately transfer the gist of the source language text to the target language. By gist we refer to the essence of a text, its central idea or ideas, the main points. It is far too common that a translation will have the smaller pieces (words, phrases, clauses) of a text translated well, but users of the translation cannot figure out what the gist of the message in that translation is. Adequate translation must transfer the original message in such a way that the central points are clear in the translation. One way of approaching this is to try to look at the text to be translated as a whole, and then to translate as holistically as possible. A translator should ask, “What is the main point of the text I am translating? What is the original author’s overall intention?” From this “big picture” view can come a better overall structure within which the details of the translation can fit more comfortably.

During community testing of a translation, some of the most important questions to ask are:

  • “What is the main thing this is saying?”
  • “Tell me the main ideas.”
  • “What do you think the author wanted us to do?”
  • “What do you think the author wanted us to know?”

If gist is missed, advise revise.

Return to Terminology index

Gloss

A gloss is a simple word or phrase match for a word or phrase in another language. It is not a complete definition of that word or phrase, since a full definition would include all senses of a word in various contexts. For example, the English word “man” is a standard gloss for the Greek word anthropos, but “man” is not a complete definition of anthropos, since anthropos could sometimes refer to “person,” regardless if that person is a male or female. A translator must not simply translate with glosses, but must consider the meaning of words within both source and target language contexts to determine what is the best word to use to translate the meaning of a source word.

There is another meaning of the word gloss which is also relevant for translators. This kind of gloss refers to a short note inserted in the margin or between the lines of a text, which explains a difficult or technical expression. This meaning of the word used in the word glossary, which is a collection of explanations of terms. Many Bible versions today contain a glossary to explain technical terms used in the translation, such as sacrifice, synagogue, Sabbath. And, of course, these web pages are a glossary, containing explanations of technical terms used by translators.

Return to Terminology index

Grammar

Grammar and syntax are terms which are essentially synonymous for the general public–and for many speakers, syntax would not be a term in their normal working vocabulary. Standard dictionary definitions for grammar range over a number of senses of the term as it is used by speakers of English. Many linguists technically differentiate between grammar and syntax, at least some of the time. Linguistically, grammar can refer to the overall organization of language or a specific language, and sytax refers, more narrowly, to the relationship among elements of a language above the word level, that is, among words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. See Syntactic function.

Return to Terminology index

Greek

The language in which the New Testament was originally written. It is debated whether some portions of the New Testament may have first been written in Aramaic and then translated to Greek.

Return to Terminology index

Hearer

The person who reads or listens to something. A translator should work with his hearers in mind, sensitive to the vocabulary and language constructions which they understand.

Return to Terminology index

Hebraism

Same as Semiticism.

Return to Terminology index

Hebrew Bible

The collection of books regarded as the Jewish Scriptures. The Hebrew Bible became the Old Testament of the Christian Bible.

Return to Terminology index

Hellenistic Greek

The dialect of Greek in which the New Testament was originally written. It is often called Koine (common) Greek. This dialect evolved from Classical Greek.

Return to Terminology index

Hendiadys

Hendiadys is a grammatical structure in which two nouns linked by “and” (Greek kai) have a subordinate relationship, rather than a coordinate relationship usually found with “and” (kai). In hendiadys the two nouns represent a single modified concept, rather than two separate concepts found in coordinate structures. It is important that translators of the Bible recognize hendiadys, so that its composite meaning will be properly translated to the target language, not simply its original “and” form. Most target languages, including English, usually require that some construction other than coordination be used to adequately translate the meaning of an original hendiadys. Often the corresponding target language construction will be a noun modified by an adjective or relative clause.

There are several examples of hendiadys in the New Testament, recognized as hendiadys by a number of Bible scholars (e.g., for the following verses, variously, Turner, Blass and DeBrunner, Arndt and Gingrich, Bullinger, Hendriksen, Vincent, Bruce, Black), and translated as hendiadys in some Bible versions.

Following are some of these examples:

Matt. 4.16 “the region and shadow of death” is left as a coordinate structure (non-hendiadys meaning in English) in KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, ISV, and NET. It is translated with the meaning of a hendiadys in LB (“the land of death”), TEV (“the dark land of death”), NIV (“the land of the shadow of death”), REB (“the land of death’s dark shadow”), NJB (“a country of shadow dark as death”), NAB (“a land overshadowed by death”), NCV (“a place covered with the shadows of death”), CEV (“the shadow of death”), and GW (“a land overshadowed by death”).

Luke 2.47 “his understanding and answers” is left as a coordinate structure (non-hendiadys meaning in English) in KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NJB, LB, REB, NCV, CEV, GW, ISV, and NET. It is translated with the meaning of hendiadys in TEV (“his intelligent answers”).

Luke 21.15 “a mouth and wisdom” (KJV, NKJV, RSV) is also left as a coordinate structure (non-hendiadys meaning in English) in NRSV, NASB, NJB, LB, NLT, GW, and ISV. It is not translated as simple coordination in NET (“the words along with the wisdom”), but this is not clearly hendiadys translation either. It is translated with the meaning of hendiadys as “the wisdom to know what to say” (TEV, CEV), NAB (“a wisdom in speaking”), and in NCV (“the wisdom to say things”).

Acts 23.6 “of the hope and resurrection of the dead” is left as a coordinate structure (non-hendiadys meaning in English) in KJV, NKJV, RSV, and NASB. It is translated with the meaning of hendiadys as “the hope of the resurrection of the dead” (NRSV, ISV, NET), and in NIV (“my hope in the resurrection of the dead”), REB (“our hope of the resurrection of the dead”), NJB (“our hope in the resurrection of the dead”), NAB (“for hope in the resurrection of the dead”), LB (“I believe in the resurrection of the dead”), NLT (“expect that the dead will come back to life”), TEV (“the hope I have that the dead will rise to life”), CEV (“I believe that the dead will be raised to life”), NCV (“I believe that people will rise from the dead”), and GW (“expect that the dead will come back to life”).

Col. 2.8 “philosophy and vain deceit” is left as a coordinate structure (non-hendiadys meaning in English) in KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NLT, and ISV. The following versions recognize the hendiadys as referring to a single concept and modify that concept with conjoined adjectives: NIV (“hollow and deceptive philosophy”), REB (“hollow and delusive speculations”), NCV (“false and empty teaching”), and GW (“shallow and misleading philosophy”). It is also translated with the meaning of hendiadys in TEV (“the worthless deceit of human wisdom”), CEV (“senseless arguments”), NJB (“the empty lure of a ‘philosophy’), NAB (“an empty, seductive philosophy”), and NET (“an empty, deceitful philosophy”).

2 Tim. 1.10 “life and immortality” is left as a coordinate structure (non-hendiadys meaning in English) in KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, Wms, Bar, Wuest, NIV, NAB, JB, NJB, REB, ISV, and NET. It is translated with the meaning of hendiadys as “everlasting life” (LB, NLT), and in Phi (“the life that is eternal”), TEV (“immortal life”), CEV (“life that never ends”), NCV (“life that cannot be destroyed”), and GW (“eternal life”).

Another webpage on hendiadys is:

See Doublet which is closely related to hendiadys.

Return to Terminology index

Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics is the science of the interpretation of literature. In this glossary, we are particularly interested in Biblical hermeneutics. Biblical hermeneutics is concerned with developing reliable rules (or principles) to interpret the Bible. Before the Bible can be accurately translated, we must determine what it means. To do so we must use credible principles.

Some excellent textbooks have been written on hermeneutics, including:

See these other webpages on hermeneutics:

Return to Terminology index

Historical anachronism

Redundant term with the same meaning as Anachronism.

Return to Terminology index

Hortatory

Hortatory discourse attempts to persuade someone to do something.

Return to Terminology index

Hyperbole

Hyperbole is exaggeration for emphasis or effect, not meant to be taken literally. The original meaning of hyperbole must be maintained in translation, even if a particular hyperbole cannot be expressed with a hyperbolic form in the target language. Examples of hyperbole are boldfaced in the following verses:

NKJV John 3.52 And what he has seen and heard, that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony.

NKJV Mark 1.33 And the whole city was gathered together at the door.

Return to Terminology index

Idiom

An idiom is an expression which is unique to a language and cannot be understood simply from the meaning of its individual words. In other words, the actual meaning of an idiom is not the total of the meaning of its individual parts. An idiom is a figure of speech. English has many idioms, such as:

  • It’s raining cats and dogs.
  • He’s the top dog around here.
  • It’s time to hit the sack.
  • He spilled his guts.
  • She had a cow when I got home late last night.
  • I’m just pulling your leg.
  • They’re horsing around.
  • It’s still up in the air.
  • I punched his lights out.
  • You hit the nail on the head.
  • He’s still wet behind the ears.
  • He’s sicker than a dog.
  • He bit off more than he can chew.
  • His eyes are bigger than his stomach.
  • He broke my heart.
  • It’s raining cats and dogs.
  • He’s down in the dumps.
  • You’re skating on thin ice.
  • He fell off the wagon.
  • He’s beating around the bush.
  • He let his hair down.
  • He passed the buck.
  • He skunked me.
  • Can I chew on your ear?

These websites feature English idioms:

There are many idioms in the Bible. If they are translated literally, their original figurative meaning will not be preserved accurately in many languages:

New Testament Greek idioms (see also New Testament figures of speech)

These websites feature Biblical idioms:

Following are some English idioms with the common verbs “give,” “take,” “have,” “make,” “catch,” and “got.” Probably most of these could not be translated literally to any other language. Notice that the idioms are acceptable with some object nouns but not others. Nouns which are not acceptable with these verbs are marked with the asterisk (*). In some cases we abbreviate a total idiom to save space, for instance, “give a hand” would normally be used as “Give me a hand!” or “Let’s give him a hand” (which happens to two different meanings in English, one meaning to help him and the other to applaud him by clapping your hands).

GIVE

  • give a hand
  • give an *ear
  • give a break
  • give a speech
  • give someone the boot
  • give someone the *shoe
  • give someone the shaft
  • give a cold shoulder
  • give a *warm shoulder
  • give an earful

TAKE

  • take a bath
  • take a shower
  • take a walk
  • take a hike
  • take a trip
  • take a look
  • take a peek
  • take a *hear
  • take a *smell
  • take a picture
  • take a bite
  • take a nap
  • take a *sleep
  • take a *snore
  • take a chance
  • take a seat
  • take a chair
  • take a *bed

HAVE

  • have a drink
  • have an *eat
  • have a cow
  • have a *horse
  • have a meeting
  • have a chat
  • have a talk
  • have a cold
  • have a cough
  • have the flu
  • have gas
  • have cancer
  • have nits
  • have a fit
  • have an *anger
  • have a *rage
  • have a job
  • have an idea
  • have a *joy

MAKE

  • make sense
  • make love
  • make *hate
  • make do
  • make fun (of)
  • make trouble
  • make a fuss
  • make peace
  • make war
  • make the bed
  • make a puzzle
  • make time
  • make a payment
  • make it

CATCH

  • catch a cold
  • catch the bus
  • catch the train
  • catch the *car
  • catch someone’s drift
  • catch someone’s eye
  • catch someone’s *hand
  • catch someone’s fancy
  • catch a ride
  • catch a mistake
  • catch an *answer
  • catch his breath
  • catch a *trip
  • catch a *walk
  • catch the meaning

GET

  • get someone’s goat
  • get the show on the road
  • get the ball rolling

Return to Terminology index

Idiomatic translation

Idiomatic translation is where the meaning of the original is translated into forms which most accurately and naturally preserve the meaning of the original forms. Idiomatic refers to being in the common language of average speakers, using the natural phrasings and idioms of the language. The terms idiomatic translation, dynamic translation, and free translation are essentially equivalent, and the non-technical term thought-for-thought translation probably is, as well. The term functional equivalence is a subcategory of idiomatic translation. A newer term, meaning-based translation, is also a synonym for idiomatic translation. Compare Literal translation.

Return to Terminology index

Illocutionary force

Illocutionary force is what speakers/authors intend when they say/write something. In many languages the typical function assumed to belong to a certain form, such as a question, may be quite different from what a speaker intends when he utters a particular question in the speech context. For instance, if I ask my child, “Why did you color on the walls of your bedroom?” my intention may not really be to learn the reason for his behavior, but, rather, to scold him for coloring on his walls. See this Illocutionary force webpage. And see Intention in this glossary. When translating, it is critical that the original illocutionary force of an author is accurately communicated in the translation. This may require changing syntactic form if the same or similar target language syntax does not communicate the same illocutionary force as did the source language syntax in its context.

Compare Perlocutionary force.

Return to Terminology index

Implicature

See the following website:

Return to Terminology index

Implicit information

Implicit information is not overtly stated in an utterance but is nevertheless communicated in its meaning. It is information which is understood to be part of that utterance by its original hearers. Such information may be implied within the passage by the syntax, semantics, pragmatics, logic, or culture of the speakers of that language. Implicit information must often be explicitly expressed in a translation if its presence is not understood by the speakers of the target language. Compare Explicit information and Extraneous information.

Return to Terminology index

Implied information

Same as Implicit information.

Return to Terminology index

Inadequate meaning

Any of several categories of meaning transfer from the source language to the target language which are not adequate. Inadequate meaning is determined through community testing. Categories of inadequate meaning are:

Return to Terminology index

Inclusive language

Language forms which are perceived to include various segments of a language community. Inclusive language often refers, at least in discussions of English, to including both males and females. For instance, the English word “humanity” is perceived by all English speakers to be inclusive language, including both men and women, whereas the word “man,” in some contexts, has been understood by many speakers to include both males and females, whereas it is perceived by others as excluding females.

Bible translators should not change the gender references of the biblical source texts. They should never expand nor limit the gender reference of those texts. Bible translators should accurately retain the gender references of the biblical source texts in their translations to any language, of course, within the limits of the gender resources of that language.

The opposite of inclusive language is Exclusive language.

See Gender accuracy.

Return to Terminology index

Inspiration

Inspiration is the belief that God supervised the writing of the Bible to such a degree that it faithfully speaks the message he intended. Inspiration does not mean that God directly dictated all the words of the Bible. It allows for the individual writing styles and creativity of the different human authors. Inspiration does mean that the Bible is special, that it has God’s “stamp of approval.” Biblical passages which refer to inspiration are 2 Timothy 3:16 and 1 Peter 1:21.

See further discussion of inspiration at this website:

Return to Terminology index

Intention

Intention refers to a speaker’s (or author’s) meaning, including the effect he desires his utterance to have upon his hearer. Same as Authorial intention. One classification lists three intentions authors have for affecting their audiences: (1) to change their ideas, (2) to change their emotions, or (3) to change their behavior. When translating, it is important that overall authorial intentions be clear, whether implicitly, as allowed by the target language and its rhetorical devices, or explicitly. Sometimes meticulous attention to translation of lower-level linguistic units obscures authorial intent for the source text as a whole, and, in doing so, part of the meaning of the source text is missing in the translation.

See Illocutionary force.

Return to Terminology index

Interlinear translation

An interlinear translation presents each line of the source text with a line directly beneath it giving a word by word literal translation in a target language. An interlinear translation is useful for technical study of the forms of the source text. But the literal translation will typically not be very understandable, since it only has target language words but often lacks target language natural word order and syntax (grammar).

Following is an interlinear translation of the familiar Indo-European story of the Ant and the Grasshopper in the Cheyenne language (with a Cheyenne cultural change at the end). This format is condensed from the more detailed format at the Cheyenne Language Web Site.

A line preceded by \tx is the original Cheyenne text line. A line preceded by \wg is the literal English word gloss (simple translation) line. We include here a third line, preceded by \ft, which is a free translation, that is, an idiomatic translation which preserves the meaning of the original but is freely rearranged so that the English makes good sense to English readers.

\tx  Háhkota     naa hátšeške.
\wg  grasshopper and ant

\ft  The grasshopper and the ant.

\tx  Hátšeške éhma'xêhotse'óhesêstse.
\wg  ant      much worked

\ft  An ant worked hard.

\tx  éhnêšema'xeéstovôhtsénôse  héstáme     hemâheóne.
\wg  She much brought in        her food    at her house

\ft  She brought a lot of food into her house.

\tx  Méanëva     hová'éhe   mó'éeho'tsêhéhe tséxhemâheónêse.
\wg  in summer   something  she had it      where had house she

\ft  In the summer she had something where she had her house.

\tx  Naa tsé'tóhe háhkota      é'ôhkenémenèsêstse.
\wg  and this     grasshopper  regularly sang

\ft  And this grasshopper sang.

\tx  E'ôhkevé'hého'sóesêstse  méanëva.
\wg  he regularly dance       in summer

\ft  He would just dance during the summer.

\tx  "Hápó'e   éme'hotse'óhestove.
\wg   likewise there should be working

\ft  "Likewise you should work.

\tx  Hápó'e   hová'éhe  éme'éseotsehe   nemâheóne
\wg  likewise something should be put   in your house

\ft  Likewise something should be put in your house

\tx  nonóhpa mâxho'tonéto         nêstsemèse         hová'éhe,"
\wg  so that when arrives cold    you will eat it    something

\ft so that when it's cold you'll have something to eat,"

\tx  éxhetaesesto      hátšêškeho.
\wg  hw was told by    ant

\ft  He was told by the ant.

\tx  "Hová'âháne,"   éxhesêstse   háhkota.
\wg   no             he said      grasshopper

\ft  "No," said the grasshopper.

\tx  "Náto'seéeho'sòò'e,
\wg   I going to dance

\ft  "I'm gonna dance.

\tx  naa màto náto'senéméne.
\wg  and also I going to sing

\ft  and also I'm gonna sing.

\tx  Násáahotse'óhetanóhe.
\wg  I not work want

\ft  I don't want to work.

\tx  Eheómêhoháaehö'ta."
\wg  it overly sunny

\ft  It's too sunny."

\tx  Nêhe'še tséstatonétotse    éstaosáanemésêhétanòsêstse.
\wg  then    when it was cold   he eat wanted

\ft  Then when it was cold, he wanted to eat.

\tx  "Otsêhámóhe,
\wg   oh yes

\ft  "Oh yes,

\tx  hátšeške éma'xeéstóvóhtse   héstáme      hemâheóne.
\wg  ant      stored             in her food  at her house

\ft  The ant stored a lot of food in her house.

\tx  Náto'sêhémêsêhétáno,"      éxhesêstse.
\wg  I am going to eat want     he said

\ft  I want to go eat," he said.

\tx  Estâhémêsêhétanòsêstse.
\wg  he went there to eat want

\ft  He went to eat.

\tx  E'éšeméhaenêhetaesesto,
\wg  he had already been told that by her

\ft  She had already told him,

\tx  "Nêstsêsáahoxomatséhe  mâxháeanato."
\wg   you I will not feed   when you are hungry

\ft  "I'll not feed you when you're hungry."

\tx  Naa éstanêšêševátamósesto   hátšeške  háhkotaho
\wg  but she pitied him          ant       grasshopper

\ft  But the ant had pity on the grasshopper.

\tx  éxhoxomósesto.
\wg  she fed him

\ft  She fed him.

It is easy to see from the Cheyenne that its literal translation is more difficult to read and understand than its idiomatic (“free”) translation.

We see the same tension over readability between literal and idiomatic translations when we examine interlinear translations of the Bible. Of course, we can also see the advantage, mentioned above, of being able to examine the specific forms of the original text from the interlinear translation. The following verse, 2 Cor. 4.6, exemplifies the advantage and disadvantages of interlinear translations:

 o}ti oJ qeoV" oJ eivpwvn evk skovtou" 
because the God  who  having spoken   out  of darkness 

fw'" lavmpsei o}" e{lamyen ejn tai'" kardivai" hJmw'n 

light will shine   who   shone  in the  hearts  of us 

proV" fwtismoVn th'" gnwvsew" th'" dovxh" 

for illumination  of the  knowledge   of the   glory 

tou' qeou' ejn proswvpw/ ijhsou' cristou'
of the   God  in face    of Jesus  Christ

Idiomatic translation:

For God, who said, “Let there be light instead of darkness,” has gloriously enlightened us through Jesus Christ.

And another possibility, even more idiomatic–many would probably consider this a paraphrase:

God turned on the lights at creation. And now he’s turned on his very own floodlight–Jesus Christ–to shine in our lives.

Return to Terminology index

Interpretation

Interpretation is the process of determining the meaning of something. In this glossary interpretation refers to determining the meaning of something which has been spoken or written.

In particular, we are concerned with discovering the meaning of a Biblical passage before we translate it. A common misunderstanding about Bible translation is that any version other than a literal or word-for-word translation is based on the personal opinions or interpretation of the translator. Some criticize almost every version of the Bible which is not as literal as they feel translations should be, saying that they are “mere paraphrases” or “interpretive translations.” This is an unfortunate and inaccurate characterization. The truth is that any true translation first requires interpretation of the source text, that is, an answer to the question, “What does this passage mean?” This is interpretation which is necessary. But the translation should not be colored by the personal theological biases of the translator. It is this kind of “personal interpretation” which is not acceptable in the translation process. The science of determining what are reliable rules (or principles) for interpreting the Bible is called hermeneutics.

Return to Terminology index

Interpretive translation

A pejorative term used by someone to refer to a translation which he considers to include “interpretation” of the meaning of the source text, rather than simply the “translation” of that text. But since it is impossible to translate anything without determining its meaning (and such determination is, by definition, what interpretation is), this term is technically a misnomer, but it does take on some true logical meaning if the term itself is interpreted (!) to refer to a degree of interpretation on the part of the translator which the critic considers to be greater than necessary. The term interpretive translation, for such critics, would essentially be synonymous with their use of the similarly problematical term, paraphrase. One logically legitimate use of this term would be for instances where a translator inserts information which is extraneous to the particular passage being translated. Such information, if relevant to study of the implications of that passage, belongs elsewhere, such as in a commentary, rather than in the translation itself.

Return to Terminology index

Irony

Irony is language usage in which the opposite is meant from what is said. Often irony is criticism or ridicule appearing in the form of a compliment. The translator must be very careful that the original intent of the Biblical author comes through in his translation of irony.

If the ironic meaning is not grasped by hearers then the translator must revise until they do.

Often, the irony must be removed and some other form substituted which will preserve the author’s intended meaning. Irony and sarcasm are closely related.

RSV Mark 7.9 You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!

TM Mark 7.9 Well, good for you. You get rid of God’s command so you won’t be inconvenienced in following the religious fashions!

NLT removes the irony so readers will not misunderstand how Jesus was speaking to the Pharisee and scribes:

NLT Mark 7.9 You reject God’s laws in order to hold on to your own traditions.

See also Irony: Saying

What You Don’t Mean & Meaning What You Didn’t Say!

Return to Terminology index

Jargon

Jargon refers to a specialized vocabulary of a certain segment of a population. Many trades, occupations, technologies, medical sciences, and academic disciplines (including those of theologians and Bible translators) have their own jargon. If a translation is to be understood by a general population, it must avoid using jargon which is understood only by a certain part of that population. This would include avoidance of Christian jargon in a translation for a wide audience.

Return to Terminology index

KJV-Onlyism

The belief that the King James Version (KJV), also known as the Authorized Version (AV), is the only version of the Bible which English speakers should use. This belief has a number of claims, some of which are that the KJV is the only “inspired” version in English, it is the only version which God has “preserved” for the English language, it is the only accurate version in English.

Some KJV-Onlyism adherents deny that the English language has changed enough since the publication of the KJV in 1611 A.D. to warrant any other English version.

Many KJV-Onlyism adherents refer to themselves as “Bible believers”, implying that anyone else who uses a version of the Bible other than the KJV do not believe the Bible. Some include “KJV” in the term, calling themselves “KJV Bible believers.”

Some KJV-Onlyism adherents believe in “corrective revelation”, that is, that the KJV translators were so guided by the Holy Spirit as they translated that they corrected the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Final written revelation for them resides in the KJV text, rather than in the original Biblical documents.

See the KJV-Onlyism links for further information.

Return to Terminology index

Koine Greek

The dialect of Greek in which the New Testament was originally written. Koine means “common”; this dialect was the common language of Greek-speaking peoples. It is sometimes called Hellenistic Greek. This dialect evolved out of Classical Greek. The outreach of the church throughout the world has always benefitted when the Bible has been translated into a common dialect, that is, the vernacular, rather than an obsolescing or sacred dialect.

Return to Terminology index

Language

See the following webpages:

Return to Terminology index

Lexicography

Lexicography is the systematic study of the lexicon (words and idioms) of a language. A person who does such study is a lexicographer. Lexicographers often produce dictionaries of languages.

Return to Terminology index

Lexicon

A lexicon is the collection of words and word parts used by people speaking a particular language. “Lexicon” is essentially a synonym for the words “dictionary” and “vocabulary,” but is often used to refer to specialized aspects of language vocabulary. A dictionary is a kind of lexicon. A lexicon exists for a language whether or not it is written. The study of vocabularies is called lexicography.

The following book discusses the translator’s interaction with the lexicon:

Return to Terminology index

Linguistics

Linguistics is the scientific study of language. Linguistics is an important tool for good quality translation. Through careful linguistic study, translators can better understand language forms and their functions, in both the target and source languages. Modern linguistics describes how people speak; it does not attempt to say how people should speak, which is called prescriptive grammar.

For overviews of linguistics, visit these websites:

Return to Terminology index

Literacy

The process of teaching people to read something which is written. Literacy follows orthography development for any group which has no written language tradition. See also Orthography and Oral language.

Some websites devoted to literacy are:

Return to Terminology index

Literal translation

Literal translation is where the forms of the original are retained as much as possible, even if those forms are not the most natural forms to preserve the original meaning. Literal translation is sometimes called word-for-word translation (as opposed to thought-for-thought translation). A more accurate, but less well known, label for this approach is formal equivalence translation. Because literal translation focuses on forms of language, it sometimes misses some of the meaning of those forms, since meaning is found not only in the forms of individual words, but also in relationships among words, phrases, idiomatic uses of words, and influences of speaker-hearer, cultural, and historical contexts. Words often have different meanings in different contexts, but a literal translation often does not account for these differences. So literal translation often is not the most accurate form of translation. Compare Essentially literal, Idiomatic translation, and Accuracy.

The following website promotes the literal translation of the NASB:

About the NASB

The following webpages have helpful discussions about literal translation:

Return to Terminology index

Literal-idiomatic translation

The translation approach followed for the ISV English Bible version. The term reflects a desire to translate as preserve the forms of the source language as closely possible while creating a text which will be understandable and readable to the target audience. This is not a standard term within translation theory and may be a theoretical oxymoron, since it is often not possible to be both literal and accurate, and idiomatic translation focuses upon accuracy of meaning and function.

Return to Terminology index

Litotes

Litotes is a rhetorical device in which an antonym (a negative word) is negated to make an emphatic affirmative:

ISV Luke 1:37 For nothing is impossible with God.

Luke 1:37 strongly affirms that everything is possible with God and the ISV rendering nicely translates that original meaning.

NRSV Acts 20:12 and were not a little comforted

Here, the ISV removes the litotes and translates the meaning directly by stating the affirmative emphatically. This is good, clear, accurate translation:

ISV Acts 20:12 and were greatly relieved

Compare Hyperbole, Understatement, and Meiosis.

Return to Terminology index

Loan word

A word which is borrowed from another language. A word which is created in a target language, to directly correspond to meaning parts of a source word is a special form of a loan word, called a calque. The English word superman is a loan word (calque) from the German word Übermensch.

See also Loan translation.

Return to Terminology index

Loan translation

Borrowing the meaning parts of a source word and directly translating them to the target language, instead of using a native term from the target language.

The meaning parts of the source word are directly translated to equivalent meaning parts of the target language. Sometimes the borrowing is partial, with part of a term borrowed and part of it native in form. A word which is created through loan translation is also called a calque. The newly created word is, by definition, a neologism. Sometimes the word itself, not simply its meaning parts, is borrowed. English has borrowed many words from other languages, such as taco, tortilla, skunk, tipi, wigwam, sputnik, and restaurant. These are also loan words, but they are not loan translations.

Return to Terminology index

LXX

Roman numeral for 70, this abbreviation is used for the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible said to have been produced by a group of 70 translators.

Macrostructure

Macrostructure is a term used by the linguist van Dijk. It refers to the “global meaning” of a discourse. It appears to be quite similar to the common notion of the gist of something.

Return to Terminology index

Majority Text (MT)

Text of the Greek New Testament, based on the text types which have the largest number of copies available today. Abbreviated MT. The MT is similar to the Received Text (Textus Receptus), which is the text closest to the textual readings chosen by the KJV translators, but the MT has broader text type support. Compare critical text, which often gives priority to the oldest texts available today.

For further discussion visit the following websites:

Return to Terminology index

Meaning

Meaning refers to something which someone wants to communicate. For this glossary, we consider meaning to include propositional content, denotation, connotation, perlocutionary force, and illocutionary force. Meaning is not simply contained in individual words, but also in how the various words of utterances relate to each other. Important areas of linguistics dealing with meaning are semantics, pragmatics, and lexicography.

Bible translators have typically focused upon meaning in terms of the original author’s intention. This is a longheld principle of hermeneutics. This principle, however, has been debated by some who prefer to locate meaning in receptors, the hearers of the message.

The following website addresses some of this debate:

Return to Terminology index

Meaning-based translation (MB)

This is equivalent to idiomatic translation. The term comes from the excellent textbook, Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language Equivalence, by Mildred L. Larson. This term avoids some of the misunderstandings which have arisen over use of more technical labels for various shades of idiomatic translation, such as dynamic equivalence, functional equivalence translation, closest natural equivalent translation, and even the term idiomatic translation itself. This term properly focuses on the critical need for translation to preserve meaning. Adequate translation cannot always preserve forms of the original, but it must always preserve the meaning of the original. A non-technical term which probably means the same as meaning-based translation is thought-for-thought translation.

See the following webpage which refers to meaning-based translation in the context of ASL (American Sign Language):

Return to Terminology index

Meiosis

Meiosis is another form of rhetorical understatement, similar to litotes.

In 1 Cor. 2:4 Paul says, “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power” (NIV). But he likely had actually preached in Corinth quite persuasively, but was being modest here, using the understatement of meiosis.

Return to Terminology index

Metaphor

Metaphor is a figure of speech where a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit (figurative) comparison. Metaphors often cannot be translated literally. If they are, their figurative meaning can be lost, and that meaning, of course, is the original author’s intended meaning. The implicit nature of the figurative comparison of a metaphor contrasts with the explicit signal of comparison found in a simile, with the explicit signal marked by a word such as “like” or “as,” that there is a figurative comparison being made. Following are a few of the many metaphors found in the Bible. The metaphors are boldfaced. Remember, because these are metaphors, these words are not meant to be understood literally. Instead, we must look for their figurative meaning:

NIV Matt. 7.6 Go not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.

NIV Mark 4.19 I will make you fishers of men.

ISV John 6.48 I am the bread of life.

ISV John 8.12 Later on Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world.

See also Metaphor.

Return to Terminology index

Metonymy

Metonymy is figurative language in which a word or phrase is substituted for another with which it is closely associated:

NASB Acts 15.21 For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

Moses wrote the laws of the Old Testament. They are so closely associated with him, the author, that simply the word “Moses” could refer to the laws which were written by him. The person of Moses was not literally read every Sabbath, rather it was what he wrote that was read.

See also Metonymy.

Return to Terminology index

Model text

This is a more dynamic text, such as TEV or CEV, that would be used along with the base text, to assist a vernacular translator. Compare Front translation.

Return to Terminology index

Morpheme

A morpheme is the smallest unit of meaning in a language. It can be as large as a word, if that word has only one meaning part, or it can be a part of a word which has more than one meaning part. For instance, in the English word redo, there are two morphemes, the first is the prefix re-, meaning ‘again,’ and the second is the morpheme “do”, which can stand alone as a word. In the word dogs, the first morpheme is dog, and the second is -s meaning ‘plural.’ The study of the morphemes of a language is called morphology.

Return to Terminology index

Morphology

Morphology is the study of the morphemes of language.

Return to Terminology index

Mother tongue translator (MTT)

A native speaker of a language, who translates into his own language. Translation should almost always be done by mother tongue translators. Sometimes a translation project will also require the assistance of an Other Tongue Translator (OTT), if mother tongue translators are not trained in the the original Biblical languages or the use of Biblical reference and translation resources. Also called native translator.

Return to Terminology index

Multivalence

Multivalence is the quality of having various meanings or values. This quality is held to be important by translators of the NET Bible who use the term to refer to their belief that certain terms or wordings in their translation need to have multiple meanings in English, based on their understanding of the meaning of the corresponding forms of the original biblical source text.

Synonymous with Polyvalence.

Return to Terminology index

Narrative

Narrative is one of the most common discourse genres. It is composed of sentences that are temporally organized, that is, sequenced according to time.

Return to Terminology index

Native translator

Same as Mother tongue translator.

Return to Terminology index

Natural

A translation is natural if its wordings and grammatical patterns are those which occur in the everyday speech and/or writing of its fluent speakers. Many language criteria should be checked to determine how closely a translation follows natural language patterns, including ordinary vocabulary and grammatical patterns, sentence length, word usage, normal idioms, figures of speech, understandability, complexity of clausal embeddings, and word order. Translators should always be fluent, mother-tongue speakers of the language into which they are translating. They should also be sensitive to what is considered good style within their language group.

A translation should not sound like a translation, but, rather, should sound like a normal discourse of the target language. Many English versions of the Bible are not in natural English, but, rather, have English words appearing in language forms which are like those of the original Biblical languages, instead of the target language. It is possible to preserve original meaning and express it naturally and clearly in a target language. This is translation in the truest, fullest sense.

See our Naturalness chart for English Bible versions.

Neologism

Literally, “new word.” A neologism is a word that is made up for a language. Some neologisms eventually become used by enough speakers so that they become natural words of the languages. Others do not. Translators should avoid making up new words for translation, even if it is difficult to find ways to express a concept in the target language. It is usually best to be patient and keep looking for ways of expressing the meaning of that concept in a natural way in the language. Sometimes the temptation to create neologisms occurs because one holds source language words themselves with such prestige that they become like linguistic icons, and it then becomes difficult to think of ways that the target language might express the total meaning behind such words. Often there will not be a word-for-word match for such source language words. One may need to find a periphrastic (not paraphrastic, which is a different concept) solution for a translation need. For instance, if current speakers of English do not naturally recognize the word “repent,” it is translationally appropriate to express the meaning of “repent” periphrastically, such as with the phrase “turn from your sins.”

Return to Terminology index

Nestle-Aland text

Greek text which follows the critical text hypothesis. Identical to the UBS text, except for some of the critical apparatus. Compare Majority Text.

Return to Terminology index

Obsolescent

Language which is obsolescent consists of words, phrases, or grammatical constructions which are passing out of current usage. They are no longer understandable in their earlier usage to a majority of speakers. For example, the meaning of ‘alive’ for the English word “quick” (as in KJV Heb. 4.12) is no longer known for most speakers. Instead, most speakers only know that the word “quick” means ‘fast.’ A word which is no longer used by speakers is called an archaism.

Return to Terminology index

Original texts

Same as Autographs.

Return to Terminology index

Oral language

Utterances which are spoken but not written. There often are some differences between oral and written language, but if a translator wishes his translation to have a high degree of clarity, the forms of his written language should not deviate too much from ordinary oral language. In many people groups there is no written language, only a tradition of oral language. For these groups to utilize written language an orthography is developed, then literacy introduced.

It is often assumed that a people group must be literate before it can benefit from Bible translation or other literature. However, this viewpoint on literacy is not shared by the entire non-Western world. There are other media besides writing in which literature can be accessible, including oral media such as radio, cassette tapes, and memorized recitation, audiovisual media such as video tapes, film, and television, and kinesthetic media such as drama.

Return to Terminology index

Orthography

A writing system for a language. Essentially the same as an alphabet.

Before a people group can become literate an orthography must be developed for their language.

Return to Terminology index

Other Tongue Translator (OTT)

A member of a translation team who does not know the translation language as a mother tongue speaker, yet who has an important role in the translation process. This person typically fills a team role such as linguist, exegete, consultant, literacy teacher, or program advisor. Sometimes an OTT can make valuable translation suggestions, but the actual translation should almost always be done by a mother tongue translator (MTT)

Return to Terminology index

Parallelism

Parallelism is the use of identical or equivalent syntactic constructions in corresponding clauses, such as repeated lines of a poetic couplet.

See:

Return to Terminology index

Paraphrase

Paraphrase is the process of restating the meaning of something in other words. The original wording and its paraphrase are intended to be synonymous. The Living Bible was properly called a paraphrase by Kenneth Taylor, its author, who used as his source text the American Standard Version of the Bible and reworded it so that it could be understood by his young children for his family’s devotions. It was so effective in helping his family that he published his paraphrase as the Living Bible. Technically, paraphrase is restatement of something in the same language, but the term paraphrase is often used non-technically by people concerned about Bible translation issues to refer to restatement of meaning using one’s own opinions as to what the original meaning of the Biblical text is. Used in this sense, the term typically has negative connotations. When so used as a non-technical term, paraphrase is essentially synonymous with interpretive translation.

Compare Periphrasis.

Following is an example of paraphrase:

“Eschew obfuscation” is a phrase intended to be humorous because it breaks its own instruction.

Neither of its words are known to a majority of average, fluent speakers of English. Paraphrases of this phrase, which would be understandable to most speakers, would be:

“Avoid using big words when you speak.”

“Don’t use big words.”

Visit the following webpage on paraphrase:

Return to Terminology index

Partial meaning

When a translation communicates only part of the essential meaning of the original to its users.

The existence of partial meaning is determined through community testing. Literal translation of some Biblical idioms produces partial meaning. See Inadequate meaning.

Return to Terminology index

Periphrasis

Periphrasis refers to using more words than necessary. Periphrasis can be used for rhetorical effect, often of emphasis. Periphrasis is sometimes required when a target language lacks a word to match a word in the source language. In this case, the translator uses a phrase or sentence to express the same meaning as the source language word. Although the two terms sound nearly identical, periphrasis is different from paraphrasis, which is the use of paraphrase.

Return to Terminology index

Perlocutionary force

Perlocutionary force refers to the impact or effect an utterance has upon its recipient, for example, whether what is said or written persuades, frightens, ridicules, or amuses. A translation should attempt to convey to its audience the same impact that the source text had upon its audience. See Perlocutionary act.

Compare Illocutionary force.

Return to Terminology index

Personification

In personification an object or concept is referred to as if it were a person:

Wisdom is personified in Proverbs:

Prov. 1.20 Wisdom shouts in the streets. She cries out in the public square. (NLT)

Rivers and hills are personified in Psalm 8.8:

Let the rivers clap their hands in glee!

Let the hills sing out their songs of joy before the Lord. (NLT)

Return to Terminology index

Perspicuity

Perspicuity refers to being clearly expressed and easy to understand. It is an important quality that allows the reader to clearly understand details as well as main points of a translation. During community testing, the translator should ask about something that may not be clear, “What does this mean to you?” To see if an entire passage is clear, he should ask, “What is the main point of this?” If hearers cannot clearly understand something, the translation needs to be revised until they do. It is often the case that when a translation is not perspicuous certain important forms of the target language are missing, which are functionally equivalent to forms of the source language which allowed the source text to be perspicuous (clear) to its hearers. Perspicuity is essentially a synonym for clarity. We are not referring here to lack of clarity (perspicuity) due to the complexity of some concepts. We are only referring to linguistic clarity which can exist in most normal language exchanges.

Return to Terminology index

Phrase

A phrase is a grammatical construction consisting of two or more words. These words have a particular syntactic relationship to each other which is part of their meaning within the discourse in which the phrase is found. This phrasal meaning must be translated as well as the meaning of individual words.

Return to Terminology index

Plain English

A form of English which is clear, concise, direct, straightforward, natural, and lively. It is promoted by a rising tide of voices as a kind of English which should be imitated by scientists, computer technicians, linguists, theologians, Bible translators, and others who produce technical speeches, articles, and user manuals. It is closely related to vernacular language. Plain English has its own clear vocabulary and grammar, both of which are subsets of more complicated, often convoluted and esoteric, dialects of English. Plain English contrasts with academese , legalese, and translationese. Some English Bible versions, such as the LB, TEV, CEV, NCV, and, to a large degree, GW, NLT, and The Message, are written in Plain English.

Plain English features active verbs. It uses passive and complex gerund (“-ing”) verb phrases only when required by the situation, minimizes series of prepositional phrases, and avoids run-on sentences.

Research shows that hearers, including those who are technically inclined, understand and enjoy Plain English better than other dialects of English.

Above all, Plain English “eschews obfuscation” (humor alert)!!

Internet resources on Plain English are:

Return to Terminology index

Polyvalence

Synonymous with Multivalence.

Return to Terminology index

Possession

Languages use a variety of forms to indicate possession.

Some, like English, mark possession by some affix on the possessor. English does this with the suffix -‘s on the possessor:

John‘s book

Greek marks possession with the genitive case suffix on the possessor:

biblivon Iwavnn-ou

book John-of.him

Other languages, like Cheyenne, mark possession by a prefix on the object possessed:

John he-môxe’êstoo’o

John his-book

In each case, the translator needs to use the form of the target language which usually indicates possession. He should not use an uncommon or unnatural form, even if it is a possible form, just so he can preserve the form of the source language as closely as possible.

Return to Terminology index

Pragmatics

Pragmatics is the study of language in context. Utterances do not simply “mean” something in isolation. They do not even fully mean something just by the addition of all the lexical (semantics) meanings of words and structures within utterances. Utterances also mean something within a context. There are a variety of contexts in which we speak, including intratextual (discourse) context, speech situation context, and cultural context.

Also see:

Return to Terminology index

Précis

A concise summary or abstract of some document. For the purposes of this glossary, we consider précise to be synonymous with Gist.

Return to Terminology index

Prescriptive grammar

Prescriptive grammar states rules for how people should speak a language. It contrasts with descriptive grammar which simply describes the rules (or principles) which people actually follow when they speak a language. Prescriptive grammar has also been called schoolbook grammar. Some examples of English rules which have been stated within prescriptive grammar are:

  1. Never split an infinitive, as in “Remember to never split an infinitive.”
  2. Never end a sentence with a preposition, as in “That is something prescriptive grammarians cannot put up with.”
  3. Always use the nominative form of a pronoun after the verb “to be”, as in “It is I,” instead of the more common usage today of “It’s me.”
  4. Always use “whom”, the so-called objective form of the relative pronoun “who”, when referring to a syntactic object which precedes its subject and verb, as in “I wondered whom you saw,” instead of what sounds more natural to many (most?) speakers today, “I wondered who you saw.”

Return to Terminology index

Readability

Readability refers to how naturally and easily a translation can be read. The more natural are the vocabulary and forms used in a translation the higher it will rank in readability.

There is not a direct correlation between accuracy and readability. One translation may be accurate but not very readable. Another translation may be very readable but not very accurate.

Of course it is most desired for a translation to be both accurate and highly readable. For conservative Christians, the NLT probably fills that slot at this time. For a wider audience, the CEV is highly recommended for this slot.

Readability is often ranked for the average population of fluent English speakers of approximately ninth grade reading level. Readability is related to Reading level since it is assumed that older and more educated readers can better understand material written in more complicated forms (which, in themselves, can lower readability).

In the opinion of the editor of this glossary, major recent English Bible versions rank as follows in terms of readability. Within each group below versions appear in descending order of readability:

Most readable:

  • LB
  • CEV
  • NCV
  • TEV

Highly readable:

  • NLT
  • GW
  • TM
  • JBP

Stylistically, The Message (TM) is my current favorite version. But its idioms are not always easily accessible to the average target population; a few of its idioms do not seem to be used by very many speakers at all. On the whole, however, it is a delightful version to read. On a scale for impact (which is partly a function of style), I would rank TM the highest. I regard the CEV, NCV, TEV, and GW as stylistically flat, although the CEV is definitely stylistically improved over its predecessor, the TEV. The NLT has some nice style, much of that retained from its predecessor, the LB.

Moderately high level of readability:

  • NIV

Average readability:

  • ISV
  • REB
  • NJB
  • NEB

It is not easy to rank the ISV and NIV with reference to each other. The ISV is often more readable than the NIV but in many other places it is far less readable. There are many run-on sentences. Adequate discourse cohesion is often missing. Although it does not use too many difficult (to read) theological words, or the elevated vocabulary of the NEB, or the sophisticated idioms of TM, the vocabulary of the ISV is uneven, with quite a number of words not in the typical vocabulary of the average target population.

Below average level of readability:

  • NRSV
  • NET
  • NAB

Moderately low level of readability:

  • NKJV
  • NASB

Also see Understandable.

Click here to visit a webpage with helpful information about readability of Bible translations.

Return to Terminology index

Reading level

Reading level refers to an assessment of readability for a particular text. The assessment is based on which grade in the school system is considered to be the appropriate level of education by which a typical student will have achieved that particular level of reading proficiency. Newspapers are typically written for about a 4th grade reading level. The Reader’s Digest magazine has a similar reading level.

Various English Bible versions rank differently in terms of reading level because of differences among them with respect to factors such as vocabulary familiarity, sentence length, and difficulty of syntactic constructions. In the “Bible Comparison Guide,” distributed by the Zondervan Corporation (publishers of the NIV), the grade reading levels are listed as following for these English versions. (The numbers refer to grade reading level. Hence, 4.8 would indicate a reading level expected to be achieved by a typical student nearing the end of the 4th grade. For the Bible abbreviations used below, see English versions.)

  • NIV 7.8
  • NIrV 2.90
  • KJV 12.00
  • NKJV 9.0
  • NLT 6.30
  • LB 8.33
  • NASB 11.32
  • NCV/ICB 3.90
  • NRSV 10.40
  • NAB 6.60
  • TEV 7.29
  • TM 4.8
  • CEV 5.4
  • GW 5.8

[Jan. 27, 2001: We have been informed that the HCSB is ranked at a 6 reading level in its gospel of John.]

The following diagram similarly compares reading levels and includes the translation philosophy used for each Bible version:

This chart is used with permission from Tyndale House Publishers.

Return to Terminology index

Received Text

See Textus Receptus.

Return to Terminology index

Receptor language (RL)

The language into which something is translated. Abbreviated RL. Same as target language.

Return to Terminology index

Regionalism

An expression unique to a particular part of a country. If a translation is to be used by a broad spectrum of a population, it should avoid regionalisms.

For description of some regionalisms in the United States and Canada, visit this website:

Return to Terminology index

Register

Register is a social level of language. A translator has a choice as to which register of a language he translates in. Speakers of languages are sensitive to registers of language and can feel solidarity with people who speak in a register with which they are most familiar, or alienation from one with which they are not. Two possible registers within some cultures would be those of the sophisticated elite and the common working class. Compare Jargon.

Return to Terminology index

Relevance Theory

Relevance Theory (RT) is a relatively new branch of linguistics developed by the British linguists Sperber and Wilson. It focuses on coherence in communication which derives from explicit and implicit information which pertains to a speech situation. Relevance theory builds upon insights in pragmatics. Much of relevance theory promises to be quite relevant (!) to issues concerning translation, as shown by Ernst-August Gutt, in his books listed below.

See:

See also the following article on application of RT to Bible translation:

Return to Terminology index

Rhetorical impact

Rhetorical impact refers to the effect some utterance has upon its hearer. Rhetorical impact has to do with the total bundle of semantics, pragmatics, and speaker intention.

Rhetorical impact is sometimes rather different from the normal impact expected from use of a particular language form. This is always true of rhetorical questions, which have the grammar of questions but the meaning of strong statements or rebuke. Rhetoric is the study of the various kinds of forms and impact that utterances have.

Return to Terminology index

Rhetorical question

Rhetorical questions are frequently used in the Bible. Since not all languages use rhetorical questions, we cannot always use the forms of questions when translating rhetorical questions. Real questions expect an answer; rhetorical questions do not. Here are some real questions in the Bible:

ISV John 6.67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You don’t want to leave, too, do you?”

ISV John 18.26 … “I saw you in the garden with him, didn’t I?”

And here are some rhetorical questions, for which no answer is expected, and the situational context lets us know what answer is assumed by the speaker:

NRSV Mark 2.19 Jesus said to them, “The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they?” (The assumed answer is no.)

NRSV Mark 11.17 He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” (The assumed answer is yes.)

Note that the ISV nicely restructures the rhetorical question to begin in the form of a statement, “It is written,” followed by the question tag, “is it not”. This makes the rhetorical function of the question even clearer in English than does the straight question form in the NRSV:

ISV Mark 11.17 Then he began to teach them, saying, “It is written, is it not, ‘My house should be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have turned it into a hideout for revolutionaries?”

Return to Terminology index

Rhetorical parallelism

Rhetorical parallelism is the most frequent Hebraic poetic structure found in the Bible. It consists of repeated parallel terms in one or more lines of a poetic couplet. The repeated terms may be synonymous or antithetical.

See:

Return to Terminology index

Sarcasm

Rhetorical use of language which is intended to ridicule. Sarcasm is similar to irony, but is more intense and is negative in its impact, whereas irony is not always intended to be negative:

Elijah was sarcastic to the prophets of Baal:

1 Kings 18.27 About noontime Elijah began mocking them. “You’ll have to shout louder,” he scoffed, “for surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or he is relieving himself. Or maybe he is away on a trip, or he is asleep and needs to be wakened!” (NLT)

The intended sarcasm will often not be preserved if the original is translated literally. In such cases the translator may need to include some clues, as the NLT translators have done with the words “mocking” and “scoffed”, to indicate that something is meant to be sarcastic.

Return to Terminology index

Schoolbook grammar

Same as Prescriptive grammar.

Return to Terminology index

Semantics

Semantics is the study of meaning. Translators strive to preserve as much of the meaning of the original text as possible. Total meaning occurs not only in individual words, but also in how those words are inter-related through syntax, including interclausal connections, as well as meaning that is contributed by the cultural and speech context. See also Pragmatics.

Return to Terminology index

Semiotics

See the following website:

Semiticism

A Semiticism is a linguistic form from the Hebrew language used by the writers of Greek in the New Testament. A Semiticism is a kind of loan translation. Also pronounced Semitism. Also called Hebraism.

Return to Terminology index

Septuagint

Translation of the Old Testament into Greek. Abbreviated as LXX (Roman numberal for 70), which stands for the 70 men said to have translated the Septuagint.

Return to Terminology index

Simile

Simile is a figure of speech that indicates a comparison. The existence of the comparison is explicitly signaled with a word such as “as” or “like.” Paul used a simile when he told Timothy:

NIV 2 Tim. 2.3 Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

The word “soldier” is boldfaced here to show that it is the simile. This simile, like all figures of speech, is not meant to be understood literally. Paul was not saying that Timothy was a literal soldier, but that he was to have qualities which were similar to those of a soldier.

Jesus used the mustard seed as a picture to illustrate the nature of the kingdom of God:

NIV Mark 4.31 It (the kingdom of God) is like a mustard seed

Compare Metaphor, in which the figurative comparison is implicitly signaled.

Return to Terminology index

Source language

The language from which something is being translated. Abbreviated SL. Sometimes called the donor language.

Return to Terminology index

Syntactic function

See Syntactic function.

Return to Terminology index

Synecdoche

Synecdoche is figurative language in which a part of something is substituted for the whole or vice versa:

In Luke 3.6 “all flesh” is synecdoche whose meaning is accurately and clearly translated as “all people” (NLT), “all mankind” (LB, TEV, NIV, REB), “everyone” (CEV, ISV), not literally the flesh (skin) of people.

Similarly, in Matt. 16.17 “flesh and blood” is synecdoche meaning “any human being” (TEV, REB, NLT), “any human source” (LB), “no human agency” (NJB), “no person” (NCV), and “no human” (GW).

Return to Terminology index

Synonym

A word that means the same as another word. Theoretically, it is unlikely that any words in any language are perfect, complete synonyms, that is, having exactly the same meaning, at all levels on language including pragmatics, connotation, and register. But there are often words in a language which mean the same, for all practical purposes, and these are reasonably called synonyms. See Synonymous.

The following words are synonyms for “died”, as in the sentence “He died:”

  • expired
  • perished
  • departed
  • passed away

The last two terms, at least, are euphemisms for “died.” Following are even more idiomatic phrases for “died:”

  • kicked the bucket
  • bit the dust
  • bought the farm
  • cashed in his chips
  • checked out
  • went to his reward

Some other examples of synonyms are found at these websites:

Translators need to be familiar with synonyms of their language. Many times a synonym will be more satisfactory in a certain context, due to its having different connotations or being from a more appropriate register of language than another word.

Return to Terminology index

Synonymous

Synonymous refers to having the same meaning as another word or utterance. See Synonym. Paraphrase is a form of synonymy in that it expresses the same meaning in other words.

Finding synonymous expressions is a perfectly legitimate technique for translators, especially when one translation form is unacceptable for one reason or another.

The following website discusses synonymy in translation:

Return to Terminology index

Synonymous parallelism

Synonymous parallelism is the rhetorical use of synonyms or near synonyms to refer to the same entity or action. Synonymous parallelism is one of the most frequent Hebraic poetic structures.

Some people refers to instances of synonymous parallelism as doublets.

Psalm 119:105 illustrates synonymous parallelism:

“Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.” (NASB)

In this poetic couplet, lamp and light both refer to the same entity, the figurative illumination of the word of God.

Synonymous parallelism is a subtype of rhetorical parallelism.

Return to Terminology index

Syntactic function

See the Syntactic function webpage.

Return to Terminology index

Syntax

Syntax and grammar are terms which are essentially synonymous for the general public–and for many speakers, syntax would not be a term in their normal working vocabulary. Many linguists differentiate syntax and grammar, although many linguists, including some who differentiate these terms sometimes, also sometimes use the two terms nearly synonymously. Linguistically, grammar can refer to the overall organization of language or a specific language, and syntax refers, more narrowly, to the relationships among elements of a language above the word level, that is, among words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. See Syntactic function.

Return to Terminology index

Tanakh

The Tanakh (best transliterated as TaNaKh) is the Jewish title for the Hebrew Bible (which became the Old Testament of the Christian Bible).

Return to Terminology index

Target language (TL)

The language into which something is translated. Abbreviated TL. Sometimes called the receptor language.

Return to Terminology index

Text

Text is essentially a synonym for discourse.

For many, however, text refers to a written composition, whereas discourse refers to either oral or written speech.

Return to Terminology index

Textual criticism

The process of trying to determine which copies are closest to the original texts. Biblical textual criticism attempts to determine which variants within the various copies available are mostly likely to be part of the original texts in which the Bible was written. Also called lower criticism. See Critical text and Majority Text.

The following websites feature textual criticism:

Return to Terminology index

Textus Receptus

Latin name for a Greek New Testament text which is very close to the text selections which the translators of the KJV used. Abbreviated as TR. Also known as the Received Text, which is the English translation of this Latin name. The TR favored a text tradition known as the Byzantine text type. Compare Majority Text and Critical text.

Return to Terminology index

Theological terms

These are words for important religious concepts found in the Bible. These words are usually semantically complex, that is, they contain several meaning elements bundled in a single word. In their unitary form, they are usually not understood well, if at all, by the average language speaker who does not have specialized religious (church or school) training. These words are part of church jargon. Examples of theological terms found in some English Bible versions are: covenant, grace, justify, propitiation, repent, righteousness, and sanctify. Those concerned about Bible translation issues debate whether such theological terms should be left in translation as single complex terms, or further translated to vernacular English with their complex meaning elements unbundled to phrases containing words found in the average speakers’ vocabularies. For instance, instead of using the single word “Repent!”, the translator can unbundle it to the equivalent phrase, “Turn from your sins!” The debate over inclusion of theological words largely hinges on who is the intended audience for a translation, and whether or not we want that audience to be able to understand the words in the translation by themselves or with the assistance of religiously trained clergy, commentaries, or other Bible helps. At this website we believe it is usually best to translate all words into the vernacular, including theological terms.


Visit these other websites which define various theological terms:

Return to Terminology index

Thought-for-thought translation

One way of referring to idiomatic translation. The New Living Translation is often described as a thought-for-thought translation. In such a translation the meaning of the original Biblical text is expressed in equivalent thoughts, that is, meanings.

Thought-for-thought translation is typically contrasted with word-for-word translation.

Return to Terminology index

Transculturation

Transculturation is adaptation of the message of the Bible so that that message can more easily communicate to people whose culture is different from the cultures of Bible times. Bible translators should not adapt the original message of the Bible to any culture. To be true to the biblical source text, Bible translators need to retain references to historical, cultural, and other aspects of the original contexts in which the Bible was written.

Some books on transculturation as it relates to missionization are:

Kraft, Charles H. 1979. Christianity in culture. A study in dynamic biblical theologizing in cross-cultural perspective. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis.

Shaw, R. Daniel. 1988. Transculturation: The Cultural Factor in Translation and Other Communication Tasks. Pasadena: William Carey Library.

Wendland, Ernst R. 1987. The Cultural Factor in Bible Translation. UBS Monograph Series, No. 2. New York: United Bible Societies.

Return to Terminology index

Translation

Translation is the process of transferring the meaning of utterances in one language to another.

Return to Terminology index

Translation theory

The study of proper principles of translation. Translation theory is based on a solid foundation of understanding of how languages work. It recognizes that different languages encode meaning in differing forms, yet guides translators to find appropriate ways of preserving meaning while using the most appropriate forms of each language. Translators of the Bible, including those of English versions, should become well informed in translation theory.

Translation theory includes principles for translating figurative language, dealing with lexical mismatches, rhetorical questions, inclusion of cohesion markers, and many other topics crucial to good translation.

Some good introductions to translation theory and practice are:

Return to Terminology index

Translationese

Translationese is odd, unnatural language which only appears in translations. Many translations of the Bible have a great deal of translationese in them, including non-English syntactic patterns borrowed from the original biblical languages and semantic oddities, such as lexical combinations (collocational clashes) which are not permitted in English, but were part of the lexicon of the biblical language being translated.

Return to Terminology index

Transliteration

Transliteration is the simple matching of symbols between the alphabets of different languages. For instance, we can transliterate from Greek to English λογος logos to show how to pronounce the Greek word for “word.”

<!–In this glossary, we also regard simple word matching, such as found in an interlinear translation, as a form of transliteration, since it does not take into account any other elements of the two languages, such as the grammatical relationships among the words.–>

Return to Terminology index

Trope

See Trope.

Return to Terminology index

UBS text

Critical text of the Greek New Testament. Identical to the Nestle-Aland text, except for some of the critical apparatus. Compare Majority Text.

Return to Terminology index

Understandable

Understandable refers to something being worded in such a way that hearers can correctly comprehend the intended meaning. Understandability is an important characteristic of good quality translation. Community testing should be done to determine whether or not a translation is understandable to the target audience. See Readability.

Return to Terminology index

Understatement

Intentionally stating something as less than it actually is, usually for rhetorical effect or politeness.

See Understatement. Compare Litotes and Hyperbole.

Return to Terminology index

Utterance

An utterance is anything which is spoken. It is usually intended to have some meaning. Some people broaden the definition so that an utterance is any meaningful portion of speech, whether spoken or written.

Return to Terminology index

Vernacular translation

Translation into the everyday (erstwhile vulgar) language of people, as distinguished from a literary dialect of their language or some other dialect or language of education or social prestige. Although they were opposed by church authorities, William Tyndale and John Wycliff believed that the Bible should be translated into the English vernacular, rather than remaining in Latin, the church language of their time. Today Bible translators continue the work of translating the Bible into vernacular languages around the world, whether for Bibleless tribes or for languages in which the Bible is currently in a non-vernacular form, such as an obsolescent church language in a earlier dialect. See Plain English and Common language translation. See also Commentary on The use of everyday language in prayer, in church, and in literature.

Return to Terminology index

Vulgar

Vulgar refers to a term which is considered culturally crude or “nasty,” in the culture of a particular language. Typically, vulgar terms often have to do with bodily excretion and sex acts.

An obsolescing usage of the term vulgar refers to something that is used by the great masses of people. A typical usage of vulgar with this meaning had to do with language spoken by the common people, the majority of a population, such as “Vulgar Latin.” The current usage of the word “vulgar” for something crude is, of course, a pejorated sense of the earlier meaning. In this glossary we now use the term vernacular or common to refer to vulgar in the earlier sense of ‘common.’

Return to Terminology index

Vulgate

The translation of the Bible made by St. Jerome into the Latin language at the end of the 4th century A.D. This common (vulgar) dialect of Latin was spoken by the people of the Roman Empire. The Vulgate became the authorized version of the Roman Catholic Church.

Return to Terminology index

Word

A word is the smallest unit of language which can be pronounced alone and have meaning. Words can be composed of even smaller units of meaning called morphemes, but many morphemes cannot stand alone as words. Translators must be aware of the fact that languages vary considerably in what they treat as words and morphemes. A single word in one language can be equivalent to an entire sentence in another language. For instance, the single Cheyenne word náohkêsáa’oné’seómepêhévetsêhésto’anéhe, translates to the English sentence ‘I truly do not regularly pronounce Cheyenne well.’

Return to Terminology index

Word-for-word translation

A form of literal translation which seeks to match the individual words of the original as closely as possible to individual words of the target language. The translator seeks to translate an original word by the same target word as much as possible (this is technically called concordance). In addition, the order of words of the original language will be followed as closely as possible. No English translation, except for some interlinear translations, is a true word-for-word translation, but those who prefer this form of translation typically promote formally literal versions such as the NASB. The KJV is a relatively literal translation, but it is, in general, more dynamic (less literal) than the NASB. The term form-equivalent translation is a technical label for referring to word-for-word translation. Word-for-word translation contrasts with thought-for-thought translation.

For discussion of the history of the philosophy of translation moving from word-for-word toward more idiomatic approaches, see the following website:

Return to Terminology index

Word order

In some languages, like English, word order often indicates grammatical relationships. For instance, if we say:

John petted his dog

We know from the rules of English word order that John is the one who did the petting, not his dog. We also know that his dog is the object that got petted. In many other languages words can appear in a variety of orders, with each order indicating the same grammatical relationships. For instance, in the Cheyenne language

hetane evoomoho he’oho

evoomoho hetane he’oho

he’oho evoomoho hetane

each of these three word orders mean

‘The man saw the woman.’

(hetane = ‘man’; evoomoho = ‘saw’; he’oho = ‘woman’)

The order in which words appear in a translation needs to be according to the grammar and stylistic patterns of that language. Word order should not follow that of the source language if doing so produces an order which is not grammatical or natural in the target language.

Following is unnatural word order in an English Bible version:

ISV Luke 21.14 So purpose in your hearts not to prepare ahead of time your defense.

This sentence is technically grammatical, however, the more natural English word order for Luke 21:14 places the direct object, “your defense,” immediately following the verb, resulting in:

So purpose in your hearts not to prepare your defense ahead of time.

And that is exactly how a later revision of the ISV reads.

Objective community testing will indicate the second version to be more natural to fluent speakers of English. A simple test question would be to present speakers with both sentences and ask them which sounds better to them. Objective testing would not, of course, construct a yes/no question for such testing, such as, “Can you understand this sentence?” or “Does this sentence sound OK to you?” One wants the testing to determine actual speaker intuitions as carefully as possible, and yes/no questions often are far less instructive in this regard than content questions.

Return to Terminology index

Written language

Utterances which are written. Language exists first as speech, that is, oral language. Sometimes it is also written. Of course, what is written need not have been orally spoken first. After a people develop a writing system and a written literature is produced, often there develop some differences between oral and written language. Written language is often a little more formal than oral language.

For discussion on differences between between oral and written language, see the following webpages:

Return to Terminology index

Wrong meaning

When a translation incorrectly communicates the meaning of the original to its users. The existence of wrong meaning is determined through community testing. Literal translation of Biblical idioms often produces wrong meaning. Compare Zero meaning and Inadequate meaning.

Return to Terminology index

Zero meaning

When a translation communicates no meaning of the original to its users. Zero meaning is determined through community testing. Compare Wrong meaning and Inadequate meaning.

Return to Terminology index