DCS-Mirror
/
unfoldingWord_en_ta
mirror of https://git.door43.org/unfoldingWord/en_ta
2
0
Fork 0
Files Issues Releases Wiki Activity See in Reader

fix citations in figs-explicitinfo (#468) 

fix citations in figs-explicitinfo

Reviewed-on: https://git.door43.org/unfoldingWord/en_ta/pulls/468
Co-Authored-By: Perry J Oakes <pjoakes@noreply.door43.org>
Co-Committed-By: Perry J Oakes <pjoakes@noreply.door43.org>
This commit is contained in:
Perry J Oakes 2021-02-22 14:24:33 +00:00
parent bbd48480ce
commit 7a66dfd821
1 changed files with 5 additions and 5 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

10
translate/figs-explicitinfo/01.md
View File

@ -8,13 +8,13 @@ If you translate all of the explicit information from the source language into t
### Examples from the Bible ### Examples from the Bible
> **Then** Abimelech came toward the tower and he fought against it, and approached as far as the entrance of the tower in order **to burn it with fire**. (Judges 9:52 ESV) > **And** Abimelech came to the tower and fought against it and drew near to the door of the tower **to burn it with fire**. (Judges 9:52 ESV)
In Biblical Hebrew, it is normal to start most sentences with a conjunction such as “and” to show the connection between sentences. In English, it is not natural to do so, it is quite tiresome for the English reader, and it gives the impression that the author is uneducated. In English, it is best to leave the idea of connection between sentences implicit in most cases and not translate the conjunction explicitly. In Biblical Hebrew, it is normal to start most sentences with a conjunction such as “and” to show the connection between sentences. In English, it is not natural to do so, it is quite tiresome for the English reader, and it gives the impression that the author is uneducated. In English, it is best to leave the idea of connection between sentences implicit in most cases and not translate the conjunction explicitly.
In Biblical Hebrew, it is normal to say that something was burned with fire. In English, the idea of fire is included in the action of burning, and so it is unnatural to state both ideas explicitly. It is enough to say that something was burned and leave the idea of fire implicit. In Biblical Hebrew, it is normal to say that something was burned with fire. In English, the idea of fire is included in the action of burning, and so it is unnatural to state both ideas explicitly. It is enough to say that something was burned and leave the idea of fire implicit.
> But the centurion **answered and said**, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof …” (Matthew 8:8a ULT) > But the centurion **answered and said**, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof” (Matthew 8:8a ULT)
In the biblical languages, it was normal to introduce direct speech with two verbs of speaking. One verb indicated the action, and the other introduced the words of the speaker. English speakers do not do this, so it is very unnatural and confusing to use two verbs. For the English speaker, the idea of speaking is included in the idea of answering. Using two verbs in English implies two separate speeches, rather than just one. So in English, it is better to use only one verb of speaking. In the biblical languages, it was normal to introduce direct speech with two verbs of speaking. One verb indicated the action, and the other introduced the words of the speaker. English speakers do not do this, so it is very unnatural and confusing to use two verbs. For the English speaker, the idea of speaking is included in the idea of answering. Using two verbs in English implies two separate speeches, rather than just one. So in English, it is better to use only one verb of speaking.
@ -31,19 +31,19 @@ In the biblical languages, it was normal to introduce direct speech with two ver
(2) If the explicit information does not sound natural in the target language or seems unnecessary or confusing, make the explicit information implicit. Only do this if the reader can understand this information from the context. You can test this by asking the reader a question about the passage. (2) If the explicit information does not sound natural in the target language or seems unnecessary or confusing, make the explicit information implicit. Only do this if the reader can understand this information from the context. You can test this by asking the reader a question about the passage.
> Then Abimelech came toward the tower and he fought against it, and he approached as far as the entrance of the tower in order to burn it with fire. (Judges 9:52 ESV) > **And** Abimelech came to the tower and fought against it and drew near to the door of the tower **to burn it with fire**. (Judges 9:52 ESV)
> >
> > Abimelech came to the tower and fought against it, and he approached the door of the tower **to burn it**. (Or) … **to set it on fire**. > > Abimelech came to the tower and fought against it, and he approached the door of the tower **to burn it**. (Or) … **to set it on fire**.
In English, it is clear that the action of this verse follows the action of the previous verse without the use of the connector “and” at the beginning, so it was omitted. Also, the words “with fire” were left out, because this information is communicated implicitly by the word “burn.” An alternative translation for “to burn it” is “to set it on fire.” It is not natural in English to use both “burn” and “fire,” so the English translator should choose only one of them. You can test if the readers understood the implicit information by asking, “How would the door burn?” If they knew it was by fire, then they have understood the implicit information. Or, if you chose the second option, you could ask, “What happens to a door that is set on fire?” If the readers answer, “It burns,” then they have understood the implicit information. In English, it is clear that the action of this verse follows the action of the previous verse without the use of the connector “and” at the beginning, so it was omitted. Also, the words “with fire” were left out, because this information is communicated implicitly by the word “burn.” An alternative translation for “to burn it” is “to set it on fire.” It is not natural in English to use both “burn” and “fire,” so the English translator should choose only one of them. You can test if the readers understood the implicit information by asking, “How would the door burn?” If they knew it was by fire, then they have understood the implicit information. Or, if you chose the second option, you could ask, “What happens to a door that is set on fire?” If the readers answer, “It burns,” then they have understood the implicit information.
> But the centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof” (Matthew 8:8a ULT) > But the centurion **answered and said**, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof” (Matthew 8:8a ULT)
> >
> > The centurion **answered**, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof” > > The centurion **answered**, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof”
In English, the information that the centurion responded by speaking is included in the verb “answered,” so the verb “said” can be left implicit. You can test if the readers understood the implicit information by asking, “How did the centurion answer?” If they knew it was by speaking, then they have understood the implicit information. In English, the information that the centurion responded by speaking is included in the verb “answered,” so the verb “said” can be left implicit. You can test if the readers understood the implicit information by asking, “How did the centurion answer?” If they knew it was by speaking, then they have understood the implicit information.
> He opened his mouth and taught them, saying, (Matthew 5:2 ULT) > **He opened his mouth** and taught them, saying, (Matthew 5:2 ULT)
> >
> > **He began to** teach them, saying, (Or) He taught them, saying, > > **He began to** teach them, saying, (Or) He taught them, saying,