Farkel,
I generally agree again. I'm just adding some more of a theoretical perspective to your conclusions. Maybe somebody is interested in my deliberations :).
::As time passes, language evolves.
On the cultural timescale it just changes. It becomes different, sometimes less complex ? depending on your definition of complexity. For instance there used to be a complex morphological system (e.g. four basic noun cases, etc.) in all Old Germanic languages including Old English. Now English has very little of its original inflection. Some people say it just becomes more efficient so maybe you are right when you say it evolves.
On the evolutional scale it evolves (becomes gradually more complex).
::The meaning of words change, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically.
Not only that but also ancient metaphorical and idiomatic usage of certain words and expressions becomes highly misleading and impossible to know. And with the scarcity of written records of ancient languages, there is absolutely no 100% dependable way of disambiguating culture-specific metaphors.
::Try reading and understanding Beowulf, for example. It was written in English, but much of it is incomprehensible today.
Yep. Beowulf was originally written in Old English. It?s not even English any more. If it was still used today it would be just another Germanic language. For the average Modern English speaking person it would be much less comprehensible than Dutch. I mean not only would it be slightly more distant in terms of the syntax and morphology, but also in terms of the huge historical/cultural gap between the speakers.
:: But that's only the beginning of the problem. Some languages have words and phrases which express something that cannot be translated into other languages without altering the original meaning.
Now, that?s somewhat complex ? it all depends on what you mean by ?altering the original meanings?, but either way you?ve got a point here. It may just be interesting to know there are two major approaches in translation theory and that in each of them "the original meanings" get altered in a different way. Here is how:
a) Text-oriented translation: stick to the original meaning and the source language-specific grammar. The disadvantage is that the reader of the translation may have to do his/her own research in order to learn more about the culture to understand how the literally translated metaphors work. You can see this approach when you read the NWT Bible. They rendered most of the metaphorical expressions almost literally so that they sound like convoluted and poor-style writing, but they allow the readers themselves more freedom for speculation when it comes to ?explaining? prophecies and hidden meanings. They can make an attempt to distinguish between the surface meanings and the "deeper meanings". They can say: this is a metaphor which symbolizes this or that? Sometimes translators provide thousands of footnotes to assist the reader in the process of understanding the source language idioms and metaphors.
Compare these two examples:
Psalm 26:4 - NWT
"I have not sat with men of untruth; and with those who hide who they are I do not come in."
Notice how the ancient metaphors are evident in this translation: ?I have not sat with? means what? ?I do not come in? means what? Difficult to guess without the context - and it's meant to be contemporary English.
Here is what the psalmist would have said in plain English:
Psalm 26:4 ? The Contemporary English Version Bible
?I don't spend my time with worthless liars?
b) The former is an example of ?text-oriented translation?, the latter is an example of reader-oriented translation. The ancient metaphors are lost in the latter approach but the ?actual meaning? is preserved and much easier to understand for the contemporary reader.
The problem with reader-oriented translation is that if you take a bible book stuffed with ?hidden prophetic meanings? and you translate it into plain English, using modern English idioms, then it proves that all the potentially hidden messages may have been lost, because you?ve imposed an interpretation. It amy be the safest, most reasonable interpretation, but as a translator you steal the possibility from the readers of doing their own interpretation. SO is the actual meaning preserved or lost?
You never know again! Whichever approach you choose.
Of course I?m presenting the two extreme points of the continuum. In practice the two approaches are often used simultaneaously. I personally think if there was a God-appointed angel to do the translation, he would go for the ?reader-oriented approach?. He'd keep it simple and modern, so that ?the lowliest farmer? can understand the most intricate prophecies. This would mean God would have to send another angel every 100 years or so.
:: Therefore, even if all of those humans entrusted with the original and pure word of God in written form were themselves persons of spotless integrity, over the decades, centuries and millenia the book would change, become confusing and lose its original clarity.
Actually the biblical God is double guilty here. He messed things up at the tower of Babel without thinking much about the linguistic problems with understanding ?his word? that would follow. And he hasn?t done anything definite since to fix it!
Pole of the "Boring Linguists Class"
PS - Is this "class" thing a Farkel-made pun?
