11-06-2010, 05:05 PM
Aaron S Wrote:Jeremy: What do you think regarding these scenarios?
What do you do when dealing with an Aramaic transliteration of a Greek...
...word (such as euangelian)?
...transliteration of a Hebrew name (such as Azotas in Acts 8:40)?
Personally I think keeping the Greek word euangelian in the translated text is at least misleading because of the religious clout behind the English loan-word evangelize (which does not exactly mean 'to proclaim good tidings' but rather 'to cause to convert'). In both of these scenarios, a footnote would be needed, especially with the latter one which is rather anomalous.
Shlama, akhi,
if it is a word in the text, and not a name or place, i will ALWAYS translate it, so that the only Aramaic terms in my translation will be names or places, so that it really is a legitimate translation, and not sprinkled with Semitic words in the text, which i personally do not care for. footnotes are my preferred means of clarifying the nuances in the text, as well as explaining the reasons for choosing certain words over other more common readings, so there is nothing wrong with throwing one in to give the reader the best position from which to approach the text.
as for Hebrew transliterations into Aramaic, i still use what is in the Aramaic text. for instance, i translated HEBREWS last year, and in doing so came across the following detail in 11:32 about the man we know from Scripture as Jephthah --
The reading in the Aramaic text is actually Naphtakh, an obvious difference from what should be Yaphtakh. In the Aramaic script, it is very simple to confuse the letter yodh and the letter nun. The two shapes are almost identical except for a slight size difference. That is the situation here with the Peshitta. The person intended is in the Hebrew Yeephtach, beginning with a yud. This same pronunciation of Naphtakh is also preserved in the Peshitta AN?K, in the book of Judges, where this man?s story is to be found. At some point during copying, the scribe did not distinguish that the yodh was the correct transliteration into Aramaic, and so the error was promulgated. So although the Khabouris text clearly reads Naphtakh, the reading of the name should be Yaphtakh, but for the sake of clearly representing what is in the text of the Peshitta, the Aramaic form has been retained.
so i err on the side of consistency in the matters of transliteration, and explain all details in my notes, for the benefit of the reader. i know this is not how it is usually done, but hopefully the reader who does not read Aramaic yet can at least know that i am indeed being faithful to the text to the point of including such awkward pronunciations! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
what are your thoughts on that?