An choibhéis dhinimiciúil agus an choibhéis fhoirmiúil

Dhá theicníc difriúla d’aistriúchán is ea an choibhéis dhinimiciúil agus an choibhéis fhoirmiúil, a bhaintear triail astu chun leibhéil éagsúla d’aistriúchán litriúil den téacs foinnseach a tharraingt sa sprioctheanga. Cuirtear an dá theicníc seo i bhfeidhm in aistriúchán bíobalta. Is minic a smaoinítear ar an dá théarma, go bunúsach, mar aistriúchán ciall-ar-chiall (ag aistriú brí d’phrásaí nó d’abairtí iomlána) agus aistriúchán focal-ar-fhocal (ag aistriú brí focal nó phrásaí ar bhealach níos litriúla) faoi seach.

Modhanna cleachta san aistriúchán

De ghnáth, cuireann an choibhéis fhoirmiúil béim ar dhílseacht a tharraingt maidir leis na mionsonraí foclóireachta agus le struchtúr gramadach an bhunteanga, agus déanann an choibhéis dhinimiciúil aistiúchán níos nádúrtha a tharraingt, ach gan a bheith chomh chruinn go litriúil.

Níos déanaí ina shaol, rinne Nida bearna a chur idir é féin agus an téarma "coibhéis dhinimiciúil" toisc gur tharla gur thaitin an téarma “an choibhéiseacht fheidhmiúil leis".^[1]^[2]^[3] Ní amháin go gcuirtear in iúl an coibhéiseacht idir feidhm an téacs fhoinsigh sa chultúr foinnseach agus feidhm an spriocthéacs (an t-aistriúchán) sa sprioc-chultúr leis an téarma “an choibhéis fheidmhiúil”, ach gur féidir “an fheidhm” a thuiscint mar gné den teács. Is féidir smaoineamh ar an gcoibhéis fheidhmiúil mar an tslí ina n-idirghníomhaíonn daoine laistigh de chultúir éagsúla.

An teoiric agus an cleachtas

Os rud é go dtugtar níos mó béime ar léiriú nádúrtha sa sprioctheanga ná ar an gá atá ann go gcloítear le struchtúr gramadaí an bhuntéacs san choibhéis dhinimiciúil, is minic a chuirtear i bhfeidhm í nuair is tábhachtaí éascaíocht léimh an aistriúcháin ná tarraingt struchtúr gramadaí an bhuntéacs ann.

[...]

Aistriúchán an Bhíobla

Tá bealaithe éagsúla chur chuige curtha i bhfeidhm ag aistritheoirí an Bhíobla agus iad á aistriú go Béarla, agus feictear réimse fairsing de chineálacha aistriúcháin, idir an úsáid foircneach den choibhéis fhoirmiúil agus úsáid foircneach den choibhéis dhinimiciúil.^[4]

Leaganacha den Bhíobla (sa Bhéarla) ina gcuirtear an choibhéis dhinimiciúil i bhfeidhm go príomha

New American Standard Bible (1971)
Recovery Version (1999)
American Standard Version (1901)
Revised Version (1885)
Young's Literal Translation (1862)
King James Version (1611)
Douay-Rheims (1610)
English Standard Version (2001)
Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition(Ignatius Bible) (2006)
Revised Standard Version (1952)
New King James Version (1982)
Green's Literal Translation (1985)
World English Bible (2000)
Lexham English Bible (2011)
New Revised Standard Version (1989)

Leaganacha den Bhíobla (sa Bhéarla) ina gcuirtear an choibhéis dhinimiciúil agus an choibhéis fhoirmiúil i bhfeidhm araon, go measartha, (an choibhéis optamach)

Amplified Bible (1965)
Modern Language Bible (1969)
Confraternity Bible (1969)
New American Bible Revised Edition (2011)
New International Version (1978, revised 1984, 2011)
New International Reader's Version (1996)
New Living Translation (1996)
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (1961, revised 1984, 2013)^[5]
Holman Christian Standard Bible called "optimal equivalence" (2003)
New English Translation (2005)
Today's New International Version (2005)
New American Bible (1970)

Leaganacha den Bhíobla (sa Bhéarla) ina úsáidtear an choibhéis dhinimiciúil nó an athinsint nó an dá bhealaithe den chur chuige sin, araon, go forleathan

Knox Bible (1949)
Jerusalem Bible (1966)
New English Bible (1970)
Good News Bible (formerly "Today's English Version") (1966)
New Jerusalem Bible (1985)
Christian Community Bible (1988)
Revised English Bible (1989)
God's Word Translation (1995)
Contemporary English Version (1995)
Complete Jewish Bible (1998)

Leaganacha den Bhíobla (sa Bhéarla) ina úsáidtear an athinsint go forleathan

The Living Bible (1971) The Message (2002)

Féach freisin

Tagairtí

↑ Let the words be written: the lasting influence of Eugene A. Nida p. 51 Philip C. Stine, 2004 "That probably would not have happened if it hadn't been for Nida's ideas" (Charles Taber, interview with author, 21 Oct. 2000).7 Nida later felt that the term "dynamic equivalence" had been misunderstood and was partly responsible for
↑ Translation and religion: holy untranslatable? p91 Lynne Long, 2005 "In order to avoid certain misunderstandings, de Waard and Nida (1986: 7, 36) later replaced the term 'dynamic equivalence' with 'functional equivalence', but they stated clearly that 'The substitution of "functional equivalence"' is not..."
↑ The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible p98 Calvin George, 2004 "190 For this reason in his later writings he distanced himself from the term 'dynamic equivalence,' preferring instead 'functional equivalence.' 191 The idea is to produce the closest natural equivalent in the target or 188 190 Nida, ..."
↑ Data collected from two sources that have nearly identical ranking with an overlapping (supplemental) list of translations studied: 1. Thomas, Robert L., Bible Translations: The Link Between Exegesis and Expository Preaching, pages 63ff Curtha i gcartlann 2012-09-16 ar an Wayback Machine; and 2. Clontz, T.E. and Clontz, J., The Comprehensive New Testament, page iii.
↑ "Principles of Bible Translation from Hebrew and Greek | NWT" (en). JW.ORG.

[1] Let the words be written: the lasting influence of Eugene A. Nida p. 51 Philip C. Stine, 2004 "That probably would not have happened if it hadn't been for Nida's ideas" (Charles Taber, interview with author, 21 Oct. 2000).7 Nida later felt that the term "dynamic equivalence" had been misunderstood and was partly responsible for

[2] Translation and religion: holy untranslatable? p91 Lynne Long, 2005 "In order to avoid certain misunderstandings, de Waard and Nida (1986: 7, 36) later replaced the term 'dynamic equivalence' with 'functional equivalence', but they stated clearly that 'The substitution of "functional equivalence"' is not..."

[3] The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible p98 Calvin George, 2004 "190 For this reason in his later writings he distanced himself from the term 'dynamic equivalence,' preferring instead 'functional equivalence.' 191 The idea is to produce the closest natural equivalent in the target or 188 190 Nida, ..."

[4] Data collected from two sources that have nearly identical ranking with an overlapping (supplemental) list of translations studied: 1. Thomas, Robert L., Bible Translations: The Link Between Exegesis and Expository Preaching, pages 63ff Curtha i gcartlann 2012-09-16 ar an Wayback Machine; and 2. Clontz, T.E. and Clontz, J., The Comprehensive New Testament, page iii.

[5] "Principles of Bible Translation from Hebrew and Greek | NWT" (en). JW.ORG.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]