www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Semantic equivalence (linguistics): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m ditto
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit
m Refined summary of Maimonides' view to be more precise
 
(34 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
{{hatnote|Note: The term "dynamic equivalent" is also used in other contexts.}}
{{hatnote|Note: The term "dynamic equivalent" is also used in other contexts.}}
{{redirect|Formal equivalence|the electronic design automation process|Formal equivalence checking}}
{{redirect|Formal equivalence|the electronic design automation process|Formal equivalence checking}}
{{about|the concept of linguistic semantic equivalance|semantic equivalence of metadata|Semantic equivalence (computing)}}
{{More citations needed|date=August 2010}}
{{More citations needed|date=August 2010}}
{{Translation sidebar}}
{{Translation sidebar}}
In [[semantics]], the best-known types of '''semantic equivalence''' are ''dynamic equivalence'' and ''formal equivalence'' (two terms coined by [[Eugene Nida]]), which employ [[translation]] approaches that focus, respectively, on conveying the ''[[Meaning (linguistics)|meaning]]'' of the [[source text]]; and that lend greater importance to preserving, in the translation, the ''[[literal translation|literal]]'' structure of the source text. Nida formulated the distinction originally in relation to [[Bible translations]].

The terms '''dynamic equivalence''' and '''formal equivalence''', coined by [[Eugene Nida]], are associated with two dissimilar [[translation]] approaches that are employed to achieve different levels of literalness between the [[Translation#Source and target texts|source and target text]], as evidenced in [[Bible translations|biblical translation]].

The two have been understood basically, with dynamic equivalence as [[sense-for-sense translation]] (translating the meanings of [[phrase]]s or whole sentences) with [[readability]] in mind, and with formal equivalence as [[Literal translation|word-for-word translation]] (translating the meanings of words and phrases in a more literal way), keeping literal [[Fidelity#Translation|fidelity]].


== Approaches to translation ==
== Approaches to translation ==
''Formal equivalence approach'' tends to emphasize fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structure of the original language, whereas dynamic equivalence tends to employ a more natural rendering but with less literal accuracy.
The "Formal-equivalence" approach emphasizes fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structure of the [[Translation#Source_and_target_languages|source language]], whereas "dynamic equivalence" tends to employ a rendering that is more natural to the [[Translation#Source_and_target_languages|target language]].


According to [[Eugene Nida]], ''dynamic equivalence'', the term as he originally coined, is the "quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the ''response'' of the ''receptor'' is essentially like that of the original receptors."<ref>Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber. (1969). ''The Theory and Practice of Translation, With Special Reference to Bible Translating'', 200. Leiden: Brill.</ref> The desire is that the reader of both languages would understand the meanings of the text in a similar fashion.
According to [[Eugene Nida]], ''dynamic equivalence'', the term as he originally coined, is the "quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the ''response'' of the ''receptor'' is essentially like that of the original receptors."<ref>Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber. (1969). ''The Theory and Practice of Translation, With Special Reference to Bible Translating'', 200. Leiden: Brill.</ref> The desire is that the reader of both languages would understand the meanings of the text in a similar fashion.


In later years, Nida distanced himself from the term "dynamic equivalence" and preferred the term "'''functional equivalence'''".<ref>Let the words be written: the lasting influence of Eugene A. Nida p. 51 Philip C. Stine{{spaced ndash}}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</ref><ref>Translation and religion: holy untranslatable? p91 Lynne Long{{spaced ndash}}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..."</ref><ref>The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible p98 Calvin George{{spaced ndash}}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, ..."</ref> What the term "functional equivalence" suggests is not just that the equivalence is between the function of the source text in the source culture and the function of the [[target text]] (translation) in the target culture, but that "function" can be thought of as a property of the text. It is possible to associate functional equivalence with ''how people interact in cultures''.
In later years, Nida distanced himself from the term "dynamic equivalence" and preferred the term "'''functional equivalence'''".<ref>Let the words be written: the lasting influence of Eugene A. Nida p. 51 Philip C. Stine{{spaced ndash}}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.</ref><ref>Translation and religion: holy untranslatable? p91 Lynne Long{{spaced ndash}}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…"</ref><ref>The History of the Reina-Valera 1960 Spanish Bible p98 Calvin George{{spaced ndash}}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, …"</ref> What the term "functional equivalence" suggests is not just that the equivalence is between the function of the source text in the source culture and the function of the [[target text]] (translation) in the target culture, but that "function" can be thought of as a property of the text. It is possible to associate functional equivalence with ''how people interact in cultures''.

A similar distinction was expressed by [[Maimonides]] in a letter<ref>Stitskin, Leon D. (Fall 1961). A Letter of Maimonides to Samuel ibn Tibbon. <i>Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought</i>, Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 93 [https://www.jstor.org/stable/23255415 JSTOR]</ref> to [[Samuel ibn Tibbon]], his translator, in 1199. He wrote:
{{Blockquote
|text=I shall premise one rule: the translator who proposes to render each word literally and adhere slavishly to the order of the words and sentences in the original, will meet with much difficulty and the result will be doubtful and corrupt. This is not the right method. The translator should first try to grasp the meaning of the subject, and then state the theme with perfect clarity in the other language. This, however, cannot be done without changing the order of words, putting many words for one word, and vice versa, so that the subject be perfectly intelligible in the language into which he translates.}}
Maimonides comes down on the side of dynamic/functional equivalence, though perhaps not going so far as to consider the cultural function of the text. He does clearly reject formal equivalence as "doubtful and corrupt".



==Theory and practice==
==Theory and practice==
Line 23: Line 27:
The more the source language differs from the target language, the more difficult it may be to understand a literal translation without modifying or rearranging the words in the target language. On the other hand, formal equivalence can allow readers familiar with the source language to analyze how meaning was expressed in the original text, preserving untranslated [[idiom]]s, [[rhetoric]]al devices (such as [[chiastic structure]]s in the [[Hebrew Bible]]) and [[diction]] in order to preserve original information and highlight finer shades of meaning.
The more the source language differs from the target language, the more difficult it may be to understand a literal translation without modifying or rearranging the words in the target language. On the other hand, formal equivalence can allow readers familiar with the source language to analyze how meaning was expressed in the original text, preserving untranslated [[idiom]]s, [[rhetoric]]al devices (such as [[chiastic structure]]s in the [[Hebrew Bible]]) and [[diction]] in order to preserve original information and highlight finer shades of meaning.


==Minor Differences between Approximate Equivalents==
==Overlooked semantic differences between alleged equivalents in the source and target languages==
According to [[Ghil'ad Zuckermann]], a major problem lies in the fact that there are completely overlooked semantic differences between a lexical item in the source language and its alleged equivalent in the target language.<ref name=Revivalistics>{{cite book|author=Zuckermann, Ghil'ad|author-link=Ghil'ad Zuckermann|title=[[Revivalistics: From the Genesis of Israeli to Language Reclamation in Australia and Beyond]]|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|year=2020|isbn=9780199812790}}{{ISBN|9780199812776}}</ref>{{rp|216}}
Sandy Habib observed how the Arabic, Hebrew and English words for ''[[angel]]'' have slightly varying connotations.<ref name=Revivalistics/>{{rp|216-217}} This leads to religio-cultural differences over questions such as whether angels are immortal or capable of doing evil, and their appearance (e.g. the colour of their wings). Due to his focus upon [[natural semantic metalanguage]], [[Ghil'ad Zuckermann]] considers such minute distinctions between lexical items in different languages to be a major obstacle in producing translations that are both accurate and concise.<ref name=Revivalistics>{{cite book|author=Zuckermann, Ghil'ad|author-link=Ghil'ad Zuckermann|title=[[Revivalistics: From the Genesis of Israeli to Language Reclamation in Australia and Beyond]]|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|year=2020|isbn=9780199812790}}{{ISBN|9780199812776}}</ref>{{rp|216}}

Zuckermann provides the example of the lexical item for "angels" in three different languages: [[English language|English]] (''angels''), [[Arabic language|Arabic]] (''malāʾika'') and [[Modern Hebrew|Hebrew]] ({{lang|he|מלאכים}}, ''malakhím''). These three terms are used to translate each other interchangeably, as if they meant exactly the same thing. As Zuckermann puts it, "for the non-sophisticated layman, an angel is an angel is angel."<ref name=Revivalistics/>{{rp|216}} However, employing [[natural semantic metalanguage]] to discover in depth the exact, complex meaning of each of the three lexical items, Zuckermann points out numerous differences that were identified by Sandy Habib, as following:<ref name=Revivalistics/>{{rp|216}}

::''Angels'' and ''malāʾika'' seem to be perceived as being in the place to which good people go after they die. ''Malakhím'', on the other hand, seem to be perceived as being in a place that includes the place to which good people go after they die. ''Angels'' seem to be perceived as living in a hierarchical world; thus some ''angels'' appear to be higher in status than other ''angels''. On the other hand, no linguistic evidence has been found in the corpus that demonstrates that Muslim Arabs view some of ''malāʾika'' as being superior to other beings of their kind. Some Islamic religious sources do speak of hierarchy among ''malāʾika'', but, as no evidence has been found in the corpus to support this idea, it can be concluded that this idea might not be known to ordinary Muslim Arabs. The same holds for ''malakhím''. The Hebrew Corpus shows eleven occurrences of the expressions ''malákh rashí'' (lit. ‘a chief malákh’). In seven of these contexts, the expression is used as an attempt to translate the English word archangel or the Romanian word ''Arhanghelul''. In three other contexts, it is used to talk about one of the three ''angels'' that appeared to Abraham before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; in these contexts, the ''malákh rashí'' is identified as God. In the eleventh context, the expression is used to talk about the devil in Islam. As a result, it can be concluded that no conclusive linguistic evidence has been found in the corpus to support the idea that native Hebrew speakers believe that some ''malakhím'' are higher in status than other ''malakhím''.<ref name=Revivalistics/>{{rp|216}}

::''Angels'' and ''malakhím'' appear to be perceived as being immortal. Their immortality stems from the notion that they are spirits, and spirits do not die. On the other hand, Arabic ''malāʾika''’s (im)mortality does not seem to be clear, as there was no evidence found in the corpus that shows whether Muslim Arabs think that these beings die or not.<ref name=Revivalistics/>{{rp|216}}

::The three non-human beings also differ in their visual representation/appearance. Native English speakers and native Hebrew speakers seem to have the idea that ''angels'' and ''malakhím'', respectively, are incorporeal, but notwithstanding, they depict them in a certain way. Muslim Arabs, on the other hand, are not allowed to produce drawings, paintings, or statues of ''malāʾika'', or even imagine what they might look like. Whereas an ''angel'' or ''malákh'' can be imagined as having two wings, Arabic ''malāk'' can have (and not ‘can be imagined to have’) two or more wings. Native English speakers depict an ''angel''’s wings as white bird-like wings, while Muslim Arabs and native Hebrew speakers can tell nothing about the colour or appearance of the wings of a ''malāk'' or ''malákh'', respectively. ''Angels'' are depicted as having halos above their heads or light radiating from their bodies, and ''malāʾika'' are believed to have been created from light. ''Malakhím'', on the other hand, do not seem to be imagined with halos or light.<ref name=Revivalistics/>{{rp|217}}

::More differences emerge when examining the relationship between the three non-human beings and people. Unlike ''angels'', who seem to be perceived as doing only good things to people, ''malāʾika'' and ''malakhím'' seem to be perceived as beings who are capable of doing good, as well as bad things to people. Also, unlike Muslim Arabs, native English speakers and native Hebrew speakers do not have the notion that ''angels'' or ''malakhím'', respectively, play any role in tormenting people after their death.<ref name=Revivalistics/>{{rp|217}}


== Bible translation ==
== Bible translation ==
Translators of the Bible have taken various approaches in rendering it into English, ranging from an extreme use of formal equivalence, to extreme use of dynamic equivalence.<ref>Data collected from two sources that have nearly identical ranking with an overlapping (supplemental) list of translations studied: 1. [http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj1d.pdf Thomas, Robert L., ''Bible Translations: The Link Between Exegesis and Expository Preaching'', pages 63ff]; and 2. Clontz, T.E. and Clontz, J., ''The Comprehensive New Testament'', page iii.</ref>
Translators of the Bible have taken various approaches in rendering it into English, ranging from an extreme use of formal equivalence, to extreme use of dynamic equivalence.<ref>Data collected from two sources that have nearly identical ranking with an overlapping (supplemental) list of translations studied: 1. [http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj1d.pdf Thomas, Robert L., ''Bible Translations: The Link Between Exegesis and Expository Preaching'', pages 63ff] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120916201338/http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj1d.pdf |date=2012-09-16 }}; and 2. Clontz, T.E. and Clontz, J., ''The Comprehensive New Testament'', page iii.</ref>


; Predominant use of formal equivalence
; Predominant use of formal equivalence
Line 66: Line 60:
*[[Literal Standard Version]] (2020)
*[[Literal Standard Version]] (2020)


; Moderate use of both formal and dynamic equivalence (optimal equivalence)
; Moderate use of both formal and dynamic equivalence
*[[Knox Bible|The Holy Bible: Knox Version]] (1955)
*[[New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures]] (1961, revised 1984, 2013)<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/appendix-a/bible-translation/|title=Principles of Bible Translation from Hebrew and Greek {{!}} NWT|work=JW.ORG|access-date=2017-09-04|language=en}}</ref>
*[[New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures]] (1961, revised 1984, 2013)<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/appendix-a/bible-translation/|title=Principles of Bible Translation from Hebrew and Greek {{!}} NWT|work=JW.ORG|access-date=2017-09-04|language=en}}</ref>
*[[Confraternity Bible]] (1969)
*[[Confraternity Bible]] (1969)
*[[Modern Language Bible]] (1969)
*[[Modern Language Bible]] (1969)
*[[New American Bible]] (1970, revised 1986 & 1991)
*[[New American Bible]] (1970, revised 1986 & 1991)
⚫
*[[New International Version]] (1978)
*[[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] called "optimal equivalence" (2004)
*[[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] called "optimal equivalence" (2004)
*[[Catholic Bible|New Community Bible]] (2008)
*[[Catholic Bible|New Community Bible]] (2008)
Line 82: Line 76:


; Extensive use of dynamic equivalence or paraphrase or both
; Extensive use of dynamic equivalence or paraphrase or both
*[[Knox Bible|The Holy Bible: Knox Version]] (1955)<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.knoxbible.com/reviews.html|title=KNOX BIBLE - Reviews of the new publication of this Bible|website=www.knoxbible.com|accessdate=5 March 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/classic-translation-back-print-michael-potemra/|title=A Classic Translation Back in Print|website=[[National Review]] |date=27 October 2012|accessdate=5 March 2023}}</ref>
*[[Amplified Bible]] (1965)
*[[Amplified Bible]] (1965)
*[[Jerusalem Bible]] (1966)
*[[Jerusalem Bible]] (1966)
Line 87: Line 82:
*[[New English Bible]] (1970)
*[[New English Bible]] (1970)
*[[Good News Bible]] (formerly "Today's English Version") (1976)
*[[Good News Bible]] (formerly "Today's English Version") (1976)
⚫
*[[New International Version]] (1978)
*[[New Jerusalem Bible]] (1985)
*[[New Jerusalem Bible]] (1985)
*[[Easy-to-Read Version]] (1987)
*[[Easy-to-Read Version]] (1987)
Line 100: Line 94:
*[[Today's New International Version ]] (2005)
*[[Today's New International Version ]] (2005)
*[[Catholic Truth Society|CTS New Catholic Bible]] (2007)
*[[Catholic Truth Society|CTS New Catholic Bible]] (2007)
*[[EasyEnglish Bible]] (2018)


;Extensive use of paraphrase
;Extensive use of paraphrase
*[[The Living Bible]] (1971)
*[[The Living Bible]] (1971)
*[[Rob Lacey|The Street Bible (UK)]] (2003), as [[Rob Lacey|the word on the street (US)]] (2004)
*[[The Message Bible]] (2002)
*[[The Message Bible]] (2002)
*[[The Voice (Bible translation)|The Voice]] (2012)
*[[The Voice (Bible translation)|The Voice]] (2012)
*[[EasyEnglish Bible]] (2018)
*[[The Passion Translation]] (2017)


== See also ==
== See also ==
Line 112: Line 108:
* [[Exploratory data analysis]]
* [[Exploratory data analysis]]
* [[Lexical markup framework]]
* [[Lexical markup framework]]
* [[Idiom (language structure)]]
* [[Natural semantic metalanguage]]
* [[Natural semantic metalanguage]]
* [[Ted Woolsey]], known for his use of dynamic equivalence in translations of Japanese video games
* [[Textualism]] in [[jurisprudence]]:
* [[Textualism]] in [[jurisprudence]]:
** [[Original meaning]] (''cf.'' formal equivalence)
** [[Original meaning]] (''cf.'' formal equivalence)
Line 121: Line 117:
== References ==
== References ==
{{Reflist}}
{{Reflist}}

{{Translation navbox}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Dynamic and formal equivalence}}
[[Category:Translation studies]]
[[Category:Translation studies]]
[[Category:Semantics]]
[[Category:Semantic relations]]
[[Category:Biblical criticism]]
[[Category:Biblical criticism]]
[[Category:Bible versions and translations]]
[[Category:Bible versions and translations]]

Latest revision as of 17:03, 21 February 2024

Note: The term "dynamic equivalent" is also used in other contexts.
"Formal equivalence" redirects here. For the electronic design automation process, see Formal equivalence checking.
This article is about the concept of linguistic semantic equivalance. For semantic equivalence of metadata, see Semantic equivalence (computing).
Part of a series on
Translation
Types
Theory
Technologies
Localization
Institutional
Related topics

In semantics, the best-known types of semantic equivalence are dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence (two terms coined by Eugene Nida), which employ translation approaches that focus, respectively, on conveying the meaning of the source text; and that lend greater importance to preserving, in the translation, the literal structure of the source text. Nida formulated the distinction originally in relation to Bible translations.

Approaches to translation[edit]

The "Formal-equivalence" approach emphasizes fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structure of the source language, whereas "dynamic equivalence" tends to employ a rendering that is more natural to the target language.

According to Eugene Nida, dynamic equivalence, the term as he originally coined, is the "quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the response of the receptor is essentially like that of the original receptors."[1] The desire is that the reader of both languages would understand the meanings of the text in a similar fashion.

In later years, Nida distanced himself from the term "dynamic equivalence" and preferred the term "functional equivalence".[2][3][4] What the term "functional equivalence" suggests is not just that the equivalence is between the function of the source text in the source culture and the function of the target text (translation) in the target culture, but that "function" can be thought of as a property of the text. It is possible to associate functional equivalence with how people interact in cultures.

A similar distinction was expressed by Maimonides in a letter[5] to Samuel ibn Tibbon, his translator, in 1199. He wrote:

I shall premise one rule: the translator who proposes to render each word literally and adhere slavishly to the order of the words and sentences in the original, will meet with much difficulty and the result will be doubtful and corrupt. This is not the right method. The translator should first try to grasp the meaning of the subject, and then state the theme with perfect clarity in the other language. This, however, cannot be done without changing the order of words, putting many words for one word, and vice versa, so that the subject be perfectly intelligible in the language into which he translates.

Maimonides comes down on the side of dynamic/functional equivalence, though perhaps not going so far as to consider the cultural function of the text. He does clearly reject formal equivalence as "doubtful and corrupt".


Theory and practice[edit]

Because the functional equivalence approach eschews strict adherence to the grammatical structure of the original text in favor of a more natural rendering in the target language, it is sometimes used when the readability of the translation is more important than the preservation of the original grammatical structure.

Formal equivalence is often more goal than reality, if only because one language may contain a word for a concept which has no direct equivalent in another language. In such cases, a more dynamic translation may be used or a neologism may be created in the target language to represent the concept (sometimes by borrowing a word from the source language).

The more the source language differs from the target language, the more difficult it may be to understand a literal translation without modifying or rearranging the words in the target language. On the other hand, formal equivalence can allow readers familiar with the source language to analyze how meaning was expressed in the original text, preserving untranslated idioms, rhetorical devices (such as chiastic structures in the Hebrew Bible) and diction in order to preserve original information and highlight finer shades of meaning.

Minor Differences between Approximate Equivalents[edit]

Sandy Habib observed how the Arabic, Hebrew and English words for angel have slightly varying connotations.[6]: 216–217  This leads to religio-cultural differences over questions such as whether angels are immortal or capable of doing evil, and their appearance (e.g. the colour of their wings). Due to his focus upon natural semantic metalanguage, Ghil'ad Zuckermann considers such minute distinctions between lexical items in different languages to be a major obstacle in producing translations that are both accurate and concise.[6]: 216 

Bible translation[edit]

Translators of the Bible have taken various approaches in rendering it into English, ranging from an extreme use of formal equivalence, to extreme use of dynamic equivalence.[7]

Predominant use of formal equivalence
Relationship between some formal equivalence Bible translations
Moderate use of both formal and dynamic equivalence
Extensive use of dynamic equivalence or paraphrase or both
Extensive use of paraphrase

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber. (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation, With Special Reference to Bible Translating, 200. Leiden: Brill.
  2. ^ 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.
  3. ^ 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…"
  4. ^ 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, …"
  5. ^ Stitskin, Leon D. (Fall 1961). A Letter of Maimonides to Samuel ibn Tibbon. Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 93 JSTOR
  6. ^ a b Zuckermann, Ghil'ad (2020). Revivalistics: From the Genesis of Israeli to Language Reclamation in Australia and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199812790.ISBN 9780199812776
  7. ^ 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 Archived 2012-09-16 at the Wayback Machine; and 2. Clontz, T.E. and Clontz, J., The Comprehensive New Testament, page iii.
  8. ^ "Principles of Bible Translation from Hebrew and Greek | NWT". JW.ORG. Retrieved 2017-09-04.
  9. ^ New Catholic Bible
  10. ^ "KNOX BIBLE - Reviews of the new publication of this Bible". www.knoxbible.com. Retrieved 5 March 2023.
  11. ^ "A Classic Translation Back in Print". National Review. 27 October 2012. Retrieved 5 March 2023.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semantic_equivalence_(linguistics)&oldid=1209380462"