On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 07:10:44 -0800 (PST), Ray
<raymondaliasapollyon@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>While I was reading the KJV bible, I saw the following sentence, and
>was quite curious about the part beginning with "fowl that...:.
>
>1. Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath
>life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of
>heaven. (Gen 1:20)
>
>
>Can the sentence be understood as "Let the waters bring forth
>abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and (let the waters
>bring forth) fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament
I think the words you add in parens are reasonable, that both the KJV
and the Hebrew can be read that way. The question remains whether it
should be. .
IMO, and limiting myself here to the connection between the two
clauses, the KJV is written as it is because it is meant to be a
word-for-word translation.
I know you asked about the English, but I think the variations in the
English, regarding the connection between the clauses, all result from
different opinions of what the original words actually meant. Whether
they were working from the original Hebrew or any other source.
>of heaven"? Modern English grammar seems to suggest the interpretation
>that birds come out of the waters, but other versions of the bible has
>the following translation which does not accord well with such an
>interpretation:
>
>2. Let the waters be full of living things, and let birds be in flight
>over the earth under the arch of heaven. (the Holy Bible in basic
>English)
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch who lived in Frankfurt am Main during the
middle of the 19th century and translated from Hebrew to German used
this form to connect the clauses.
I'm forced here for the sake of using a literal translation of words
outside the connection part to add a bit. Rather than "be full of" or
"bring forth abundantly", Rabbi Hirsch translates the single word
yishr'tsu as "swarm". It's a wild guess by me that maybe some
translator doesn't want to use the word swarm or teem because it
doesn't fit with birds in the second clause as it does with swarming
things in the first clause, but the root of the word sh-r-tz is
unmistakeable in meaning, swarm or teem.
In your example 2 above, I think the reason "let birds be in flight"
is not the *settled* universal translation is that the form of the
verb, y'ofaf (long a) is not the same form as the verb in the first
clause, yishr'tsu. The y at the beginning is the same but the u at
the end is a different form, and that's significant. I called a
friend to explain the verb forms to me, but he was out of town for a
few days. Most of my other friends known no more than I do.
>3. Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds
>fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky. (New English
>Bible)
This whole thing, number 3, strikes me as the most word-for-word,
except that I'm not prepared to express a firm opinion on the second
use of "let" or the absence of the comma before "and".
The advantage of translation 1 and its use of " , and " is that it
reflects both possible opinions. It does not include a second "let"
because the original Hebrew verb didn't indicate that, but it has a
comma to indicate that the second clause may be an independent clause,
not dependant on the verb in the first clause. I may be able to check
further but now I think that the second "let" should be in brackets in
the translations that use it.
Every translator occasionally has problems meeting four goals, being
word-for-word, keeping the meaning the same, achieving acceptable
syntax in the translated-to language, and keeping the style the same.
By style I mean academic, colloquial, serious, light-hearted, poetic,
etc., whatever was the style of the original.
I think it is fair wrt the Bible and in most cases to put achieving
acceptable syntax last in priority.
One example of this sort of thing would be the differencen between
American English and British English , "The corporation says" and iiuc
in Britain, "The corporation say".
>Cany anyone tell me why this is so?
>
>I'd appreciate your help.
>
>Ray
>
>
>
>
>
-
Posters should say where they live, and for which
area they are asking questions. I have lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 10 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years
|
|