Talk:Semantic equivalence (linguistics)

Untitled
Much of this page is inaccurate. The differences between various translation approaches do blurr, it's true, but this page clearly confuses different terms. In addition the description of Bible translations is inaccurate and the declaration of version popularity is... at least debatable and certainly unreferenced. Hopefully I will have time to edit this, but until I do... anyone else care to take a stab at it? Anne 1-July-2006


 * I removed the unnecessary claim "most popular", although the NIV is the best selling contemporary translation. I also removed the cleanup tag. It is more appropriate for poor grammar, spelling, or poorly formatted text rather than content concerns. --Blainster 15:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The two concepts should be two different articles frankly. 70.177.68.209 17:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Anne 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Until the article is expanded a lot more, splitting it seems silly. Policy supports having foo and bar articles (particularly for two opposites).
 * I would suggest that the article should possibly be renamed linguistic equivalence and some more general stuff about finding equivalent terms be put here too (maybe copied from translation). I suppose it could be merged into translation too, but that article is quite long.
 * Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 23:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Bible version debate
After making a start at creating a more balanced presentation of Bible version debate, I realized that it is effectively a fork of the subject dynamic and formal equivalence, in other words a debate about the methods of Bible translation. Since debates generate more heat than light, I propose that that article be merged into this one. --Blainster 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me Blainster. The debate over Bible versions boils down to equivalence anyway --Raogden 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Might I also suggest that the merged entry be titled "Biblical Translation Philosophy" or some such. 'Bible Version debates' sounds like arguments waiting to happen. --Raogden 22:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am FOR the merge. I suggest that the Dynamic and formal equivalence content is simply inserted into the section on the Bible version debate page before the section which discusses the debate between the two of them.  I think calling the combined page "Biblical translation philosophy" is a bad idea, and support keeping the existing name, since it is an article about the debate (the debate is not causing much debate here on Wikipedia) but it is worth documenting the different sides of the debate, and worth calling it what it is. Brusselsshrek 16:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * AGAINST. The "Bible version debate" is NOT just about dynamic and formal equivalence; the problem is that the "Bible version debate" section talks ONLY about dynamic and formal equivalence.  There are other issues too, such as WHICH text to use as a starting point, and how to handle extremely obscure Old Testament terms.  But I agree with Raogden that "Bible version debate" is a bad name, and that another term like "Biblical Translation Philosophy" would be better.  I think in a few moments I'll "be bold" and rename the article, and try to fix it along those lines.  If it needs to be merged later, great, but I think it's best handled by having TWO articles, and have the "Philosophy" article reference the dynamic and formal equivalence page for details on that particular topic. -- Dwheeler 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * AGAINST. Translation of the Bible is related to the question of equivalence, but the question of equivalence applies to all translations today, and is a much studied term in translation theory. The Bible can be used as an example of a difficult translation, but it shouldn't take over the article on equivalence. -- Tales 13:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ooh, good point - dynamic vs. formal equivalence is a general topic for ANY translation between languages, so it should be general. I agree, the Bible is an excellent example, though maybe adding a few examples from other works (Iliad? Qu'ran?) would make it clear that this a general issue, even though much of the original discussion involved how to translate the Bible.  Conversely, the "Bible version debate" (or whatever it's named) should reference the general dynamic/formal discussion, but should focus on Bible-specific issues, and identify the OTHER issues specific to translation of the Bible.  I think we're already headed this way, and it's a good thing.  I think in the end we're going to have two separate articles, but the debate about merging has helped make sure that each article was focused on ITS topic. -- Dwheeler 15:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been over 2 months, and the articles have now diverged into covering different topics, making them LESS appropriate to merge... not MORE appropriate to merge. Unless someone says differently, let's just remove the "proposal to merge" notifications, and make sure that the two articles cross-link to each other. -- Dwheeler 22:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Against. I do not think that this article should be merged, because the style of translation is not the only debate in existence. However, this page can expand a section on examples of translations, and what the debate is over these.Austinian 04:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * After one month there was agreement, but only 3 responses. After three months 3 objections have turned up. There is presently no consensus to merge, so I have removed the template. --Blainster 07:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that is the right result, but thanks for proposing the merge. I think your proposal made it clear that articles that SHOULD have been different were too similar, and encouraged us all to move text into the "right" article. -- Dwheeler 22:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Another category
Formal Equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence do not fully contain the spectrum of translations. Most of this applies to Bible translations, but I'm adding the comment here because this is the link page to the designations in the Bible translation info boxes. The various sources on the web and in print give at least three at any given time: Formal, Dynamic, and Paraphrase (such as the Zondervan site). Others have Formal, Free, and Paraphrase (such as the Master's Seminary site). The interesting thing is that the sources that use "Dynamic" start the designation as early as the RSV, but the ones that use "Free" don't start the designation before the NIV. With the spectrum running from most literal to most paraphrased, the versions are typically presented as something close to this: KJV, NKJ, ASV, DRA, NAS, NAU, RSV, ESV, NET, HCS, NRS, NAB, NIV, JNT, NJB, TEV, REB, NLT, Living, Phillips, Message. The ones in bold are most often at the boundaries between descriptions (i.e. people are more likely to debate their designation than others). If we follow those boundaries between the descriptions in the different sources, we are really looking at four categories:

Formal Equivalence: KJV, NKJ, ASV, DRA, NAS, NAU Dynamic Equivalence: RSV, ESV, NET, HCS, NRS, NAB, NIV Free Translation: JNT, NJB, TEV, REB, NLT Paraphrase: Living, Message, Phillips

And that doesn't even include the Cotton Patch Bible!

This isn't inventing anything. It's just using the sources that people can link to (such as Zondervan, Bible-Researcher, the Master's Seminary, Comfort's book, Metzger's book, etc.). My question is, how much information do we want to include on this page? Tim 19:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging with Translation
I propose that this article be merged with Translation -- for "dynamic and formal equivalence" have no meaning outside that practice -- and the the portions pertaining to the Bible specifically be folded into Biblical translation.Naturezak (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm. I partly agree, but at the same time the two articles (translation and equivalence) are pretty big; I'd say equivalence qualifies for its own article. No comment on biblical translatiom yet as I haven't studied the article. Tales (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is poorly written and bloated with extraneous information -- that's why it's big. Do you think the topic has a meaning outside of the concept "translation?" I'm arguing that equivalence is *only* an aspect of translation.Naturezak (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Naturezak's arguments, and second the proposal to merge "Dynamic and formal equivalence" into "Translation." Most of the essential ideas of the former  article are already summarized in the latter, "Translation" article. Links could be provided to "Translation" from "Dynamic and formal equivalence," "Dynamic equivalence" and "Formal equivalence." Nihil novi (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would actually support this article staying in Bible translation since the majority of Translation Studies has moved away from using such binary terms, at least since the rise of skopos theory. 188.223.2.135 (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Jonathan Downie

Clear list of categories/examples
Under "Bible Translation" there is a rather cluttered and unclear lits of examples of Bibles which fall under the three categories (formal, mixed and dynamic tranlations).

I re-ordered this into three neat lists with bullet points, making it much easier to see. But this was undone. I guess I would like to know why. I think it was far clearer to see the three categories in bullet-point list form.Grand Dizzy (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The lists were undone when the article changes were reverted. I reverted them due to the clumsiness of the merged text concerning Nida.  (I didn't have time to edit the merged text for clarity.)  Otherwise I probably would not object to the lists.  Nihil novi (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Two sentences mentioning Eugene A. Nida
The article contains two almost identical sentences both mentioning (and linking to) the creator of the terms 'formal and dynamic equivalence'. I don't see why these two sentences shouldn't be merged into one? (I merged them but the change was undone.)

Could the person who undid my change please explain their actions? Grand Dizzy (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see above. Nihil novi (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Formal Equivalence Rank of NWT
I had to remove the New World Translation from the formal equivalence ranking because it wasn't included in either of the listed formal equivalence ranking studies used as sources. I understand that Jason BeDuhn lists the NWT as a formal equivalence translation, and for the most part I'd have to agree with BeDuhn's stated reasons in his "Truth in Translation." The problem is that neither BeDuhn nor anyone else has done a quantitative study of the NWT for a ranking study.

I can appreciate that there are editors who have an affinity for this version, but please understand that only two such studies are available and there are a number of translations that were not included. Goodspeed and the Modern Language Bibles are both excluded from the list -- not because they cannot be measured, but because they did not happen to be included in either of the measures used as the source for this section.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. I almost added the NWT again, thinking its absence from the list was an oversight, but I fortunately remembered to check here at the last minute.  However, such an explanation belongs on the page itself, so that others don't make similar mistakes.  In the absence of any mention that translations have been subjected to studies before listing them, the lists on the page seem arbitrary and subject to correction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Downstrike (talk • contribs) 05:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

An anon-IP's comment
This article is genuinely appalling -- if one of my students wrote this, I would fail them. It doesn't need editing, it needs deleting and rewriting (probably as a section within an article on Nida). --90.241.22.186 (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would love to hear some sort of a reason for removing this particular article. Certainly, equivalence as a whole is rather debatable issue and so is, of course, that of dynamic and formal equivalence. Yet, instead of simply stating that this article is a failure you could provide a constructive criticism as of how to improve it. I for one find it strange that Bible translation is of such central importance for this article. True enough, Nida and Taber wrote from Bible translation but they did not solely limit this approach of theirs to it. Also providing an example or a few from divergent approaches would illuminate the theoretical difference. I think that the schoolbook example of dynamic equivalence is that of winds changing direction and animals being swapped to different kin so that the text would feel more "local".


 * These changes together with a criticism and impact section would certainly increase the quality of this article. The importance of dynamic equivalence approach shouldn't be underestimated, and, therefore, I do think the article should remain as an independent one. Clotting the main translation article with various different translation approaches would likely make it hard to read and confusing at the same time. After all, virtually every scholar of translation studies has provided an approach of their own with yet another fancy name tagged to it. They are, certainly, of varying importance but mentioning and opening up even a fraction of them within the main article is not advisable. (--78.27.78.126 (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC))


 * I agree with the point that the article is not very readable. I think the word choice is at times too technical and words like "eschews" should be avoided. Maybe my critique is unfounded, but I don't see how the current word choice is necessary to correctly convey the message.
 * On the point of merging it to an article on Nida: I think that would really over-reacting and would mean a loss. I think this subject merits its own page. I may be in favor of having separate articles about formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Muxarin (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Catholic liturgy
Something may be mentioned in this article about the English translations of the Catholic Mass of Paul VI since it is an example of both dynamic and formal equivalence. I will attempt to gather some sources and do what I can in the near future. Elizium23 (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Douay-Rheims
I think Douay-Rheims is more accurate than other versions... Even King James is to be considered the most accurate, I think there are also errors found there in that translation...

In this article there is no basis of source that the King James Version is the accurate bible among all bibles and Douay Rheims Version ranks to the last of most accurate... We don't know and think if St. Jerome the author of Latin Vulgate which Douay Rheims based on, had the most accurate manuscripts that doesn't exist now... We all know now that the current existed manuscripts now were not the original or more earliest manuscripts... but Latin Vulgate and Douay Rheims were the earliest made Bible that King James and other current versions...

I think, it's so very bias... you give more favour to Protestant Versions than Catholic Versions... and to the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures of Jehovah's Witnesses, it so very questionable, how did it make more accurate the DRV? It is erroneous. They put Jehovah's name in New Testament and change the word cross into stake, and to John 1:1, ...and the Word is a god and not as God.

And I thought, RSV or Revised Standard Version is in between Formal and Dynamic Equivalence, so why DRV ranks lower the RSV???

There are some errors found in modern bible that not the real equivalents of the originals, such as:
 * born from above to born again (Jn 3:3)
 * full of grace or have been grace to highly favoured one (Lk 1:28)
 * traditions to teachings or truth (2 thess 2:15)

King James is not so very different to Douay Rheims... they are close to each other, DRV influenced KJV, so and some verses in KJV derived from DRV... so why you rank DRV to the lowest in the most accurate??? Jumark27 (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence
Reference 2 in the third paragraph of "Approaches to translation" is missing words at the end. I will remove the incomplete sentence, but if someone knows what it was meant to say, they could revert and fix it. 伟思礼 (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * While removing that error, I noticed that references 3 & 4 also seem to be somewhat messed up. I don’t know how to fix them.  伟思礼 (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)