SignWriting List Forum| Message 6672 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] | Message Index |
|
SignWriting List Forum |
|||
|
|
From:
Stuart Thiessen Date: Mon Apr 1, 2002 4:18 am Subject: Re: Questions about ASL Translation (was Re: Bible Work Started) | |||||||||||||||
|
See comments below .... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Parvaz" To: Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2002 20:48 Subject: Re: Bible work started <snipped section on prejudices, etc.> Let me share some of my perspectives as one who has been keenly interested in Bible translation as well as literacy issues in general. > Actually, there are those of us who are *not* of Pastor Ron's particular > brand of Christianity (i.e, not "fellow believers") who are still > interested in his translation project, both for technical purposes and > for the possible implications of this single written translation. So > here are some questions: > > 1. The folks at Deaf Missions have been working on a translation of the > Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament into what is sometimes > pretty idiomatic ASL. While they have taken some liberties with the text > (God in the person of Bob Alcorn creating the stars by blowing sparkly > stuff into the heavens comes to mind), it is arguably done from the best > original-language material we have (albeit via intermediate English > texts). So why a translation from the King James Version, for Pete's > sake? Actually, I am in the process of trying to work with them and encourage them to support a "transcription" of their video Bible. A member of our church happens to be on their Board and so we will continue to work on this. I think the key challenge is that Deaf Missions does not have any extra resources to spend on a transcription of their video Bible for an unknown number of readers (from their perspective). But I think it will come over time as those who are interested in a written ASL Bible express their interest in seeing one. If any on the list are interested in working with me to transcribe, I would like to know that. It would help me in communicating with them what kind of support they might have in the transcription effort. Right now, it is just their Board member and I who have expressed interest. I am trying to encourage some local interest here so they can see some immediate interest. I also see the written form helping to improve some areas where the translation may be weak. I have also felt that a video translation introduces personality issues when watching a person sign Scripture. I like the way the written form can remove those personality issues and let us grapple with the meaning of the text itself. A byproduct of the written form would also make the video production a little smoother in my opinion. I have noticed in some of the videos that the production is a little shaky simply because they are using gloss to help the signer know what to sign next. Again, this will come with time. > 2. What will the structure of the translation teams (if any!) look like? > Who will work on Quality Control, and to what extent will their biases > be made clear (as in YOUR GOVERNMENT ESTABLISH for "Thy kingdom come") > to those who will be the final consumers of the translation? Generally, I would like to see this be done by people who have an understanding of Greek and Hebrew at the least. In the deaf world, it is rare to find someone with an understanding of the original languages and ASL. However, that would be best. Also, there would need to be (as you mention) a way to explaining theological and philosophical perspectives of the translators. I would generally see that as a "notes" issue. Most Bibles will put notes where there could be a different way to translate a phrase or verse or where some explanation for 21st century readers would be helpful. I see the same thing happening here. If the text is faithfully produced, then I would see less need to worry about theological or philosophical perspectives. On the other hand, if it is produced with an agenda to promote one theological/philosophical perspective over another, then that needs to be noted that certain passages are translated from that theological/philosophical perspective. > 3. What effect might this printed text have on freezing liturgical > language based in Judeo/Christian scripture (e.g., the Lord's Prayer, > the 23rd Psalm), and what will the procedure be for standardizing > terminology and handling variant readings? Related to item 2: will there > be any attempt, therefore, to make this an ecumenical effort? Honestly, (while not a SW issue per se) I am also interested in seeing a shift from "initialized religious signs" to signs/phrases which express the meaning of the concept rather than some "made-up signs". Some are certainly in the language to stay, but others could be improved. For example, hallelujah is often signed PRAISE-CELEBRATE. But the Hebrew word actually means "Praise YHWH" or "Praise the Lord". Hosanna is often signed CELEBRATE or even PRAISE-CELEBRATE, but the Hebrew word actually means (as I understand) "Save us". There are also significant theological terms--which Paul uses in the book of Romans for example--which need to be properly expressed as to the Greek context behind them. Another example is Jesus' last words on the Cross: "It is finished!" In Greek, that is the same word used to indicate that a debt has been paid in full. Simply signing "FINISH" does not do justice to the Greek term. So I see that maybe the printed text may cause us to re-examine some of our English-tainted signs and perhaps find better ways of expressing the meaning so that it is understood. As that discussion happens (which I hope happens), I can see the text "freezing" as you put it for those who are liturgical in style. Some of them may not welcome this kind of discussion, and prefer to keep the more "English" type rendition they have had. Another question on my side is how to deal with dialect differences in the written form. For example, I'm from Iowa, and the few people from Michigan that I have met here have used more different signs that I have seen in people from Nebraska or other nearby states. That would be a challenge to decide what dialect of ASL takes prominence when there are dialect differences (perhaps another case for notes??) I don't have a problem with ecumenical efforts as along as we can let the text say what it says without making the translation interpret the text. Granted, some passages require some measure of interpretation to express it properly. That's where an ecumenical effort will face its challenges. But if all are committed to letting the text say what it says without imposing 21st century philosophical requirements, then I'm all for it. > 4. It sounds cool: Open-source translation! Okay that wasn't a > question -- so sue me. > As long as it expresses the actual meaning of the text, I am all for it! SMILE, Stuart -------------------------------------------- Stuart Thiessen Des Moines, IA -------------------------------------------- | |||||||||||||||
|
|