Meaning of "Translation"

[_ludwigm]

# cough cough #

While I read this thread, I translated continuously, in the sense of (6.) item.
In this minute, I am translating to the opposite direction, same way.

Believe me, both are hard work.

For example, when I read the word translate and translation, I should learn from the environment, which of the listed seven version was used, because we have different verb for each other.

When one want to translate the Hungarian word "fordít" to English, he/she* have to learn from the environment if turn or translate should be used - because the Hungarian verb may mean one of them.
Similarly, the word "fordító" may be translator - the person who acts according to (6.) - or may be turntable - used for turning locomotives.

So much about word by word translation - by seer stone or by google.

Moreover, Hungarian word order is free, but more semantical than syntactical. Because the object is indicated with a suffix and not its place in a phrase, it and the subject can appear before or after the verb, depending on emphasis. Due to different emphasis, other parts of the sentence can be moved to any position. In ultimate cases, one simple sentence consisting of four word can be said in 24 different sequence (4 factorial...) , with more or less different message.

Again something special challenge for translation software.

I'd like to see the urimthummim's result of a translation from English to Hungarian.
Half of the google translations can be used as jokes. The other half mostly make no sense.

* (he/she) there is no gender in our language...

[_Drifting]

This is what the Church officially means by the term translate:

Translate

To express the meaning of an idea given in one language in equal terms in another language (Mosiah 8:8–13; A of F 1:8). In the scriptures it is often referred to as a gift from God (Alma 9:21; D&C 8; 9:7–9). It sometimes can mean to improve or correct an existing translation in a language or to restore a lost text (D&C 45:60–61). Joseph Smith was commanded to undertake an inspired translation of the King James Bible (D&C 42:56; 76:15).
(LDS.org)

[_Chap]

This is what the Church officially means by the term translate:

Translate

To express the meaning of an idea given in one language in equal terms in another language (Mosiah 8:8–13; A of F 1:8). In the scriptures it is often referred to as a gift from God (Alma 9:21; D&C 8; 9:7–9). It sometimes can mean to improve or correct an existing translation in a language or to restore a lost text (D&C 45:60–61). Joseph Smith was commanded to undertake an inspired translation of the King James Bible (D&C 42:56; 76:15).
(LDS.org)

With reference to the underlined portion:

[_Panopticon]

I thought Gardner's explanation was weak for why Joseph's "translation" included so many direct quotes from Joseph Smith's copy of the King James Bible (including all translation errors). He simply had the KJV language in his head and used it when he was translating concepts from reformed Egyptian into English???? On the one hand, apologists want us to believe that Joseph was unlearned bumpkin who couldn't put two words together, and they also want us to believe that he had the Bible memorized and could insert KJV language when he encountered verses he recognized in the Book of Mormon. Apologists also want us to believe at the same time that it was a loose translation process, so that all errors are attributed to Joseph's weaknesses, and also that it was a tight translation process, so that we can recognize all of the "Hebraisms" and each word can be analyzed. At once, the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth and such a loose translation that tapir becomes horse, steel becomes obsidian (the kind that can rust), etc.

[_Drifting]

I thought Gardner's explanation was weak for why Joseph's "translation" included so many direct quotes from Joseph Smith's copy of the King James Bible (including all translation errors). He simply had the KJV language in his head and used it when he was translating concepts from reformed Egyptian into English???? On the one hand, apologists want us to believe that Joseph was unlearned bumpkin who couldn't put two words together, and they also want us to believe that he had the Bible memorized and could insert KJV language when he encountered verses he recognized in the Book of Mormon. Apologists also want us to believe at the same time that it was a loose translation process, so that all errors are attributed to Joseph's weaknesses, and also that it was a tight translation process, so that we can recognize all of the "Hebraisms" and each word can be analyzed. At once, the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth and such a loose translation that tapir becomes horse, steel becomes obsidian (the kind that can rust), etc.

Apologetics does a very good job of highlighting why the Book of Mormon cannot be what it claims to be!

[_Aristotle Smith]

I thought Gardner's explanation was weak for why Joseph's "translation" included so many direct quotes from Joseph Smith's copy of the King James Bible (including all translation errors). He simply had the KJV language in his head and used it when he was translating concepts from reformed Egyptian into English???? On the one hand, apologists want us to believe that Joseph was unlearned bumpkin who couldn't put two words together, and they also want us to believe that he had the Bible memorized and could insert KJV language when he encountered verses he recognized in the Book of Mormon. Apologists also want us to believe at the same time that it was a loose translation process, so that all errors are attributed to Joseph's weaknesses, and also that it was a tight translation process, so that we can recognize all of the "Hebraisms" and each word can be analyzed. At once, the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth and such a loose translation that tapir becomes horse, steel becomes obsidian (the kind that can rust), etc.

To be fair to Brant Gardner, he's the most consistent on these matters. He favors a loose/functional translation and sticks with it. He directly says that Hebraisms are no evidence at all for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. In doing this he is basically saying that a lot of the work done by FARMS/NAMIRS is just wrong, because anything that tries to see Ancient Near East culture after Jacob will be wrong on his view.

I am impressed with his consistency and his willingness to take a bold approach to reading the Book of Mormon. I'm on part 4 now, so I want to hold off final judgment until I have finished the fifth part.