TIP OF THE DAY 139: Verbs across languages

 I am adding these posts to the previous tip list L/V 10 Tip of the Day (when it doesn't time out)

POST ISSUE: translation of verb details

These questions arise particularly in the use of interlinear and reverse interlinear tools where one (a) sees parsing information which shows partially what information is built into the verb and (b) sees the translation which tries to convey that information and no more. Original language grammars will walk you through what various verb forms convey. Remember that the potential aspects of a verb were listed in the previous post as tense, aspect (in technical sense), mood, person, number, gender, voice, politeness, causativity, clusivity, transitivity, polarity, telicity, volition, mirativity, evidentiality, animacy. I believe this list to be comprehensive enough to cover all languages used by Logos users and to be much longer than the common languages used.

Note the parsing information also shows in a tooltip in the lower left of the screen, in the Information panel, and in the context menu. The Information panel also provides a summary of the various translations of the verb.

QUESTION: How do mismatches between languages in the verbal aspects expression result in translation difficulties?

SOFTWARE: The question cannot be answered by a search, even a smart search. One needs the analysis and synthesis of your own effort aided, perhaps, by a chatbot style AI.

ANSWER: from Perplexity with the prompt: In translating, what problems arise when verbal aspects mismatch e.g. Hebrew has aspect and voice in the conjugation but English does not.

When translating between languages with mismatched verbal systems, such as Biblical Hebrew and English, several challenges arise due to differences in how aspect, voice, and other grammatical features are expressed. Below is an analysis of the problems that occur when these mismatches exist:

Key Problems in Translation

1. Aspect vs. Tense

Biblical Hebrew: Verbs primarily express aspect (completed vs. ongoing actions) rather than tense. For example, the qatal form often denotes completed action, while yiqtol indicates incomplete action.

English: Verbs rely heavily on tense (past, present, future) and use auxiliary verbs to convey aspect (e.g., "was walking" for progressive).

Problem: Translators must decide whether to prioritize the Hebrew aspect or adapt it into English tense. This can lead to loss of nuance:

Example: A Hebrew verb in the qatal form might refer to a past action but could also imply certainty or emphasis, which English tense alone cannot capture.

2. Voice

Biblical Hebrew: Voice (active, passive) is embedded within conjugation patterns.

English: Passive voice often requires auxiliary constructions ("was written").

Problem: Translating passive forms from Hebrew into English may require restructuring sentences entirely, potentially altering emphasis or meaning.

3. Morphological Complexity

Biblical Hebrew: Root-based morphology allows verbs to carry multiple grammatical functions (aspect, voice, mood) in a single form.

English: Relies on linear word order and auxiliary verbs to express these functions.

Problem: Translators must unpack Hebrew verbs into multiple English components, which can result in longer and less concise translations.

4. Idiomatic Expressions

Hebrew idiomatic phrases often rely on verbal forms tied to aspect or voice that do not have direct equivalents in English. Translators must rephrase these expressions creatively to preserve meaning.

5. Cultural Context

Biblical Hebrew verbs often imply relationships between actions based on cultural context (e.g., sequential actions implied by waw-consecutive). English lacks this implicit sequencing and requires explicit markers like "then" or "after."

6. Semantic Ambiguity

Hebrew verbs can be ambiguous due to their reliance on context for tense interpretation. For example, a yiqtol verb might refer to future action or habitual present action depending on the surrounding text.

English requires clear specification of time, forcing translators to make interpretive decisions.

Examples of Mismatched Features

Strategies for Overcoming These Challenges

1. Use Auxiliary Verbs:
   • To express aspect and voice explicitly in English (e.g., "was written" for passive voice).
2. Contextual Interpretation:
   • Analyze surrounding text carefully to determine appropriate tense or aspect.
3. Dynamic Equivalence:
   • Focus on conveying meaning rather than literal word-for-word translation.
4. Cultural Adaptation:
   • Consider cultural nuances when translating idiomatic expressions or implied sequences.
5. Consult Specialized Resources:
   • Use lexicons and grammar references to understand nuanced meanings of Hebrew verbal forms.

Conclusion

Mismatches between verbal systems in Biblical Hebrew and English result in challenges such as loss of nuance, ambiguity in aspect or tense interpretation, and difficulties with idiomatic expressions and voice reconstruction. Translators must rely on linguistic expertise, contextual analysis, and creative strategies to bridge these gaps effectively while preserving the original meaning and tone of the text.

QUESTION: How do mismatches between languages in the verbal aspects expression result in translation difficulties?

SOFTWARE: The question cannot be answered by a search, even a smart search. One needs the analysis and synthesis of a chatbot style AI.

ANSWER: from Perplexity with the prompt: In translating, what problems arise when verbal aspects mismatch e.g. French has polarity and valency in the conjugation but Hebrew does not?

When translating between languages with mismatched verbal systems, such as French and Hebrew, challenges arise due to differences in how features like polarity and valency are expressed in conjugation. Below is an analysis of the problems that arise when these mismatches occur:

Key Problems in Translation

1. Polarity

French: Polarity (positive or negative) is often embedded directly in the conjugation through negation markers (e.g., ne... pas, ne... jamais). For example:

Il joue ("He plays") vs. Il ne joue pas ("He does not play").

Hebrew: Polarity is not expressed in verb conjugation but through separate particles (e.g., lo for "not").

Problem: Translating French polarity into Hebrew requires restructuring sentences to include explicit negation particles. This can lead to:

Loss of brevity: French negation is compact, while Hebrew requires additional words.

Ambiguity: The emphasis or subtlety of French negation may not directly map onto Hebrew.

2. Valency

French: Valency (number of arguments a verb takes) can be modified within conjugation patterns, especially with reflexive verbs (e.g., se laver "to wash oneself").

Hebrew: Valency changes are expressed lexically or syntactically rather than morphologically. Reflexivity, for example, is indicated by pronouns rather than verb forms.

Problem: Translating French valency into Hebrew may require adding pronouns or rephrasing sentences entirely. This can result in:

Structural differences: French reflexive verbs are compact, while Hebrew relies on additional elements.

Potential misinterpretation: Reflexive constructions in French may carry idiomatic meanings that are lost in translation to Hebrew.

Examples of Mismatched Features

Challenges Specific to Mismatched Systems

Overtranslation or Undertranslation:

Translators may overcompensate for missing features in Hebrew by adding unnecessary words, or undertranslate by failing to capture the nuance of embedded French features.

Loss of Idiomatic Meaning:

Reflexive verbs in French often carry idiomatic meanings that do not translate directly into Hebrew (e.g., s’en aller = "to leave" vs. literal "to go oneself").

Ambiguity in Negation:

French polarity markers like ne... pas or ne... jamais can imply degrees of negation (e.g., "never" vs. "not"), which may be harder to replicate precisely in Hebrew.

Structural Differences:

French verbs integrate polarity and valency seamlessly into conjugation, whereas Hebrew requires additional syntactic elements, leading to longer and less concise translations.

Strategies for Resolving Mismatches

Rephrasing for Clarity:

Translate polarity explicitly using particles like lo while ensuring the tone and emphasis match the original.

Dynamic Equivalence:

Focus on conveying meaning rather than replicating grammatical structure (e.g., translating idiomatic reflexive verbs into their closest equivalent).

Contextual Analysis:

Use context to determine how polarity or valency contributes to the overall meaning and adjust translation accordingly.

Lexical Expansion:

Add necessary words or phrases in Hebrew to compensate for features embedded in French conjugations.

Conclusion

Mismatches between verbal systems like French and Hebrew create challenges related to structural differences, loss of nuance, and idiomatic meaning. Translators must rely on strategies such as rephrasing, dynamic equivalence, and contextual analysis to bridge these gaps effectively while preserving the intended meaning of the original text.