Tonny Kohar wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Peter von Kaehne <ref...@gmx.net> wrote:
Paraphrase is a better term than translation and any "about" should
reflect this. It is no translation. But we do have other paraphrases,
and they do have their place.
Sorry if it is seems like dumb questions, what is the difference
between translation vs paraphrases ?
A paraphrase is a translation on the dynamic equivalency side of the
formal/dynamic scale. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_version_debate#Types_of_translation
I disagree with this portion of this Wikipedia article on technical
grounds, but I think the spirit of the article is correct: formal
equivalency sits on one end of a scale and dynamic equivalency sits on
the other--and paraphrases sit on the dynamic end.
Is it correct to assume;
- translation is from one language to another language
- paraphrase is from one language to the same language using different wording
?
In this case, a paraphrase is a type of translation. That's not to say
that one could not paraphrase from a language into itself, but I don't
believe that is the case with the VolxBibel and I don't believe that was
the point Peter was trying to make.
If the above assumption are corrects, how about the legality of
paraphrase if based on the copyrighted works aka paraphrased copyright
works ?
Such a paraphrase would be a derivative work and thus the copyright
would be owned by both the owner of the original work and the owner of
the paraphrase, provided that the paraphrase was produced with
permission. If it was not produced with permission, then it would just
be a violation of the copyright of the original work.
--Chris
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
