Lingamish has posted a translation theory florilegium (of sorts) whose purpose is to throw light on “some of the philosophies that underlie the CEV translation.” The selection from an interview with Barclay Newman (among others!) caught my attention:
“We take in consideration the fact that more people hear the scriptures read than read them for themselves, and we tried to create a text that a person who is unfamiliar with traditional biblical jargon can read aloud without stumbling, can hear without misunderstanding, and can listen to with appreciation and enjoyment because the language is lucid and lyrical.”
Fair enough, I suppose; but to this one might easily reply with a quote from the Rev Mr John Hobbins (which features an embedded quote from the Rev Mr Ker himself):
“I agree with Lingamish’s earlier propositions, which he has now forgotten:
1. A truly literary translation will suggest the foreignness of the original without being incomprehensible.
2. A literary translation will not be literary in ways that the original is not.
A corollary of (2) is that a literary translation will be literary where the original is.”
And one might add, a “literary translation” (and note that this term is, in fact, equivalent to what ElShaddai has aptly called Literary Equivalence) will not be complicated where the original is not, and by the same token, will not be simpler than the original.