volume 5, issue 1, 2013, pages 58-73

DOI: https://doi.org/10.64438/sbsGWXS5468
Published online: 2013-06-01
Published in print: 2013-06-30

Abstract: For a translator of ancient literature three basic techniques are considered legitimate: philological, cultural, and commentary translation – all of them respect the principle of the functional equivalence. While being linguistically faithful to the original, the philological translation chooses the most elegant way of expression. Explanatory notes are concise. The cultural translation attempts to “translate” cultural realia as well. Any commentary is built into the text of the translation itself. A commentary translation chooses such a translational equivalent that is formally closest to the original expression – it respects also the formal correspondence as far as possible. Such a translation does not have any life of its own, but forms a Siamese twin with the exhaustive textual commentary. The commentary translation with its secondary principle of formal correspondence is often confused with the illegitimate translation technique of the literal translation. The difference between them is shown on the example of participles. Linguistic analysis of the original recognizes several kinds of usage: (1) adjective participles, (2) adverbial and predicative participles, (3) analytic verbal expressions, (4) graphic participles, (5) participles expressing purpose, (6) construction of the type ei=pen le,gwn, (7) Greek participle as the translation of the Hebrew absolute infinitive. Each of these groups should be restructured in Slovak in a different way. Within the boundaries of one group, however, the translation is consistent.