On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Daniel A. Wier wrote:

> I had an NRSV once, but I had to "donate" it to the library when someone
> stole _The World's Major Languages_ when I checked it out.  And I really
> need that dang book.  All I have is a cheap paperback New American Bible
> (a bible with the Deuterocanonical books of the Catholic Church), but
> it's a looser translation than I care for.  Online, you can download in
> HTML or .txt format a King James Version with the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha;

Apocrypha!  Must find.  I got to read some of 'em in Old Testament when
I'd finish the homework and readings early, and then make a beeline for
the bibles with the Apocrypha.  I think I managed to snag Judith, Tobit
and a couple others, but I know I missed some.

> ObConlang: What approaches do you take (or plan to take) on translation
> of literature, secular or sacred?  I ask because there are basically two
> ways of translating the Bible, the Qur'an, the Vedas and what not.  You
> have *literal* translation, which preserves the text the most but can be
> confusing as it doesn't explain certain idiomatic expressions (especially
> if you're translating Hebrew, Sanskrit or Chinese into English or
> Spanish).  Then you have *liberal* translations which are easier to read
> but are often tainted with the translator's (-s') interpretations of the
> text.

<wince>  Literal may be nearly impossible even when I do have a fuller
lexis.  Probably somewhat liberal--the way a Chevraqis-speaker would try
to understand the text, with holes and mistakes and confusions.

> Genesis interests me the most, since it does deal with ancient history
> and legend.  One of my concultures in progress is the nation of Techia...
> about 10,000 years ago and in their original homeland, in and around
> modern Ethiopia, Uganda and Kenya.

There's something very tragic about Genesis, though; the early books
depress me, though they're fascinating.