0
Usenet Posted 23 years ago
Usage
Translation an proper use of [...] and (...) for translators notes
I have an extended quotation of an English translation of verses from the Qur'an. Almost without exception the translators use parenthesis to inject their notes, comments, amplifications, or segues. In the following example, I quote 1 verse both ways.
Verily, those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah and in His Messenger) and work deeds of righteousness, the Most Beneficent (Allah) will bestow love for them (in the hearts of the believers). Qur'an 19:096
Verily, those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah and in His Messenger) and work deeds of righteousness, the Most Beneficent (Allah) will bestow love for them (in the hearts of the believers). Qur'an 19:096
Which is more proper? Is either acceptable?
The Qur'an itself makes extensive use of parenthetical references. It seems like using parenthesis in the translation notes would make using parenthesis for a translation of a parenthetical expression not differentiable from the former. Does this have a bearing on what is proper? -- Best Wishes, Clay Chip Smith (Email Removed) www.Clay.Smith.name
Verily, those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah and in His Messenger) and work deeds of righteousness, the Most Beneficent (Allah) will bestow love for them (in the hearts of the believers). Qur'an 19:096
Verily, those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah and in His Messenger) and work deeds of righteousness, the Most Beneficent (Allah) will bestow love for them (in the hearts of the believers). Qur'an 19:096
Which is more proper? Is either acceptable?
The Qur'an itself makes extensive use of parenthetical references. It seems like using parenthesis in the translation notes would make using parenthesis for a translation of a parenthetical expression not differentiable from the former. Does this have a bearing on what is proper? -- Best Wishes, Clay Chip Smith (Email Removed) www.Clay.Smith.name
Top answer
60265$(Email Removed)... [nq:1]Which is more proper? [/nq] I'd say it makes little difference, just as long as it was consistent throughout, and not confusing.
- 60265$(Email Removed)...
- [nq:1]Which is more proper?
- [/nq] I'd say it makes little difference, just as long as it was consistent throughout, and not confusing.
- The convention would be to use parentheses (round brackets) for parenthetical passages that are an integral part of the text, and brackets (square brackets) for insertions, explanatory notes, glosses etc added by the translator.
- Of course, more subtle variations may be required.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
7 Answers
0
JlVOa.60265$(Email Removed)...
[nq:1]Which is more proper? Is either acceptable?[/nq]
I'd say it makes little difference, just as long as it was consistent throughout, and not confusing. The convention would be to use parentheses (round brackets) for parenthetical passages that are an integral part of the text, and brackets (square brackets) for insertions, explanatory notes, glosses etc
[nq:1]Which is more proper? Is either acceptable?[/nq]
I'd say it makes little difference, just as long as it was consistent throughout, and not confusing. The convention would be to use parentheses (round brackets) for parenthetical passages that are an integral part of the text, and brackets (square brackets) for insertions, explanatory notes, glosses etc
00
[nq:1] JlVOa.60265$(Email Removed)...[/nq]
[nq:2]Which is more proper? Is either acceptable?[/nq]
[nq:1]I'd say it makes little difference, just as long as it was consistent throughout, and not confusing. [/nq]
Every copy of the King James Bible I have seen uses italics for words added by the translators.
\\P. Schultz
[nq:2]Which is more proper? Is either acceptable?[/nq]
[nq:1]I'd say it makes little difference, just as long as it was consistent throughout, and not confusing. [/nq]
Every copy of the King James Bible I have seen uses italics for words added by the translators.
\\P. Schultz
00
(Email Removed)...
[nq:1]Every copy of the King James Bible I have seen uses italics for words added by the translators.[/nq]
Yes, I suppose they didn't have square brackets in the 17th century, only the bent ones. :-)
[nq:1]Every copy of the King James Bible I have seen uses italics for words added by the translators.[/nq]
Yes, I suppose they didn't have square brackets in the 17th century, only the bent ones. :-)
00
[nq:1]I have an extended quotation of an English translation of verses from the Qur'an. Almost without exception the translators use ... Does this have a bearing on what is proper? -- Best Wishes, Clay Chip Smith (Email Removed) www.Clay.Smith.name[/nq]
I was taught strictly square brackets (for insertions by the editor), and whatever you call three dots ... for deletions by the editor.
I was taught strictly square brackets (for insertions by the editor), and whatever you call three dots ... for deletions by the editor.
00
[nq:1] (Email Removed)...[/nq]
[nq:2]Every copy of the King James Bible I have seen uses italics for words added by the translators.[/nq]
[nq:1]Yes, I suppose they didn't have square brackets in the 17th century, only the bent ones. :-)[/nq]
The italics were snuck in from Italy. It was a Romish plot. And the dumb Protestants still don't realize it!
\\P. Schultz
[nq:2]Every copy of the King James Bible I have seen uses italics for words added by the translators.[/nq]
[nq:1]Yes, I suppose they didn't have square brackets in the 17th century, only the bent ones. :-)[/nq]
The italics were snuck in from Italy. It was a Romish plot. And the dumb Protestants still don't realize it!
\\P. Schultz
00
yeah, i can just picture them picking an choosing.. no, not sure the inkjet supports that.. hmm, lets use Arial 10.. and hey, lets italicize it, for emphasis... catch any fish today? ;-)
[nq:2] (Email Removed)... Yes, I suppose they didn't have square brackets in the 17th century,only the bent ones. :-)[/nq]
[nq:1]The italics were snuck in from Italy. It was a Romish plot. And the dumb Pr
[nq:2] (Email Removed)... Yes, I suppose they didn't have square brackets in the 17th century,only the bent ones. :-)[/nq]
[nq:1]The italics were snuck in from Italy. It was a Romish plot. And the dumb Pr
00
[nq:1]I have an extended quotation of an English translation of verses from the Qur'an. Almost without exception the translators use parenthesis to inject their notes, comments, amplifications, or segues. In the following example, I quote 1 verse both ways.[/nq]
Hilali uses round brackets for insertions that makes the english easier, square brackets (the Ahmadi translation uses italics) for a
Hilali uses round brackets for insertions that makes the english easier, square brackets (the Ahmadi translation uses italics) for a
0
Related Questions