--- "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
wrote:

> Michael Everson wrote:
> >
> > At 07:09 -0400 2004-07-30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > > > "and most notably the recent first full
> > > > translation of the Quran into Berber,
> > > > published 2003, a powerful influence in
> > > > itself."
> > >
> > >Then the publicist, at least, is not an orthodox
> > >Muslim.
> >
> > This is going to go rapidly off topic.
> >
> > I have a bilingual Qur'an, with the Arabic text on
> > one side and the Mandenkan text in N'Ko script on
> > the other.
>
> The "Mandenkan" is not a translation, it's an
> interpretation. See any published English version
> prepared by a Muslim.

At this point I'd like to hear the difference between
the definitions of "translation" and "interpretation"
which seem to suggest that any other work can be
the subject of either process but the ÞõÑúÂä can be
the
subject only of the latter.

Isn't a translation of any text in any language to any
other language just an interpretation?

Is it somehow politically correct to call a
translation
of the ÞõÑúÂä an interpretation?

If the same translator translates both a novel and the
ÞõÑúÂä what is she doing differently in the latter
case?

Andrew Dunbar.

> --
> Peter T. Daniels
> grammatim@...
>

___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com