Trip to PNG

Above: Checking session in Alotau, Papua New Guinea. From l-r: me, Joanna Framptom (from New Zealand), Siyokira, Robat, and Stuart.

I've just completed another trip to PNG. This one was a bit longer than most since I had to go to our main center of Ukarumpa. I spent 4 weeks there to sell a lot of our things, store some and send the rest home. I also had to do some repairs on our house and prepare it to be sold. It's up for sale along with 14 others. Some have been for sale for over a year now. So I don't know if ours will sell any time soon.

The rest of the time was spent in Alotau to have Matthew, Galatians, and 2 Thessalonians checked. The way the checking is done is quite simple. I had translated the three books back into English as literally as possible and still have it make any sense. The consultant then read through them comparing them to the Greek. She looked for things I left out, things that looked too literal from the Greek that might not make sense to a speaker of Gumawana, things that looked more like my theology was coming through and things that were just plain wrong. When we met in Alotau I had 4 men come from Nubogeta to work with us on the check. Three of the men had not worked on the books. The other one, Tomasi, worked on all of them. So he was not allowed to answer the questions. The consultant asked me questions, which I translated into Gumawana. The men then looked at the text and answered the questions. From that we could tell if the translation was clear.

Checking is hard work for all involved believe it or not. It took a week to do Matthew, 2 days to do Galatians and one morning to do 2 Thessalonians. I could tell by the end of the first week the three men were burned out from the intense concentration and having to answer so many questions. We did find a number of places that needed to be fixed. We were grateful to find those now and not after it was published.

The hardest part for me is having to listen to the answers the men gave and remember all that they said so I could translate it for the consultant. Often Siyokira would give an answer that would go for several minutes. Then there were those moments where I forgot that the consultant didn't know Gumawana and tried to give the answer to her in Gumawana!

I was very impressed with how well the translation turned out which was evidenced by the answers they gave. One thing the consultant will do sometimes is ask them to read the text then close the book and try to tell it back. It really is a great way to tell whether the text is put together well. If the person cannot tell it back with good chronology and a number of minor details, most likely the text is poorly constructed. I tested this out with a group of adults one time and it was amazing how accurate people can retell when a text is well structured. When it is not, most details are left out, only a small amount of the main story is remembered or they get most of the details wrong. The reason this works is that as a person tells a story the listener is creating in his mind a mental image of what took place. The better the story is put together the clearer the picture will be in the listener's mind enabling him to easily recall it.

I have also discovered that distractions can make it difficult to recall information as well. A lawn mower going can be enough for someone not to remember the details of what is read. For that reason we had an interesting incident which I relate in our latest newsletter. We were reading in Matthew 20 about the 2 blind men who call out to Jesus. As I was reading Tomasi and Stuart were talking and I knew this would make it hard for the other 2 to concentrate and remember the details. So as I was reading I raised my hand to attempt to signal them to be quiet. As I did this I came to the place where the crowd rebuked the 2 men. At that moment I read with great emphasis "And the crowd said, 'You be quiet!'" As soon as I read that silence fell on the group until the words sunk in and then we all burst out laughing. I couldn't have planned it to happen that way. But it did lighten up the tenseness in the room so that we could proceed with the checking.

One great benefit of checking our translations this way is that these men at the end of the checking know that they can trust it for accuracy. It has a stamp of approval and they experienced the torture of going through the process. They will be good PR back in the village and later when the NT is completed, they will be giving a great testimony to its reliability.

When checking we have learned that when the person gives a wrong answer, it doesn't automatically mean that the text is wrong. We have to usually ask more questions to find out why the person answers the way he did. During this session several times I asked the men where in the text they were seeing the answer to their question. If they can't point to it in the text, I know they were just giving their opinion and their answer was not based on what they read. The answers to most questions are in the text so we encourage them to read and then reread the text to find it.

Some of the questions are very difficult. The purpose often is to make sure the text does not produce some wild ideas. But even for the difficult questions they produced some very good sound answers. These men have learned a tremendous amount about reading a text. And I learned again about how to ask questions properly. If you ask the question wrong, undoubtedly you will get a wrong answer. Same in the checking. Reading fluency really is an art that is achieved only through practice. This is true for the Gumawana speakers as well as English or any other language. To get the most of any text it takes work to really understand what the author intended. This is difficult in a translation because so much of what is in the original is from a culture that is very different from the target language, in this case Gumawana. And it takes a lot of work to constantly look at each clause and see how it is related to its context. This is what these men were having to do for 8 days straight as we went verse by verse through the three books we were translating.

Matthew is much easier to check because it is narrative with some teaching. But Galatians and 2 Thessalonians were much more difficult. There it is not a matter of just retelling a story. Instead they had to draw inferences from what we had written. They had to follow the argument of Galatians which is not always easy.

Now that these books are finished, we have 50% of the NT checked. If we can finish John and 1 Corinthians this year we will have another 25% that is translated and needing to be checked, leaving just 8 books to finish the NT!

Thank you for praying for this work.

Translation or Paraphrase?

I'm sure you've heard people comment about a particular version of the Bible in which they will refer to it as a "paraphrase". When they do, they usually mean this in a negative way.

What do people mean by paraphrase? What is a paraphrase of the Bible as opposed to a translation? Is there a difference? These are good questions. Have you ever thought about them?

Recently on a Bible translation forum for translators this was discussed. And one of the statements by a participant was that people need to be made aware of the difference so there is no confusion on it (I'm paraphrasing :) ).

What version of the Bible would you call a paraphrase and why? What is it about that version that makes you call it a paraphrase? Once you have answered that question, read on.

Here are a couple of definitions to consider:

paraphrase: n. "rewording for the purpose of clarification." v. "Express the same message in different words." Wikopedia states that it "is restatement of a text or passages, using other words." But further on it gives the following example: "'The signal was red' might be paraphrased as 'The train was not allowed to proceed.' When accompanying the original statement, a paraphrase is usually introduced with a verbum dicendi — a declaratory expression to signal the transition to the paraphrase. For example, in 'The signal was red, that is, the train was not allowed to proceed,' the 'that is' signals the paraphrase that follows."

translation: n. "A written communication in a second language having the same meaning as the written communication in a first language." The wikopedia definition of translation is as follows. "Translation is the comprehension of the meaning of a text and the subsequent production of an equivalent text, likewise called a 'translation,' that communicates the same message in another language."

Notice that for paraphrase it seems to be implied that we are working within the same language. But translation involves moving meaning from language to another. So the main difference between a paraphrase and translation seems to be the languages involved. From the above definitions it would seem, then, that the Living Bible is not a paraphrase. It is a translation since it is communicating the same meaning from the Greek and Hebrew to English. If the translator of the Living Bible did not make use of the Greek and Hebrew, but merely took, say, the NIV and restated it, that would be a paraphrase. He would still be working with the meaning of the text just in the same language as the original meaning was stated.

As a Bible translator I am producing not a paraphrase, but a translation since I am beginning in the Greek, taking the message, and as accurately as I can putting it into Gumawana. Now the Gumawana, if I translated it back into English, would not look like the NIV, the NASB, or even the Living Bible. My goal is not to match word for word what the Greek said. If I did that, the Gumawana would make no sense and there are times it would be impossible due to grammar and lack of an equivalent word. Instead, the meaning of what is said is put into a form that a Gumawana speaker would understand. This is true of the NIV or any other translation into English. Even the most "literal" of the English translations are not that literal. There has to be some adjustments (even in the KJV) in order for it to make sense to us in English.

Paraphrase is not a negative thing. It is doing something similar as translation only it is within the same language. It is stating the meaning using other words.

Our goal is translating the Bible is threefold: make it clear, accurate, natural.

Clear: We want the reader to be able to read it and understand it. If the translation is too literal it will not be clear. I can show you verses in the NASB that make little sense because they are trying to follow Greek grammar.

Accurate: The translation needs to accurately reflect the meaning of the original (or source text). For that reason our translation must be checked in the village as well as by a consultant.

Natural: This one is just as important as the other two. Here we want the translation to sound like Gumawana speakers. For example, often in the Greek we have to make a statement into a direct quote because that is the way Gumawana speakers would tell it.

So the next time you hear someone saying a particular version of the Bible is a paraphrase, feel free to correct the misunderstanding. Paraphrase is restating the meaning using different words in the same language. Translation is stating the meaning from one language into another language.

Coming trip to Papua New Guinea

I'm holding Liyan here. She seems to have become a good friend over the last couple of years.


Very soon I will be making another trip to Papua New Guinea. This trip will be different in many respects from the previous trips I've made. This time I will spend several weeks at our main center in the highlands of PNG. I will be putting our house there up for sale since it is sitting empty and has been for over a year and a half. So to do that I need to get our things out. Some I will sell off and others I will pack and some will be sent back to the States.

Once that is done I head to Alotau, the provincial capital of the Milne Bay Province. I have planned to have some of the men come from Nubogeta in order to check Matthew, Galatians, and 2 Thessalonians. A consultant will come to do the checking in two weeks.

Some people may not realize the process the translation goes through. Once a book is finished, we check it in the village with people who did not work on it. The goal is to find out if it is clear and understandable. When that is done the book is then translated back into English (and thus it is called a "back-translation" or VE "vernacular to English") so that a consultant can check it against the Greek or Hebrew. A checking session involves having native speakers answer the consultant's questions to check again for clarity. This is our quality control and is quite effective for finding mistakes. We want the translation to be clear, natural, and understandable.

You can be praying for this trip. If you would like to be a part of the Gumawana translation, just click on the "Become a financial partner with the Olsons" on the right side of this blog.

At the moment I am working on 1 Corinthians. I do a first rough translation which I will be able to give to the translators while I'm over in PNG this time. They can go through it and make corrections so that when I return to work on it they will have already worked through it.

I'm also continuing work on a grammar paper dealing with how Gumawana speakers mark participants in a story. I have been working on this paper for some time and would like very much to finish it. I am getting close but as I work on it I find other interesting aspects which I think are important to understand to make a better translation. Over the last couple of weeks I have been working on the pronouns. One huge difference between English and Gumawana is that Gumawana has two sets of pronouns, whereas English has just one. Every verb in Gumawana has the subject attached as a prefix. So where English would say "he said" Gumawana uses one word idigo. The i-means "third person". It could refer to "he, she, or it". The prefixes are not stressed. But there is a second set of pronouns which are not attached to the verb. These are stressed pronouns. The goal is to figure out when it is necessary for them to occur. So to find out I have to read story after story in Gumawana marking every occurrence of the pronouns. I also have to do some reading of grammars from other languages to see what kinds of things pronouns do there. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't. I am beginning to make some progress on this area, but still have a ways to go.

So that is where I am at the moment.

Participant referencing

For those who don't like grammar, you might not want to read the rest of this post.

I'm working on attempting to figure out how Gumawana tracks its participants in a story. Participants are both people and things that a speaker has to keep track of while telling a story. What I'm struggling with at the moment is the interesting use of the Gumawana word for "one" which is tayamo [taYAmo]. So far I've discovered that Gumawana does not have a system where they mark nouns as either definite or indefinite. English uses "a" and "the" to mark the majority of nouns as either indefinite or definite. English can leave both off to give the idea of a class of nouns like in the clause "elephants are big". I'm not referring to any particular elephant nor do I have one particular one in mind. I'm just talking about elephants in general.

So without such an overt system, how do Gumawana speakers tell when a noun is definite or indefinite. As I read the stories that have been written by native speakers over the years, I sense that context plays a huge role in determining this. They also mark nouns with possession for example to say "I am going to go fishing for some fish." a Gumawana speaker will say "I fish my fish." By saying "my fish" he is not referring to any particular fish he could point out since he hasn't caught them yet. What he is saying is that the fish are for eating. They accomplish this concept by the use of one of their possessive phrases (they have three!). I am still learning how this all works.

Instead of an overt system of marking definite and indefinite nouns, Gumawana speakers seem to be more interested in the status of the participant. In other words, they mark those participants who are important to the overall story and plot. Those who are minor or trivial are never marked in any way when they are introduced. So in some of the stories I've collected the authors will begin with something like "one boy whose name was Gumasai." What they are saying is "there once was a certain boy whose name was Gumasai." The italicized word translate the word tayamo as it is used here. Again, not all participants are introduced this way, only those who are most important to the story from the author's perspective.

One way they mark a participant as prominent is by means of either the word tayamo "one" when the participant is being introduced. Then they use a suffix on the noun [-ya] to mark those participants who are the center of attention at a particular point in the story once they have been introduced. Only one noun in a clause can be marked with -ya.

This discovery is vital to good translating. So now I must apply it to our translating by looking at each participant in how he/she/it is introduced so that those who are the most important are to be marked with tayamo when they first appear.

The word tayamo is also used with the word for "time". When this phrase is used it seems to mark a break in the story line. It implies that there is a major shift in the story that happened at a particular time. In other words, the events that happened at that time are being marked as prominent.

I still am working to refine my hypothesis. The goal is to be able to predict when it will occur. Not quite there yet. So much to learn still.

Gumawana Verbs

Gumawana has an interesting verb system. They use numerous prefixes to convey meaning that other languages do through prepositional phrases. As an example, in Gumawana they can do the following with one verb mata 'die'.

1. kimata 'kill by use of hand'. Literally 'cause to die by hand'. This one can be used of someone killing another person with his hands. Or it can refer to turning off something (extended use of 'kill by hand').
2. samata 'kill with water'. Literally 'cause to die with water'. This can be over watering something to the point of killing it. The subject can be rain in that too much will kill certain plants in a garden.
3. kaumata 'kill with stone/force'. Literally 'cause to die by stone/force'. This one most likely originally meant only to kill by stone but is used more often now with the idea of 'force'.
4. kalimata 'kill with pointed instrument'. Literally it is 'cause to die with a pointed instrument.' So if someone spears someone, this is the verb to use to describe that action since a spear is pointed.
5. vamata 'kill with foot'. Literally 'cause to die by foot.' So if I squash a bug on the ground, I can use this verb to describe the action.
   
6. tumata 'kill with the buttocks'. Literally 'cause to die by buttocks'. Sounds funny, does it not? But if a person sits on a small insect or even a puppy and kills it, this is the word you want to use to describe that action.
   
7. kanamata 'kill by lying down.' Literally 'cause to die by lying down.' Another somewhat humorous one considering that we normally don't think of killing someone or something by lying on them. Yet if someone rolls over and kills something this is the way to describe it.
   
8. didmate 'killing by strangling or choking'. Literally 'cause to die by strangulation.' This could be considered a compound verb except that the verb didi is being used to describe the manner in which the killing occurs. It is used of a vine wrapping around another plant and choking it off.
   
9. sapimate 'kill by slapping.' Literally 'cause to die by slapping.' This is really a compound verb since technically sapina can occur by itself. However, in this case it appears to function like the other prefixes in giving the manner in which the killing is accomplished. It is heard often with respect to putting out a fire since the action of slapping is perceived as the means of putting the fire out. I have not heard it used for anything else, though it could.
   
10. kamata 'kill by teeth'. Literally 'cause to die by use of teeth.' This one is typically used with dogs who kill by biting. But it can be used of any animal killing another.
    

Now in the book of Exodus God's commandments are listed. One which we all know is "You shall not kill." The one that is really the only appropriate one to use is number 3 kaumata 'kill with force'. This one is somewhat generic and can be used in most instances. In other words, the prefix kau- has come to be so vague that the word as a whole can mean just 'kill' in most cases.

Another example is the word upa 'break' which can take a variety of prefixes to describe how something is broken. This verb refers to the breaking of something long and thin. That would include things like, rope, twine, string, wire, etc. It does not refer to breaking of glass or clay pots. That is another verb.

1. taopa [ta+upa becomes topa] 'broke'. The prefix ta- here indicates that the action happened on its own. So this would be the generic way of saying 'it broke.' By using this form the speaker is saying that no one is to blame. By using any other form, the speaker is saying the subject intended to break it. In other words, if you want to say that it was an accident, you have to use this form to convey that information.
2. kiupe 'break with hands.' If I break string with my hands, this is the one to use.
3. kauupe 'break with stone/force.' Using extreme force or a rock on a wire or vine would require using this one.
4. vaupe 'break with foot'
5. kaliupe 'break with pointed instrument.'
6. kaupe 'break with teeth'. Very common there. I've seen people cut fishing line with their teeth (also fish cutting a line) and use this term.
   
7. saupe 'break with water.' Again the water is the means by which someone breaks or cuts through something long and thin.

You get the idea. The language has many, many verbs that work this way. So once I figured out the different prefixes, I could create words fairly easily. However, Gumawana speakers tend NOT to want to create new words. In fact, as I have tested them, they tend not to recognize these parts of the word. They view kaumata 'kill by force' as a whole. So if I try to create a word using the various parts I have identified, unless someone in the language has said the word and it is being used, they reject it. They would rather borrow a word than create one.

Yet other language groups in the same province will create words easily and accept them. In fact, it becomes almost a game. Every language is different. It never ceases to amaze me how they function.

So this is just to give you a little glimpse into how people on the Amphletts organize their world.

Trip to Nubogeta update

I went to the village this time hoping to maybe finish six chapters of Luke and half of John. This would result in finishing both books next year. As we began working on Luke the first week, I was convinced if we got done with 3 chapters while I was there we would be doing good. The group of men and women who came were just not talking this time. However, on Wednesday we began working quicker and it seemed they were coming to life. After two weeks of working on the book we had finished chapter 22. So the question was do we wait until next year to do 2 chapters or attempt to work through them in the week that was left. During the day we would be working on John so I asked a couple of the men if they would be willing to work on Saturday and then each night until we finished. They were all for it. Saturday we finished chapter 23 and on Sunday afternoon we finished chapter 24. I was amazed that we were able to get so much completed.

As for John, when the men showed up to work, I noticed there were 5 who had never worked with me before. That was not a good sign. New people tend to not talk and so it looked as though that week was going to be difficult. But God seemed to have brought the right people together. Isileli, who leads that group from Gumawana, had asked Tomasi from Nubogeta to join us. I had also asked Tomasi to come thinking it would be better if he was in the group as well. It was a good decision. As it turns out Tomasi had been studying the book for the last year on his own. He had no thought of joining us when he began reading it. Even before we started work on it Tomasi and I were talking about the difficulties in the book.

What impressed me most with this group from Gumawana was there interaction with each other. I would write on the board how I translated the text over the past year. They would immediately ignore me and begin discussing with each other as to the best way to render it. This kind of discussion is always good because they argue with each other and try various ways to state something. When they all agree, I usually feel we have it right. We made it to around the middle of chapter 8. The half way point in the book is the end of chapter 9. So I feel grateful that we completed as much as we did. I have left copies of both Luke and John for them to edit Luke and to work through the rest of John. Next year I do believe we might be able to complete John.

I enjoyed many conversations with Tomasi over the past month. He continues to grow in his faith. The difference between him and many others is his humility and his desire to continue learning. He has never gone to school, yet he taught himself enough English to read a study Bible. He studies daily and has memorized a great deal of Scripture.

Recently he told me how a woman from our village was at the United Church circuit headquarters at Wadalei (about 25 km south of Nubogeta) to give a sermon. Before going she had come to Tomasi for help. He outlined and explained how she could give a sermon on a particular topic. Later after she had given the sermon, the minister in charge was quite impressed with what she had to say. She never told him that it was Tomasi. God continues to use him to produce a great translation.

Taukidi is one of our translators from Gumawana Island. He came to work on John with us over the past month. I noticed Taukidi would read what was written on the board, but consistently misread what was written. Furthermore, he was having to move up closer to the board to see better. He told me his eyes were getting bad to the point where he could see very little at a distance. I have never seen anyone from the Amphletts have difficulty in seeing things in the distance. I'm guessing the use of lanterns at night is damaging the eyes of most of the people. One morning when I noticed he was having a great deal of trouble reading the board, I took off my glasses and handed them to him. After putting them on he exclaimed, "It's so clear! It's like the way I used to see." So while home I need to find some old pairs of prescription glasses for nearsighted people to take him a pair. If you have glasses you no longer need and would like to donate them to someone on the Amphletts, contact me and I will show you how.

Overall the time in the village went well. I enjoyed seeing everyone again. It is always hard to leave them, because I know next time there may be a few people missing. Death is all too common there. I'm thankful that I stayed healthy the entire time.

Thanks to those who prayed for this trip. It is an important aspect of the task!

Update on Clif's trip.

The first week of translation seems to have gone well. In fact, the group came to Clif and asked if they could work on Saturday as well.

This is their second week translating; I haven't heard how this week is going thus far.

The outboard engine, which Clif mentioned in his prayer requests, was working fine when they checked it.. that was a very big praise.

The Vanuatu tsunami warning this evening gave me a little bit of a, "mouth dropped open, and 'What! How far away are we?'" feeling... for all of five minutes, until the newscaster announced that it had been canceled already. THAT was a nice thing to hear. I'll still be very interested to hear if they had any outlying ramifications as a result of it.

I think that's about it for now. If I can remember, I will post again after I hear from our friends, who are acting as liaison for us.