Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Formal equivalence is often more goal than reality, if only because one language may contain a word for a concept which has no direct equivalent in another language. In such cases, a more dynamic translation may be used or a neologism may be created in the target language to represent the concept (sometimes by borrowing a word from the source ...
Functional equivalence of the animal species consuming and dispersing the seeds can account for the ability for these plants to continue to survive without genetic changes to their fruit/seed morphology. [3] As with the Hormathophylla example above, the plant species are not subjected to selective pressures the same way that animals are.
For more information, see "Dynamic and formal equivalence." Nida also developed the componential analysis technique, which split words into their components to help determine equivalence in translation (e.g. "bachelor" = male + unmarried). This is, perhaps, not the best example of the technique, though it is the most well-known.
These codes differ in terminology, and there is a long-term project to "harmonize" this. For instance, the ICN uses "valid" in "valid publication of a name" (=the act of publishing a formal name), with "establishing a name" as the ICZN equivalent. The ICZN uses "valid" in "valid name" (="correct name"), with "correct name" as the ICN equivalent ...
A classic example of an equivalence group is the vulva precursor cells (VPCs) of nematodes. In Caenorhabditis elegans self-fertilized eggs exit the body through the vulva . This organ develops from a subset of cell of an equivalence group consisting of six VPCs, P3.p-P8.p, which lie ventrally along the anterior-posterior axis. [ 5 ]
The question of fidelity vs. transparency has also been formulated in terms of, respectively, "formal equivalence" and "dynamic [or functional] equivalence" – expressions associated with the translator Eugene Nida and originally coined to describe ways of translating the Bible; but the two approaches are applicable to any translation. "Formal ...
In 1964, [citation needed] Eugene Nida described translation as having two different types of equivalence: formal and dynamic equivalence. [14] Formal equivalence is when there is focus on the message itself (in both form and content); [15] the message in the target language should match the message in the source language as closely as possible ...
Functional equivalence can refer to Dynamic and formal equivalence in biblical translation; Functional equivalence (ecology), a concept in community ecology;