scovery of language function as a primary task of linguistics are called functionalists. Their approach to language study is called functional linguistics and functionalism.equivalenceequivalence translation is a subcategory of what many call idiomatic translation.translators of the God's Word (GW) English version describe this philosophy of translating (which they call function-equivalent translation) as follows : newer theory of translation is function-equivalent translation (often inaccurately called paraphrasing). In this type of translation, the translator tries to make the English function the same way the original language functioned for the original readers.preface continues with statements that I am not sure I can agree with, but they do reflect opinions about this translation philosophy which are held by an important percentage of those who evaluate Bible versions:, in trying to make the translation easy to read, the translator can omit concepts from the original text that don't seem to have corresponding modern English equivalents. Such a translation can produce a readable text, but that text can convey the wrong meaning or not enough meaning. Furthermore, function-equivalent translations attempt to make some books readable on levels at which they were not intended. For instance, Song of Songs was not written for children. ? Ле? Дер балалар? А арналип жазил? Ан жо?. Paul's letter to the John is very sophisticated. Паулди? Джон? А Арна? Ан хати? Ті тіяна? Ти. I couldn't answer your letter because I was snowed under with work. Мені? ж? мисим до? п бол? анди? тан мен хат? а жауап бере алмадим.preface does not identify which versions its authors regard as function-equivalent translation, but by process of elimination with the two other philosophies described in the preface, form -equivalent translation and closest natural equivalent translation (used in GW), we can guess that the GW translators are referring to versions such as LB, TEV, CEV, and NCV. We also do not know which translation approach the GW translators would regard as underlying more literal translations such as NIV, ISV, NET, and NLT, which are not precisely form-equivalent translations, yet they do not seem to fit into the function-equivalent category, as described in the GW preface. The GW translators contrast their approach, closest natural equivalent translation, with function-equivalent translation, but we do not know if they view GW as the only closest natural equivalent translation. It seems clear that not all who critique Bible versions use the same terms to describe translation philosophies, nor do they use all the terms in exactly the same way. The editor of this glossary is more comfortable with the terms formal equivalence and idiomatic translation, approaches to translation which appear on opposing ends of an idiomaticity scale. Some English translations cluster near either end of this scale while others are best described as ...
