From ef0a83d42deb31702c114c3d398cf8775a3378a4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Susan Quigley Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:24:28 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Update 'jit/figs-explicitinfo/01.md' Added missing quote mark. --- jit/figs-explicitinfo/01.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/jit/figs-explicitinfo/01.md b/jit/figs-explicitinfo/01.md index a24138f..fc3796a 100644 --- a/jit/figs-explicitinfo/01.md +++ b/jit/figs-explicitinfo/01.md @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ If you translate all of the explicit information from the source language into t >And Abimelech came to the tower and fought against it and drew near to the door of the tower to burn it with fire. (Judges 9:52 ESV) -In Biblical Hebrew, it was normal to start most sentences with a conjunction such as "and, "but," "or," or "for" to show the connection between sentences. In English, people do not normally start sentences with these words. If a writer starts many of his sentences with these words, it becomes tiresome for the English reader and gives the impression that the author was uneducated. Often in English, it is best to leave the idea of connection between sentences implicit and not translate the conjunction explicitly. +In Biblical Hebrew, it was normal to start most sentences with a conjunction such as "and," "but," "or," or "for" to show the connection between sentences. In English, people do not normally start sentences with these words. If a writer starts many of his sentences with these words, it becomes tiresome for the English reader and gives the impression that the author was uneducated. Often in English, it is best to leave the idea of connection between sentences implicit and not translate the conjunction explicitly. In Biblical Hebrew, it was normal to say that something was burned with fire. In English, the idea of fire is included in the action of burning, and so it is unnatural to state both ideas explicitly. It is enough to say that something was burned and leave the idea of fire implicit.