Indeed , when seen context , maybe the translation becomes What do you think?

If the question was

asked a child to his mother , or to his father What do you think? There is also a possibility What do you
think ? if one is asking _ lecturer to his students ; or also in between friend , do you think how ?

Jacobson gave example that the word ' cheese ' is not can matched with the word ' syr ' in Language
Russia has _ more specific concept about various type cheese ( approx means 'cottage cheese' of course
No There is in British concept ). With so , said this cheese is better translated becomes ' tvarok ' instead
of ' syr '.

Nida (1964) is also more central attention to meaning more functional semantics and pragmatics . The
words will get meaning in accordance with the context , as well that meaning can changed in accordance
with culture place the language is used . Therefore , Nida distinguishes several types meaning : meaning
linguistics , meaning referential , and meaning emotive (Munday, 2001).

In line With that in mind, Chomsky's theory of the 'generative transformational grammar' model is
attempted explain universal features of language man mention that every Language consists from the
deep structure that undergoes the transformation process and the surface structure that results from
this transformation and is subject to the rules morphophonemic phonology the language . Nida actually
also has the same view about properties distinguishing language _ second structure , but prefer _ _ deep
structure because in that structure there is a core of meaning .

Gentzler (1993) rate that what Chomsky is doing is more focused on the meaning attached to the word
or sign ; while Nida is more on how the sign works in public certain . Therefore , Nida distinguishes two
types Equivalence : formal equivalence and equivalence dynamic .

On formal equivalence , translator focuses on the message itself , ie form and content , as well must
There is close similarity between _ _ message Language source and language target . With Thus , formal
equivalence is more language - oriented source . Munday (2001) mentions type this equivalent as the
usual 'gloss translation' accompanied with possible footnotes _ reader can understand culture and
customs customs Language source .

On comparability dynamic , translator focuses on messages in Language target that is that translation is a
must done in a manner natural in accordance with characteristic naturalness of language source and
language target . The content of the message (content) should take precedence than form (form). On
translation poetry , for example , a more form - focused translator poetry is more likely to misinterpret
Meaning author and more inclined damage meaning . Success a translator determined by success find
equivalent dynamic translation . _

Inside _ her book The Theory and Practice of Translation (1969) Nida says that responses given by
readers _ to script the translation should be the same as the response to Language the source , so for
understanding reader _ Language the original , the impression created by the translation will be more or
less the same.

JC Catford argued that in line with approach linguistics , which must first and foremost done in activity
translate is How We can find equivalent translate form equivalent words, phrases , clauses , sentences ,
and elements Language inside source _ Language the target . According to Catford, the two languages
are being handled by the actual translator always have mutual relationship _ although the relationship is
not always must symmetrical . I mean , second the language – however very different structure language
and culture too public user the language as well as which geographical is at in very remote areas – of
course have equivalent translate , during second that language is Language human . But Because second
language grows and develops in two different cultural areas , then _ _ reasonable just if one word or
group of language words source it is not gain equivalent proper translation _ meaning inside _ Language
target .

If it 's inside Language target No present equivalent translate a word or a group of such words , translator
No need feel worry that then the translation become the translation is ' bad ' cause besides there is
factors that are limited _ culture or cultural untranslatability, is also possible appearance constraints
caused by factors _ language or linguistic untranslatability. Task translator of course heavy If faced with a
variety of circumstances this limited . According to Said (2003), in translation from into Indonesian _
English , for example , exists number of words or expression that is not own equivalent direct , as the
words are there system religion and belief , system social , system organization , eye livelihoods ,
customs , artifacts , and the environment . Based on results analysis against several translators
professional , Said mentioned several translation strategies which include pattern special-general ,
modification with characteristics and form , modification with form and function , equivalent culture ,
equivalent descriptive , absorption word , transfer , pattern general-specific , and translation literally .
The most common translation strategies used by translators professional it is equivalent descriptive and
cultural (Said, 2003).

Finnay added that do activity translation is the same with present a text Language inside source _
Language other . According to Finlay, translation no must care in a manner small (in detail ) related
matters with form language . Most importantly , what is the presentation text inside _ Language the
target shows same message and impression , or at least close to , or No with text Language the source .
If they are the same, the translation is certain good translation , and if no , the translation can be
categorized as bad translation . _ However so , necessary remembered that No There is possible
translation _ catch all messages and impressions Language source in a manner full .

Levy (1967) places more emphasis on the creative process a translator . translator in his opinion given
freedom For interpret Language source and then find equivalent translation that fits inside _ Language
target . In Translation as a Decision Process (1967), Levy said that activity translation is challenging
activities that are not just sued the translators For knowledgeable _ _ about language and culture second
Language source and language target , but also spur the creativity of the translators For choose one _
from that's all Lots alternative equivalent he translated .

As an endeavor move existing messages _ in system symbol Language source with the equivalent inside
Language target , Leonard Forster reminded that in the process of translation is difficult very for
translators _ For separate content message from form or system the symbol because basically _
Language is combination between system symbol with system meaning , and both no with easy can
separated . In translation , according to Forster, the translators demanded For can divert Good content
nor shape . However , work so it is tough job _ once – if not something impossible _ done .

Can concluded that in translation is the most important is switch message or meaning Language inside
source _ Language target and, so far maybe , adjust shape , as well disclosed reasonable maybe . Nida
and Taber reminded that translator must can find equivalent Language natural source _ Good meaning
nor style the disclosure . In other words, translation is the matching process meaning , no equate it (one-
to-one correspondence) ( Machali , 2000).