Optimality in the “Grammars” of Ancient Translations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a new methodology for describing, explaining, and tracking the linguistic and non-linguistic shifts that occurred in the ancient biblical translations. It first surveys the approach to Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) taken by Gideon Toury, outlining pertinent theoretical points. Second, it summarizes the principles and methods of Optimality Theory (OT), arguing that this linguistic model may be harnessed in order to benefit the study of ancient translations. Third, this article applies the theory and methods developed here to a single sample verse, 2 Sam 11:1. Through this study, I demonstrate that the combined theoretical and methodological model provided by DTS and OT allows us to identify, describe, evaluate, and organize the norms constraining the translator of Tg. Jon. to Samuel—and, by extension, to the other ancient Versions. Finally, I argue that we may use OT's notational system to capture regularities and anomalies in ancient translations, outlining their respective “grammars.”
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it