1. Introduction

This is the more general part of a series of reports on oral Bible translation checking in

Tsumkwe, Namibia (Ju/'hoansi and Central !Xun),
Shakawe, Botswana (Khwedam) and
East-Hanahai, Botswana (Dcui/Dxana[1], and Naro).

The other three reports deal with the details of the different languages in which checking was done, this part handles the general issues that I found to be important in each storying project.

Durk indicated that this is the first time in the world that we are producing on oral standard of the Bible stories this way. So it is important that things are being thought through well.

2. Procedure and setup

Each language community had prepared stories, with the purpose of telling those stories to people in their community.
In the workshops, the main purpose was to:
dig deeper into the stories,
check them for accuracy/ clarity/ naturalness,
record them, and
develop strategies to expand the work.
The time schedules were quite flexible. Generally, we started work between 7h00 and 8h00, and we worked till lunch. After lunch, we worked till around 5pm. In East-Hanahai, we took long lunch breaks because of the heat, and then worked for some two hours in the afternoon. In the evenings there, we met around the fire to discuss story issues.
The schedule contained several items:
discuss story issues:
how to tell them
which questions to ask
how to ask questions
studying stories
checking the quality of the stories
recording stories

3. Checking the stories

My main job during the workshop was to check the stories for accuracy, clarity and naturalness.
I sometimes led the whole group in checking a story as it was told:
asking everybody to contribute. I consider it an important part of the consultant job to train people to do things themselves as well as possible.
Some were just listening, others had their Bibles open (in different languages) and commented on which elements were omitted, added or changed.
This was a good learning experience for all: people now understood better which qualities are expected of a good story.
Sometimes, I led a sub-group in checking a story (In Tsumkwe, we basically worked in the two sub-groups. In East-Hanahai, I was especially involved with the Dcui/Dxana group).
Also, I checked the stories after they were recorded.
Several question arose during the consultancy. I will go through them in the next chapters, which I divided into
questions about (the content of) the standard
question about recording
questions about checking
questions about the collection of stories

4. Questions about (the content of) the standard

4.1. Q: Why is important to have a standard?

It is necessary that people can trust the "text" that they use.

There is a challenge: all kinds of cults come with stories with more or less from the Bible – we want to bring the Bible as standard, so that people can evaluate their beliefs.
We want to have a standard that is accurate, clear and natural.
It is not only important that everything is done precisely, it often is also nice: it adds to the flavour of the text. Eg, in Gen. 41, the cows are not only described as "thin", but also as "ugly".

4.2. Q: In languages that have a written translation, is it necessary to have an oral recording as well?

For people who can't read, an oral recording will be most helpful.
It will be ideal if the written translation is used for the oral recording.
If a story is told from a translation in another language, the problem is that there is much more to check: the whole scala of checking issues must be looked at. This gives a higher chance of errors.
It is obvious that if a written translation is available that is consultant checked, most of the checking issues are handled already. The consultant's work can then basically be limited to looking for omissions and additions, so the work is easier. Of course, he still has to look at other issues. For example, changes in order (both within and between sentences) may still have an effect on what is communicated by a text.

4.3. Q: In languages that have a written translation that is also put on a recorder (eg AudiBible), is it necessary to have an oral recording as well?

(Or, formulated differently: Does a recorded memorisation of the translation really add so much to the "story" quality that it is justified to put so much effort into producing and distributing another standard?)

Not really.

On the one hand, people who can't read, and who have access to both an AudiBible and an oral standard, may prefer listening to the oral standard, as the text on this may flow somewhat more easily, and wordings may have been slightly simplified.
But on the other hand:
- the AudiBible gives all the information that is necessary
- it is basically a duplication of efforts to produce an oral standard as well
So:
- for languages that have recorded (read) Bible parts already, it is better to use those parts, and concentrate more on the Scripture Engagement side of the project.

4.4. Q: What should we do about differences with the written Bible?

One story (that of Oba in Naro) had several differences (from the original text) in it. These were accepted under time pressure. I think that the story is still acceptable as a standard, but the question will be raised at some time which differences are acceptable and which ones are not. The same question plays with written translations, but with Oba's story, the changes were significant. Perhaps we will have to think through this issue:

in future it may happen more often that people have not really memorised the story, so there may be significant differences with the Bible
we should avoid these big differences. The oral standard should not divert too much from the written standard
to avoid big differences, we may have to decide to record paragraphs instead of the whole story, or even record sentence by sentence.

4.5. Q: Do we adapt introductions in the recorded standard or do we leave that to the story tellers?

We chose to leave the introductions in the oral standard to be the same as in the written Bible. The story will become part of a set of recorded stories, so the story should fit in the bigger picture. Therefore the best procedure is to leave the text intact. It must also become clear to people who listen that the story is part of a bigger whole.

The problem is that as long as the oral Bible is not "complete", extra introductions will be necessary to combine a story with other information in the Bible. And if a story is told, an introduction will usually be added.

We leave thise introduction to the storytellers. So the storyteller has to create an introduction that will fit the context of his storytelling.

For example, in Gen. 41 (handled by the Ju/'hoansi), we just use "After two whole years, Pharaoh dreamed…" in the standard. This introduction will change according to each situation in which the story is told. (Also see next question.)

4.6. Q: what kind of introduction should people use when telling the story?

Usually, it will be good to indicate the context of the story in (the history of) Scripture
Often, a relation will be established with the situation in which a story is told. For example: "As we are having questions about dreams, let me tell you a story from the Bible that may answer some of our questions."
The introduction should be adapted to the situation in which a story is told, eg
- the introduction will be different when telling a story to children, or to older people
- dependent on the context, one will explain more or less in the introduction. For example, in Gen. 41, a story teller may decide to say:
  - "one day…"
  - Long ago, a king called Pharao lived in Egypt (a country to our North). One of his servants had been helped by Joseph (…) who had explained his dream, and had asked for his help, but he had forgotten. Two years later, Pharao had a dream…
The procedure of creating introductions should be taught to the storytellers.

Question about recording

5.1. Q: Which is better: to record the whole story at once, or record it in parts?

It appeared that in the recordings, several things had been left out of the stories, so it was necessary to re-record things. What are the pros and cons of recording the whole story at once?

pros:
- the story flows better if it is told rather than read.
cons:
- it requires more effort for the story teller, as s/he has to basically memorise the story
- it is more difficult to check the accuracy of a story if someone has to tell a long text from memory: more items have been added, omitted and changed.
- the "standard" quality may suffer (because of these changes)
- it takes more time, as issues have to be found, re-recorded and inserted
- it may be audible that parts were re-recorded and inserted (but this is also true, and even more so, of a recording "in phases")
- the re-recorded parts may sound a little different (recorded in different environment, different mood of speaker, etc)
- if a mistake is found later on, the whole story must be re-learnt and re-recorded. (If recorded sentence by sentence, the process is much easier and faster.)
- the Bible translation consultant basically has to be present throughout each workshop, as stories are learnt and recorded.
for the time being, we may continue with this procedure (recording the whole story at once)
if this proves difficult (or: if the "cons" become prevalent), we may record paragraphs instead of the whole story at once
if that also proves difficult, we may revert to recording sentence by sentence

6. Questions about checking

6.1. Q: What are similaraties and differences between consulting oral stories and consulting written stories?

The two are in fact very similar to each other:

oral stories form a Bible too (although the Bible contains more than stories alone)
we make a standard
the stories need to be the same in both cases, with the same meaning

But oral checking is also different from written checking. Consider the following aspects:

we are much more dependent on the oral back translation:
with a written translation, the back translation may be given in written or in oral form, while in an oral translation, the back translation will usually be given orally.
if an oral product is corrected, it is necessary that the correction is done:
by the same person
preferably in the same environment and not too long after the first recording was made (otherwise, the voice quality of the corrected parts may be too different from the previous recording, which doesn't sound good)
in practice, this means that the consultant should preferably be there when the recording has just been made.
this will be time consuming
in written translation, the translation is constantly improving (usually). At least, one can easily "record" (write down) the best option: by writing it down and using it in the translation. Also, if a change is made (for example, a different choice was made for a key term), it can easily be applied to other parts of the Bible where a similar change is necessary. Also, checks for consistency etc. can be easily done (there are many Paratext checks available, most of which only work for a written translation).
But in oral translation, once a recording has been made, it cannot easily be changed. So in the course of time, the collection of stories will contain a growing amount of inconsistencies. This is something that needs to be looked into.

6.2. Q: Can we use skype to make checking less time consuming?

One option was suggested to make the checking less time consuming, namely by creating a skype contact in some instances in the future.

But as in written translation, face to face contact is preferable, at least in the first stages.

What could be done to save time, is to make sure that the storytellers take more preparation time for the stories before the workshop, so that people are well prepared:
they have already gone through and internalised the stories
they have already memorised and practised the stories
in this way, I can check more stories in a shorter time

6.3. Q: Which procedure do we follow in oral checking?

There are generally two ways of checking:

1. The consultant can go through the original text and ask: "Is that part (clause, phrase, etc) in the recorded text?" and go through the text in this way.
2. The consultant can ask for a back translation of the recording and evaluate that.

The second procedure takes more time, but is much better. It gives a more objective basis for an evaluation (instead of a "yes/no" question), and also allows for an evaluation of the flow and coherence of the text: how the text is put together.

6.4. Q: How long are the chunks that we listen to for checking?

The chunks should be manageable. Ideally, they will be full sentences.

6.5. Q: How do we note corrections that are to be made in the recording?

Options:

someone writes them down
they can be recorded on a device. These corrections can be played back, after which a final recording of those corrections is made one by one.

The best procedure seems to be to make a preliminary recording of the corrections. These can be played back later, after which they can be recorded officially (with high quality equipment).

7. Questions about the collection of stories

7.1. Q: Which stories are being used for recording (and therefore, for telling in the community)? How do we pick stories?

at present, stories are being picked according to felt needs in the community
- story groups do not always have a good insight in what is needed, so it is good to give guidance
- bias toward a limited choice should be avoided
the expectation is, to come up, in the course of time, with a representative set of stories, one that well represents the history and teaching of the Bible. It is healthy to have such an overview as soon as possible. We should not let people re-invent the wheel! We must not create a hotchpotch without any connections between the stories: we want to show the connection between the stories.
there are several story sets available

Recommendation:

let Durk choose one of the available story sets (each community may still make alterations to it), and
let each community pick stories from that set
this should not limit the choice of stories, it should guide only. If a story outside the set addresses a need, let's please use that story and add it to the set.
it may be good to indicate in the set of stories, which lessons will probably be learnt from each specific story. It will be good to write down a list of possible lessons that can be drawn from the stories (although it is impossible to be exhaustive!).

7.2. Q: Should we work with stories only?

It is good to start with stories
- they are much easier to handle (understand and tell)
- they are much easier to check (narratives often don't have too many difficult constructions)
for insight in several issues from the Bible, it will be necessary to communicate other material as well, eg:
- teaching by the apostles
- Psalms
- prophecies