Therefore, as we say, making from prime matter and the form a copy, that a sacred ship is wood constructed in a certain way, [likewise] here, he considered the sound, being the prime matter of the noun, as a genus; ‘having meaning’ and the rest as combining differentiae distinguishing such a sound from meaningless sounds, both inarticulate, articulate, and inarticulate sounds that have meaning, like mere noises and the barking of a dog.
Is this understandable for a profane reader?
Honestly, the Greek is fairly clear once a few key terms are properly defined, but your English is quite confusing. I’d go back for a somewhat more literal translation.
In answer to the question: Yes, in fact, it’s fact it’s probably more understandable to a profane reader than to a Christian one, dealing as it does with philosophical terms and concepts familiar from Plato and Aristotle.
But I’m not sure what to make of Barry’s post. The OP’s translation could scarcely be more literal. Could we please have a translation from you, Barry? Otherwise there could be a temptation to think you’re simply bullshitting.
First of all, I find the distinction between the sacred and the profane reader a bit odd, as though somehow the language takes a turn from one to another. Secondly, “structured” might have been a better term than “literal” here. In fact, my literal rendering is not that different from the OP:
Therefore, just as we say when producing a copy from the material and the ideal, that a sacred ship is built in such a way as this from wood, there it (he? Not sure of the context) took the sound as being the material of the noun as a kind, that meaning and the rest as constituent differences separating such a sound from sounds without meaning, both inarticulate and articulate, and of those inarticulate with meaning, such as of simply sounds and of a dog’s barking.
Why does this remind me of the apostle Paul’s comments in 1 Cor 14:6ff?
But I stand by what I said. The literal rendering is going to be confusing – it’s not clear, and a real translation would have to do a lot more in order to make it intelligible to the English reader.
Then just as we say that a θεωρίς is wood prepared in a certain way, making the representation from the material and the ideal, here he understood the sound as γένος, being the construction-material/matter/ὕλην of the label, but the σημαντικὴ and the rest as collected differences distinguishing such a sound from the unmeaning sounds, inarticulate and articulate, and meaningful inarticulate sounds, such as the pure noise and the barking of a dog.
I feel like ὑπογραφή refers to the θεωρίς, as the ἐνταῦθα seems to set everything off from it. So I don’t think that the reordering is right. I assume that the θεωρίς is meant to be a “representation” of some divine vessel.
τὸ σημαντική κτλ. doesn’t seem to continue the θεωρίς metaphor? So I took the δὲ as “but”.
In the ship metaphor, φωνή = ὕλη = ξύλον and (evidently) ὄνομα = θεωρίς? But I don’t really get γένος/genus in the context. So I could have the metaphor all wrong.