Re: CHAT: Hello
|From:||Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, May 1, 2001, 9:02|
Irina Rempt wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Andreas Johansson wrote:
> > Irina Rempt wrote:
>[the UN declaration of human rights][snip]
> > But how does a lack of "cultural neutrality" make something bad as
> > an translation exercise?
>Not bad as such, but bad to translate into languages of cultures that
>clash with the values expressed in it.
I'm not sure I follow you here. You seem to be saying one shouldn't
translate something that the speakers of the "target" lang wouldn't agree
with. In that reasoning it'd be wrong to translate, say, Mein Kampf into
English because the vast majority of English speakers aren't nazis and would
strongly disagree with its contents.
>I was much better off
>translating the play about the god who lived on the moon, or the text
>about the people desecrating the temple of Vlami, because that's a
>frame of mind that Valdyans can get their thinking around.
> > Translating, for example, the UN declaration of human rights into
> > some language surely doesn't mean you agree with its content.
>No; but I'm afraid that, because Valdyan has no "counterweight"
>speakers apart from me, it will be influenced too much by a culture
>alien to it.
> > PS I don't think "heavily biased" is the correct term. It's more of a
> > mission statement for the democratic-liberal wing of western culture.
>Isn't that a heavy bias?
It would be biased if there were SOME bits that hearkened to other cultures
and value systems. When you've went the whole way and placed yorself in one
camp it's not a mere "bias" anymore - it's a definite taking sides. As it
is, the declaration is rather an attempt to impose western democracy on the
rest of the world (not that that is necessarily a bad thing IMHO).
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.