Re: Untranslated notes (was: Poll by Email No. 7)

On Thursday 18 April 2002 13:38, Christophe wrote:
>
> Well, now I understand why my Dutch collegues never read scientific
> articles in Dutch. Among them, only one understands scientific German, and
> no one understands French, and even less scientific French (which is quite
> different from scientific Dutch).
Then they have no business being scientists. Any university-educated Dutchman
should be able to read scientific English, French, German and Dutch. And,
depending on his field, Russian, too.

> At least English-written articles never
> quote in another language (when they have a bibliographic note about an
> article in another language, the part of the article which is interesting
> is paraphrased rather than quoted).
>
Which is a sure way of mis-representing the source, and therefore should be
frowned upon. It makes the quoting paper worthless.

> Expecting too much of your audience is an even bigger lack of respect than
> expecting too little. It sets the tone on who you think should be allowed
> to read what you want to write... I know it may not be meant like that, but
> that's what it does.
>
Translations always lie, without any exceptions. If you quote someone, you
should use his or her _exact_ words. Translations of quotes should be
relegated to footnotes, if the author thinks them necessary at all. Giving
only the translation, or even mainly the translation with the original
in a footnote is a clear mark of respect for the original author.

And, frankly, I'd expect someone interested in acquiring certain knowledge to
do the groundwork necessary, learning a language, if necessary.  The reader
needs the knowledge: he do the work.
--
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org

Replies