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

En réponse à Jan van Steenbergen <ijzeren_jan@...>:

> But you must draw the line somewhere. A text should not be more
> complicated than
> is necessary (which, unfortunately is often the case, I'm afraid); but
> it is my
> experience in writing scientific texts, that you cannot explain every
> uncommon
> word you use. You must be free to use the word "article" without having
> to give
> an explanation like "words like 'the' and 'a'". Otherwise you'll get
> nowhere.
> Besides, if someone really doesn't know, he can always reach for a
> dictionary or
> encyclopaedia.
>
Yep, but isn't it easier if the dictionary or encyclopedia is in a language you
know? You can give me as many German encyclopediae as you want, that won't help
me much.

>
> Now you exagerate! Everyone in this country, especially those with
> higher
> education, have had English, German and French in school. Maybe they are
> no fluent
> speakers, but they can at least understand two written sentences in
> it!
I'm talking about scientific language! In this case, it's not only two written
sentences, it's a whole different kind of language, that you don't even learn
at school, unless you specialse extremely. And it's especially true with German
scientific vocabulary which is everything but international (it's even worse
than Dutch). I already have difficulties enough with the English scientific
vocabulary, although it's nearly identical with the French scientific
vocabulary (but the few differences are unfortunately very important). I don't
have the time or means to learn enough German to understand even two lines of
scientific German.

> On the other hand: I remember, that long ago I heard a law student, who
> had to
> read some books in English, complaining, that he was a student of LAW
> and not of
> ENGLISH!
>
In a way I can understand. Unless you want to learn international law, the
language used in legal documents is already difficult enough in your own
language that it becomes nearly impossible in another language.

>
> Yeah! But it is sometimes difficult to judge if something is too much or
> not.
>
Well, then don't take a risk. Especially when it comes to the languages the
person is likely to know, the line is easy to draw. And if you don't want to
draw the line, just translate the quotes, even if it's only in footnotes. I
find it pretentious to quote directly in another language (and it doesn't give
me a good impression on the worth of the article, because I think that if
somebody has to make special effects like quoting an article in the original
German to make his article interesting, it's usually to hide some weaknesses
somewhere).

>
> Agreed. In this case the abilities of the audience are quite clear! Many
> languages
> are represented, but only one is really common.
>
Hehe, something which is valid in the scientific community too. Hence my answer
to Boudewijn. You cannot anymore have all scientists trilingual in English,
French, and German. What about all the scientists from other countries? What
about scientists from Asia, whose native language is so different from those
that it already takes them 15 years nearly full-time to learn one of those
three languages enough to discuss scientific subjects with another scientist
speaking that language? By obliging everyone to be at least trilingual in three
European languages, you just close science to plenty of very able people who
just don't have the time or means to learn those languages, and leave it open
only to an American or European elite. I find it bad enough already with
English, let's not make it worse.

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.