discuss: Bible Translation HOWTO (new)
Subject:
Re: Bible Translation HOWTO (new)
From:
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" ####@####.####
Date:
22 May 2004 04:04:10 -0000
Message-Id: <6.1.0.6.0.20040521211646.025bcda8@mail.simpaticus.com>
At 20:32 5/21/2004, Howard Shane wrote:
>Since there seems to be no concern with actual content [...]
>
>I would hope you begin to see how ridiculous the statement is that the
>tldp should publish regardless of content as long as the document is
>"technical" in nature.
Well, I certainly never said that anything goes as long as it's technical.
In fact, see my rebuttal to Rahul's objections just a few minutes ago.
I've peppered my comments with frequent references to my view that content
is irrelevant as long as it does not "harm the public good." That is an
intentionally vague phrasing, and I would prefer not to delve into its
implications since that is a separate argument. All it is intended to
express at this point in time is that I find most of your "ridiculous"
suggestions just as ridiculous as you do.
Perhaps an exception might be made for the Kama Sutra? Entertaining and
educational, technical in nature, very wide audience (nearly everyone has
sex), historical value, and of course an application to Linux. <grin> <wink>
Seriously though... "anything goes" is not my thesis. I am objecting to
Rahul's categorization of the Bible together with sexism, for example, and
to his view that translating a specific document in Linux can be more or
less acceptable depending on the type of content. If this were about
translating Shakespeare or Homer, both of them *also* texts which require a
great deal of contextual referencing and time- and location-specific
relationships with other language constructs, then I'm sure Rahul would not
object.
And since the content in question at this time is not (a) ridiculous, (b)
illegal, or (c) manifestly and by huge majority agreement of harm to the
public good, then I don't see the content as being a relevant objection. In
this case. Given those conditions.
Are you saying that you find *this* proposed HOWTO ridiculous or in some
way highly-objectionable? If so, why?
Cheers,
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
####@####.####
http://www.simpaticus.com
