|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.219.30.221
In Reply to: So does that mean Duilawyer's post was correct in the first place? posted by Christine Tham on February 13, 2007 at 13:44:24:
although my question was a really general one, spurred by DUI's post.In which case why ask the question?
I'm running out of new things to say, Christine. I would not want my mates here to think I had just signed off. Thank God Mr Bishop won a Grammy. At least I could post my congrats without any real reason.
Follow Ups:
It's hard to infer intention over the Internet, and arguably your posts could be interpreted as you already knowing the answer but issuing a challenge to Duilawyer, hence my question.My only advice would be in the future if you wanted to ask a general question, may be better to depersonalise it, ie. instead of "Do you say ..." maybe better to say "Can anyone tell me ..." ...
PS - I noted that in your post to Viktor, you asked a leading question and seemed to be seeking confirmation rather than an open inquiry. May be better to pose questions in a way that doesn't presuppose the answer. After all, translating from one language to another is rarely straightforward, and sometimes the literal translation may not always be the most semantically appropriate or idiomatic.
Christine writes:It's hard to infer intention over the Internet, and arguably your posts could be interpreted as you already knowing the answer but issuing a challenge to Duilawyer, hence my question.
That would be a reasonable assumption if the challenge was going to go in my favour.
Why would I challenge DUI with an alternative (i.e. "bare") when he said "bald" (which turned out to be correct) if I knew that "bald" was correct. I'd just look silly.
Regards,
Geoff
*** Why would I challenge DUI with an alternative (i.e. "bare") when he said "bald" (which turned out to be correct) if I knew that "bald" was correct. I'd just look silly. ***
Sheesh. I thought it was perfectly clear that he asked the question here before asking Victor on the other forum. Subsequently he posted Victor's response.Also, in this case it is not ambiguous. Lysyi (to transliterate) only means bald. It does not mean bare, which is golyi.
*** I thought it was perfectly clear that he asked the question here before asking Victor on the other forum. ***Sorry, but it wasn't clear to me. If I looked at only his 3 posts in this forum, it seemed to me he was asking Duilawyer a question to which he already had a strong opinion on, which he then subsequently tried to confirm with another person in another forum.
If that was the case, why ask the question in the first place? Why not try and confirm first, and then post? Especially since Duilawyer said "bald" instead of "bare" in the first place?
*** Also, in this case it is not ambiguous. ***
I think the question here is not what the literal translation of the word is, but the best semantic mapping, which may not be the literal translation. "Bald Mountain" is not a commonly used phrase in English, and sounds a bit strange. If someone said to me they spent a night in bald mountain, my first guess would be that they were on a mountain called "Bald Mountain" which is not necessarily treeless.
When translating between languages, the best translation is often not the literal translation, but one that shares or invokes similar semantic connotations. For example, I am currently studying Japanese, and if I translated every sentence literally between English and Japanese I would lose or change the meaning considerably. That's why "Japanese English" sounds so strange to us, and equally we probably sound really strange to them.
Howdy"Bare Mountain" just sounds silly to me. I've always known it as "Bald Mountain" and that seems to connote exactly what I take the Russian as meaning.
I don't like either "bare" or "bald", but "treeless" is even worse :-)But both terms appear to be in use, and I think we just have to live with the lack of a canonical representation :-)
I think this whole thread illustrates the dangers of assuming that it is possible to have optimal 1-1 mapping between languages.
As far as I can tell, "bald mountain" is also not a common term in Russian, but is used stylistically here just like it would be in English (i.e., comparing a treeless mountain to a bald head).But you are, obviously, quite right that one cannot assume a literal translation will work. Though Russian is the only language other than English that I am still somewhat proficient in, I have also studied Latin, Spanish and some Chinese and Korean, so I am well aware of that.
I just don't see why you jumped on this guy for his question and why you refuse to acknowledge that you shouldn't have in hindsight. Even if it wasn't obvious to you at first, you were mistaken in assuming he knew the answer and what his intentions were.
For the record, I did not *jump* on Metralla, nor was I having a go at him. I simply asked him a question, because I was unclear. And when he responded somewhat haughtily, I simply said there was no need to be defensive, it wasn't a "trap question".The reason I asked the question was that it seemed strange that someone would ask a question about alternative translations of a title, but word it in such a way that it appeared personal and directive. And then when numerous people (including the original poster) replied that both variants were in use, Metralla became dogmatic and started insisting that "bald" is correct because it was the literal translation. I was curious about the sudden change, that's all. Perhaps I'm a bit slow on the uptake.
PS - I don't know Russian, but I do have a few Russian friends. From what I can gather, Russian is highly idiomatic and literal translations often miss the mark or generate spurious semantic associations.
Metralla became dogmatic and started insisting that "bald" is correct because it was the literal translation.haughty, "dogmatic", "started insisting". That's not my style. You are making this more far more complicated by carrying on. I would have let it go, but you've chosen to dig deeper.
Here is the real start of it. You said:
"I think it's because the Russian can be translated as either "bare" or "bald"
Since then, two people who know the Russian langauge have told you that your statement is incorrect. Your diversionary tactics are patently obvious.
Regards,
Geoff
.
*** That's not my style. ***Hey, I'm just articulating my observations. Whether or not it is your "style" I can't comment.
*** "I think it's because the Russian can be translated as either "bare" or "bald" ***
This is factual. Several people have already pointed out that both variants have been used. So I would even go as far as saying the title *has been* translated using both "bare" and "bald". This is true regardless of whether you or I believe either usage to be appropriate or inappropriate.
*** Since then, two people who know the Russian langauge have told you that your statement is incorrect ***
Actually, I'm surprised by this. To my knowledge, you asked someone called "Victor" a leading question, and he gave you the answer you wanted. As far as I know, Victor has not "told" me anything or made any direct comment on my statement (which in any case is a factual observation).
As for Josh, I thought he was agreeing with me that a literal translation is not necessarily the best translation.
I think you are the one trying to make this more than it is. As far as I'm concerned, I made a statement that is factually correct, and asked you a question because I wasn't clear exactly what point you were trying to make when you responded in the way you did.
If you are trying to say I'm somehow "incorrect" by saying a word could be (and has been) translated non-literally, don't pick your fight with me - find out who translated it using "bare" in the first place, and argue it out with them.
We can go on and on if you like, but perhaps it's time to drop it and move on.
To me, whether bald or bare is the "correct" translation is hardly important at this stage. The reason this has escalated has little to do with that the answer to that inquiry, but with what Geoff's intent was in asking the question and your reaction to him asking it and then answering it subsequently.To anyone who read Geoff's post carefully, it was obvious from the outset that he did not know the answer when he first posted the question and was simply curious if others did. No one here knew the answer (including me because I did not then know the title in Russian). When Geoff saw a post by Victor (owner of BAT and a frequent poster) on the amp forum, he stepped in and asked Victor the same question so he could announce the answer to his question here, which he did. He was simply, and I believe politely, closing the loop on his inquiry.
You then miscontrued his actions as a challenge to Duilaywer. When Geoff explained that that was not his intent, you suggested he post more clearly in the future rather than admit you didn't read the threads carefully. Then, when he attempted to defend himself, as anyone would, you accuse him of being defensive and haughty. Wow.
*** You then miscontrued his actions as a challenge to Duilaywer. ***Can you show me exactly where I "miscontrued [sic] his actions"? Asking a question is seeking clarification, not necessarily assuming a position. If you are implying that I have malicious intent in asking the question, then I would put it to you that you are misconstruing my action.
For reference, this is what I actually said:
*** It's hard to infer intention over the Internet ***
in other words, I don't want to assume or make any inferences, therefore I am asking.
*** and arguably your posts could be interpreted as you already knowing the answer but issuing a challenge to Duilawyer, hence my question. ***
I was offering this as an example (and a deliberately non valid one) to show why I was asking the question.
Note: by me saying "arguably" I am NOT saying I am arguing that to be case. In fact, as I explained to you, clearly this interpretation is NOT valid, because why would Metralla challenge Duilawyer for saying something he believes to be correct? It should be clear from my post that it was an interpretation I considered, but then discarded, and then decided to seek clarification.
I think before you accuse someone of not reading posts carefully, perhaps you should read posts more carefully, too. Physician, heal thyself!
I read your posts carefully. You are now omitting much of what you said, such as referring to Geoff as being hauty and defensive. I'm not engaging in this discourse further.
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: