|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
15.243.169.71
In Reply to: Re: Well, OK, but posted by Christine Tham on February 15, 2007 at 14:48:24:
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
Follow Ups:
.
*** 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: