SC - Translating cookbooks

[Philip & Susan Troy]

Par Leijonhufvud wrote:

> In the best of all worlds all historical cookbooks would contain:
> 
> 1. The original text.
> 2. Translation (word for word) into modern English (assuming an
>         English translation).
> 3. An interpretation ("redaction") of the recipie.
> 
> If one of these have to be omitted it is #3. The original text is vital,
> since it is the only thing that allows us to make certain that we agree
> with the editor/translator. No matter how great our respect for the
> competence/integrity of this person.

Me, too! (Sorry, Gunthar!) In general I agree with the above, but wish
to point out that sometimes (SOMETIMES) a literal, word-for-word
translation, can lead to all kinds of trouble. Possibly a mostly
literal, partly idiomatic translation might be better. Including the
literal translation after the idiomatic one for a given phrase, in
parentheses, might be a Good Thing. I believe this is essentially the
method Cariadoc uses, and I've found it to be a big help. 

Adamantius 
______________________________________
Phil & Susan Troy
troy at asan.com
============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================