SC - TI Article - Support Kitchen

[Jenne Heise]

>footnotes.  What kinds of explanatory footnotes do you look for in a 
>translated work?  Do you think that any potentially unfamiliar terms 
>should be footnoted, or only the really obscure ones?  Are too many 
>footnotes a nuisance?

I think it depends on your intended audience.  If you were translating a cookbook,
is your intended audience the SCA or even the public at large?  Or is it experienced
SCA cooks?

Also, what is your intent in translating?  If you are translating the Aenead,
is your intent to provide an easily accessible good story to introduce the lay
reader to classic epic poetry, or to provide an important scholarly work for
students?  If the former, there is no need to call out literary devices that
Vergil used in the original Latin, because those details would be beyond the
grasp and interest of the lay reader.  But, they're very important to the scholar.


My general feeling is, the more footnotes the better.  If someone doesn't care
to know the details, he can ignore them.  If someone already understands a point,
he can skim or skip them.  But, they are invaluable to someone who is trying
to learn from your text.  They don't get in the way, so there's no reason for
them to be annoying.  The only potential disadvantage is that some people may
flip it open, see that it is heavily footnoted, and put it back on the shelf
because they figure it'll either be dry or over their heads.  In that case,
tough.  Lazy sots.

As for what kinds of footnotes I look for, it depends on the nature of the text.
 In a literary text, I look for mention of puns, alliterations and other literary
devices that the author used; Descriptions of words that have multiple meanings
in or out of context; Words or names that were contemporary allusions; And any
other references that would help me understand the authors intent in his context.
 For a more technical work, like a cookbook, I'm mostly concerned with callouts
of words with obscure meanings, who's meaning the author guessed or extrapolated.
 Unless I was studying a cooktext in it's literary context, I don't care very
much that the author made a bad pun while describing how to stuff a pig.  But,
I would want to know that the an archaic name for a fish could mean one of two
different species, or that a word could mean either slice thin or shread.

For simply defining unfamiliar words, a glossary can work just as easily as
footnotes.  And, I don't think anybody would critisize you for too extensive
a glossary.

Oh, well... back to work...

- -Magdalena