[Sca-cooks] RE: Translation Criteria - long

[Ted Eisenstein]

>2) Translation - If I read this correctly (a lot of weird symbols were
>inserted into your text) you give more points the closer the translation is
>to perfect modern American English.  I prefer translations that maintain the
>"feel" of the original language, while still conveying the information
>clearly. my translations tend to come out looking more like a renaissance
>English translation than a modern English translation.

Errr, so, tell me: how would you get the feel of Old Italian (if there is
such a thing) into English? Or even more distant languages like Old Japanese?
(Or whatever it's called. Solveig? What's the term for really, really old
Japanese?)
Some languages are so non-English in form and content that it'd be downright
silly to capture their flavor in anything _but_ modern English.
And why Renaissance English? If you want to convey the feel, use the appropriate
period's English - Really Old Japanese would have its feel captured best by
Anglo-Saxon, I suppose. . .

(I'm all for clarity. And, for these purposes, clarity is best conveyed by
clear, concise, correct, modern American English. Or British English, if you're
Over There. Or Australian English, if you're Over Down Under.)

Alban