RE: [Caml-list] Call for translators of the Unix system programming course

["David Allsopp" <dra-news@metastack.com>]

Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote:
> I am volunteer to be reviewer.
> However, I think it should not be a criteria to be a mother tongue
> english for many reason: "Non mother tongue english" people use 
> "simple" english and does not understand very advanced english.
> Mother tongue english are tempted to fully use english.
> I think a reviewer with just basic english would be "very good"...

A technical text written in "advanced" English reads badly to a
native-English speaker as well - complex English constructions belong in
novels! Good reviewing, by either a native or non-native English speaker,
should simplify grammar and vocabulary where necessary anyway. Given
Xavier's (and presumably Didier's) level of English, I think it would be a
terrible disservice to produce an English translation containing bad
grammar.

Loup Vaillant wrote:
> I think *accurate* English is more difficult for a non native than
> *basic* English is for a native, hence their preference. As an
> anecdotal evidence, the easiest papers I've read on functional
> programming happen to be written by native English speakers (I'm
> french).
>
> Moreover, a good translation should also translate the tone of the
> authors. Any distortion would be very difficult to recover from. It
> may even be important to choose between British and American, and be
> consistent with that choice. I consider myself fluent, yet *this* is
> completely out of my reach.

Given that both of the authors of the original text speak fluent English,
might it be easiest just to ask them to read and comment on the reviewed
translation?


David