From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SUBJ_HAS_SPACES autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC7EBC37 for ; Wed, 13 May 2009 12:52:50 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AisCAKdDCkpRZ90vlGdsb2JhbACOVog7AQEBAQkLCAkRA7clhAIF X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,187,1241388000"; d="scan'208";a="26085557" Received: from mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.47]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 13 May 2009 12:52:50 +0200 Received: from aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20090513105249.UPDR27071.mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2009 11:52:49 +0100 Received: from romulus.metastack.com ([81.102.132.77]) by aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.2.02.00.01 201-2161-120-102-20060912) with ESMTP id <20090513105249.GIIN22934.aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@romulus.metastack.com>; Wed, 13 May 2009 11:52:49 +0100 Received: from Tenor (dynamic74.vpdn.csx.cam.ac.uk [131.111.7.74]) (authenticated bits=0) by romulus.metastack.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n4DAqib2006650 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 13 May 2009 11:52:46 +0100 From: "David Allsopp" To: "'Loup Vaillant'" , "'Mihamina Rakotomandimby (R12y)'" Cc: References: <4C15E9D6-8DBB-4E19-BAFC-796A7A64D07B@erratique.ch> <4A09665C.8040803@lab.vectoris.fr> <6f9f8f4a0905130238kf6a82e5i448a6a303df9b298@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6f9f8f4a0905130238kf6a82e5i448a6a303df9b298@mail.gmail.com> Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Call for translators of the Unix system programming course Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 11:52:37 +0100 Organization: MetaStack Solutions Ltd. Message-ID: <005101c9d3b8$eeec3330$ccc49990$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcnTrpqzjl0FGusxS36b7Ki6vBtuBAABugRw Content-Language: en-gb X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.65 on 81.102.132.77 X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=f55jfkA9O_YA:10 a=JOvOf1dSiusA:10 a=NYHkPcR9U3u0rEirRlsA:9 a=ACz7WzebgMq5QzehXEKOvpCrzScA:4 X-Spam: no; 0.00; xavier's:01 novels:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 unix:01 caml-list:01 grammar:02 grammar:02 functional:02 consistent:02 native:03 native:03 authors:03 authors:03 programming:03 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