[A2k] Translation, or "disabled" exceptions

[Claude Almansi]

Thank you so much for the link to the Vulgata bible, Eric: so much
more readable than my old paper copy with virtually no margin, on
yellowed paper and with tiny fonts (due to my age and life
circumstances, I've often used the Vulgata when translating works that
quoted the Bible).

Seriously now: you raise a very important point about translation.
Full of paradoxes too:

8 years ago, WHO decided to use functions as the focus/pivot in
describing disabilities, rather than disabilities themselves (see
International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
(ICF) <http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/>).  Though the
function of being able to understand everything in every language is
not among those listed, maybe this argument could be used.

However, it might backfire too: human translation of a copyrighted
work requires a contract with the right holder/s of the original, even
though automated translation - say using Google Language Tools or
Babelfish, just to mention free online tools - doesn't. Now if the  US
Authors' Guild has preposterously affirmed that automated
text-to-speech created an audio adaptation for which separate rights
must be negotiated, isn't there a risk that they might claim the same
about automated translation?

Best

Claude


On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Eric Dierker
<cogitoergosum@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --
> [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
> It is a given that we give special protection to certain classes of folks=
. We already have many for the alternative reading methodology, and the int=
ernal vision people.=C2=A0 Know for certain they see, just in a different w=
ay. Technology makes improvements hourly.
>
> But in this context we seem to fall short regarding translation exception=
s. Perhaps it is because we view "disabled" concepts differently, but we sh=
ould probably not.
>
> Almost all discussion relating to disabled should rightfully include tran=
slation, since that is all creations for the disabled are in fact. But it g=
oes deeper. To a man in a wheelchair 5 ft is up, as it is to my 4'6" wife, =
to me it is down. A song written in a very high note/key may need to be tra=
nslated for an old man like me whose rocknroll days destroyed ability to he=
ar such frequencies. Probably these minutaie in distinction should be handl=
ed economically, but if we must treaty such issues, we should be inclusive.
>
> We do not call=C2=A0me disabled "in Francais". And we should not call a b=
lind man disabled "in reading", we simply require a translation - same of c=
ourse for music and the alternative hearers.
>
> If you think you are a fully able bodied reader=C2=A0 ----=C2=A0 read thi=
s:
> http://www.speedbible.com/vulgate/B19C023.htm=C2=A0 I don't think so.
>
> I think it important for those who advocate for a minority have full empa=
thy and respect. I do intend for you to be discomforted by what I write her=
e, and to take a new more holistic approach.=C2=A0 I believe a helpful phra=
se is: C'est un sens diff=C3=A9rent qui =C3=A9tait utilis=C3=A9 !, which ha=
s a different translation in almost all languages.
>