Archives

In reply to @objectinspace.

@objectinspace @ppatel Third, you should have multiple translations not just one or two, and fourth, whatever translations you have need to have an extensive footnote aparatus that explains linguistic concepts/grammar/the cultural stuff that impacts language. So yeah in short this was actually a very bad idea.

In reply to @objectinspace.

@objectinspace @ppatel has as neutral. My usual advice is that if you want a translation decent translation, first there are several caveats: First, you don't want a literal translation. Second, asking for a translation that conveys what the authors actually meant is impossible, you can only have one that conveys how it was understood during specific periods of time. +

In reply to @objectinspace.

@objectinspace @ppatel So that would be difficult. For starters, you're dealing with three source languages, two of which are very much gendered and do not include a neutral gender and which default to masculine most of the time, but have some pretty peculiar exceptions. Also word phrase meaning is heavily dependent on surrounding context, and it's not a one-to-one match between linguistic gender and human gender even when you're not dealing with something English+

In reply to @ppatel.

@ppatel @objectinspace Add to this that it depends on which translations they're using. Assuming it's a public domain one, like the King James or any in that translation family except the New King James, yeah there are going to be some definite problems with regard to all kinds of bias.

In reply to @ppatel.

@ppatel @KaraLG84 I'm not sure where King is taking his reference from, but they're definitely not the same Gilead. Atwood is referencing Gilead as in "balm of Gilead," which is now a figure of speech for a universal cure thanks to the 1611 King James Bible.

In reply to @bermudianbrit.

@bermudianbrit Try running it through https://archive.is

In reply to @Beatlesandworms.

@Beatlesandworms It's gonna be vodka o'clock over here in a little while.