Re: Two official work languages is smarter (was Re: IETF working language

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




--On Sunday, 09 March, 2014 14:07 -0400 Ted Lemon
<ted.lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mar 9, 2014, at 2:05 PM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> If we are all going to learn a new language, why not Chinese?
> 
> (BTW, there's a certain irony in the use of "Chinese" to refer
> to a single language, of which I am well aware, but the
> commonality to the writing system is really what I consider
> most important.)

Because of that irony, switching to "Chinese" might help us
eliminate the need for decision-making in f2f meetings and move
things back to the mailing lists.  Of course, so would anything
else that doesn't involve very high quality,
technically-sensitive, parallel translation.  Some people who
have experienced attempts at the latter claim it is impossible
- a recent piece about translation of literature in the NY Times
is helpful in understanding the problem but, especially for
literature, while language translates more or less well, culture
rarely translates at all.   Sometimes technical literature works
better, but, because the precision requirements are often
higher, sometimes not.

   john 







[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]