Just a curiosity here, Kat. Whenever you're pointing out flaws in others do you ever take stock of those in yourself? Or do you show your even-handedness by criticizing as well the opposite position as the one you had been criticizing?
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. And I try to not only share the wealth, but also, give as good as I get. And if I'm not getting it from someone else, I'll do it to myself. I might well agree that, for example, drugs should be legal, but if someone is making a dumb argument for that, as opposed to a good one, I'm going to try to take it apart. And the best arguments I have are with myself. But yes, anyone who strives for perfection* as I do, can't do it without constant critique, examination, and honesty. You never get better if you don't look at your mistakes. And I do try to take criticism and critiques and the occasional ass-chewing - and not respond right away, but take it home with me, sit in the bathtub and splash around with it a little bit. Try and evaluate what was said, rather than just responding to the person who said it. Hell, as they say, even broken clocks are right twice a day.
And its rarely on my part an attack on the person, but rather, a reflection on the words said and ideas expressed. I only worry about the argument being wrong, not the person.
And of course I argue both sides, I'm an academic, trained by the Jesuits, I can argue sides no one has though of yet.
Now, on with the game.
Well, I didn't mean academic in the sense of actual scholarship
I didn't mean mechanics dealing with you know, moving parts and all. What other definition of academic is there? Though I'm well aware what is meant by this - and for damn good reason - is an argument about nothing that really doesn't matter at all, hence the Star Trek reference was perfect.
& I'm down with Nichole on the 'recent converts' deal, they have a zeal that people born into it (no matter what it is) never get close to.
A translation is just that: looking at the original language and putting the meaning into another language.
Translation is not that simple. You are simplifying the process to make it an easy business - so clear, so always right. First, not all languages have the same words with exact one-to-one meaning exchanges. Second, words change. They change in time - think of 'gay' in the 1890s and again in the 1990s - not even close. Third, words are also part of a context, a context of language, culture and time - and it might not be possible to pick up on all that. So, your translation (or my translation) may be what we think approximates the original meaning and intent, but its also possible in that to be way wrong.
And, some things do not translate at all. They are locked in time and culture in a way that is not possible to crack. A 20th Century person, raised in a culture of democracy and science can't even begin to have a clue as to what the ancient Israelite saw when he/she looked out unto the world. With decades, and decades of hard study, hard work, and good teachers, it might be possible to glean some of it, but you'll never know for sure.
*Note: I said 'strives' not 'obtains' - we get close, and at times I do on my own, but close is as good as it gets. ,
