User talk:Haikon

Thanks for your translations! I'm glad to see someone contributing to this project!

You had said:

These are some parts I got stuck at, or parts I wasn't sure about:

grapple -> "struggle"? "wrestle"?
contradict deeply held prejudices -> "not be what we thought was true"?
be consonant with -> Is "agree" simple enough?
method -> "a way"? "a particular way"? "a special way"? "a certain way"?
Cleverly designed experiments are the key -> "making experiments cleverly is the key"? Can I say "smartly"?
- The second-to-last sentence is hard because the dude said some egghead shit and then rephrased it in simple English.
- "We have a certain way (science), and that certain way does not tell us perfect truth, but what it tells us is always closer to the truth than last time"

I think you've done very well. I think "struggle" is fine for "grapple". I think "not be what we thought was true" is OK for "contradict deeply held prejudices" although it's missing the meaning of "deeply". How about "go against what we believed deep inside"? I think "agree" is fine for "be consonant with".

You can certainly use words from wikt:Wiktionary:Basic English alphabetical wordlist. You can also use some other words, for example wikt:Wiktionary:BNC spoken freq 01. "Agree" is there. If you need to, you can use other words, such as wikt:Wiktionary:BNC spoken freq 02 or use complex words and give a definition or explanation of them or a link to a Simple English definition.

"way": looks fine to me.

I don't think "smartly" would be OK. I think "smartly" means something else. I guess "wisely" is OK in this context.

--Coppertwig 22:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another quote

You translated Sagan as:

I think what we need is a delicate balance between two needs that go against each other: the most careful doubt of all hypotheses that are given to us, and at the same time a great openness to new ideas...

If all you do is doubt, then no new ideas make it through to you … On the other hand, if you believe everything you read and don't have any doubtful sense inside you, then you cannot tell the difference between the useful ideas from the useless ones.

I think your translation is just fine.

It's OK to leave in "hypotheses" even though it's not simple. You can put a link to a definition at Simple English Wiktionary (you or I can try to write one if there isn't one, or put it on the list of requested definitions). Or you can put a rough definition in parentheses after the word. I would tend to leave out "hypotheses" and put "new theories" or something instead, (I would put "new ideas" except that that phrase is needed as a contrast in the next part of the sentence.) but if you want to leave it in that's OK. I'm not sure if the rules for Simple English tell you how to do the plural, but I would leave it as "hypotheses" -- I try to make Simple English be correct English too. At least the plural ends in s.

I think it's equally as clear in your translation as in the original which two words are being contrasted (skepticism/openness). And I think you did well using the phrase "doubtful sense".

"Openness" might not be strictly Simple English but I wouldn't worry about that too much. "Being very open to new ideas" doesn't sound as good. It seems more important to translate words like "exquisite" that readers are less likely to know. Anyway, maybe "openness" is Simple English. I don't think there's one precise definition of what is or isn't.

Thanks for your message. I was afraid I scared you away by changing one of your translations. :-) --Coppertwig 19:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait -- one thing. I would change "you cannot tell the difference between the useful ideas from the useless ones." to either "you cannot tell the difference between the useful ideas and the useless ones." or "you cannot tell the useful ideas from the useless ones." To me, it doesn't seem grammatically correct as it stands. --Coppertwig 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lives saved and lost

Re this quote:

Advances in medicine and agriculture have saved vastly more lives than have been lost in all the wars in history.

which you translated as:

Simple 1?: Better medicine and better farms have saved many more lives than all the wars in history have ended.

Simple 2?: If you add them up, there are many more people are made alive from better medicine and better farms than there are people who are made dead from all the wars in history.

In the first one, I would say "lost" rather than "ended"; I guess just because "saved lives" and "lost lives" are very common phrases and seem to me to go together as a pair. "ended" is OK thought.

In the second one, it doesn't look quite grammatically correct to me. It could be fixed by inserting "that" or "who" before "are made alive". It's a bit wordy, though. How about like this?

If you add them up, there are many more people alive because of better medicine and better farms than people [who are] dead from all the wars in history." (With or without "who are".)

Or:

The number of people who are alive because of better medicine and better farms is bigger than the number of people who are dead because of all the wars in history.

There are many acceptable ways to word it. --Coppertwig 19:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

volcanos

Most of the time, when we (humans) make theories of how the universe works, we use ideas that we already know a lot about.

Eventhough we tried our best, we weren't good at inventing new ideas. People from the West think Heaven is peaceful and soft, and Hell is like the inside of a big fire. In many stories, both places have governments that have kings for gods or devils. People who believe in God called God the king of kings.

Every society imagined that something like its own government runs the whole universe. No one thought it was funny that the two things were the same.

I hope you don't mind me commenting on stuff from your sandbox. Everything shows up on the New Changes log.

I think "we (humans)" sounds fine.

I would put "with gods or devils for kings" or "with gods or devils acting as kings"; I think that's more true to the original than the way you have it.

Re translating sarcasm and insinuations: yes, that can be hard. It's also hard when translating among other languages. I try to follow the same pattern as the original quote to make the same insinuation appear in the same way. If that's not possible, I find some other way to fit it in neatly. If that's not possible, I make a decision as to whether the insinuation is important enough or not. If I feel it's very minor, I just leave it out. If I feel it's important, then I convey it even if it takes many words to do so. It's always possible to explain anything. Sometimes when you take a lot of words to explain something, it loses its humour or drama. Sometimes I feel that a certain word or phrase has to come at the end of the sentence because it's like a punchline. It can be hard to do that in the translation sometimes. Sometimes I manage to, and sometimes I don't. As when translating between any two languages, some things are sometimes lost. --Coppertwig 19:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Big fire" conveys the spirit though not the letter of the original quote, in my opinion. Maybe you could put "volcano (fire mountain)".

Re various contributions you've made: Good work, keep it up. I'm busy right now but may also do some editing within the next week or so. --Coppertwig 12:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]