From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1696ae,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gid1696ae,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,baaf5f793d03d420 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,6154de2e240de72a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Subject: Re: Should I learn C or Pascal? Date: 1996/07/23 Message-ID: <4t1ng6$ev7@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 170137907 references: <4sf9e7$kl7@news.jump.net> <4sm83e$jkg@solaria.cc.gatech.edu> <4spj1f$prf@news.pacifier.com> <4spkdm$faa@solutions.solon.com> <4suk39$9h2@news.ld.centuryinter.net> organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.dos.programmer,comp.lang.ada nntp-posting-user: ok Date: 1996-07-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: smosha@most.fw.hac.com (Stephen M O'Shaughnessy) writes: >In article <4suk39$9h2@news.ld.centuryinter.net>, steidl@centuryinter.net says... >Most people believe the Bible to be the in-errant word of God. Quantifying over the whole world, this statement is false. For those people who *do* believe it, the agreed definition of inerrancy applies *solely* to the original text in the original languages; every copy, every translation, and every interpretation is corrigible. >For a real eye opener read two >versions side by side, say the King James and the Living Bible. (a) The Authorised Version came out in 1611. That's a long time ago, and English has changed quite a lot. (b) The Living Bible IS NOT A TRANSLATION! It is openly and unashamedly a *paraphrase*. For a fairer comparison, consider the current Jewish Publication Society translation of the Tanach, and a really professional Christian translation such as The Revised English Bible or the International Version. Despite being produced by disjoint committees with radically different theological biases; some of the sentences are word for word identical. I think that what this shows is that it *is* possible to do a very good job of translating between languages in two unrelated families 2500+ years apart in dramatically different cultures *if* you take hundreds of scholars, hundreds of years, and build up a "translation technology", and libraries full of information about the cultural background. -- Fifty years of programming language research, and we end up with C++ ??? Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/~ok; RMIT Comp.Sci.