I can see reading comprehension is not your strong point. Next time, try reading beyond the first four words of the sentence, if you want to understand its full meaning.
Nobby Nomates wrote:
That was my interpretation of what the other poster was conveying to you.
I always wondered what a weasel sounded like. I see weasels don't have much use for logic though, so let me lay it out for you:Phredd said:
Bad example. They could throw Tergat, et al, right back at ya.
Which you interpreted as:
I believe the poster was reminding you that for every runner like Teso who ran London and then Boston, there is another quality runner who ran Boston before London.
See the hole in the logic? As the saying goes "you can't get there from here." As I'm sure you know Tergat has not run Boston, and having already run London he certainly has no chance to run it before he run London (unless he possesses a time machine). Being the nice guy that I am, I offered both yourself and Phredd the chance to step back from the edge and correct your statements but Phredd wanted to stick:
Nobby, Mr. Green's interpretation was right on. I thought it was obvious. For every runner you can come up with who ran London before Boston, there is at least one who did the opposite.
And so did you:
Fair enough. I stand by my interpretation.
So how did you come up with that remarkably accurate interpretation? My guess is that you and Phredd are the same person. You both demonstrate a singular lack of knowledge.
NN, why the insults? Are you so unsure of your posiion that you have to result to dragging things through the mud. Props to Green who, for the most part, hasn't taken the bait.
Also, Phredd: you're wrong regarding Tergat. Though I do get your point, you chose a bad example. Try again?
1+1=3
Nobby Nomates wrote:
I always wondered what a weasel sounded like. I see weasels don't have much use for logic though, so let me lay it out for you...
I see you appreciated my use of the logic card enough to try to turn it back on me. Unfortunately, you are wrong regarding any "hole" in my logic. Your failure is in understanding the role of the interpretor. Allow me to try to explain it to you.
Party #1 is trying to convey a message to Party #2. Perhaps they speak different languages, perhaps the same one, but #2 does not understand the message. Enter Party #3, the interpretor! It is this person's responsibility to accurately convey #1's message in a manner that #2 will understand. It is not, however, the job of the interpretor to pass any sort of value judgement on the message. (Can you imagine what a bigger mess the U.N. would be if their interpretors were passing judgement on the messages they were translating.)
So, in our little letsrun soap opera Phredd plays the part of #1, Nobby is #2, and I happily fill the role of the interpretor (#3). Thus, in my role I am bound to withhold judgement on the validity of the message. I am merely a lowly conduit trying to spread understanding.
So, any issue you have with the message would have to be taken up with Phredd (assuming an accurate interpretation by myself of the original message, which Phredd has verified). If you need my help conveying this to Phredd, please do not hesitate to ask. I would be happy to perform the same services for you that I performed earlier for Phredd.
Interpretation =/= Translation.
Other than that, great weaseling.
Okay, looks like we've played regulation & overtime. Time for the crowd-pleasing Shoot-out!! Thread mavens, make sure you're using a regulation stick & come out skating!
Nobby Nomates wrote:
Interpretation =/= Translation.
Other than that, great weaseling.
Sorry, but a higher authority disagrees with you.
Interpretation: the act of interpreting; elucidation; explicaton; translation
Source: The Random House Dictionary
Thus, in my role I am bound to withhold judgement on the validity of the message. I am merely a lowly conduit trying to spread understanding.
This is sadly wrong. The proof of this can be shown by the problems with translation software.
Interpreters always make value judgements about the material they are working with. As an example: the English word magistrate denotes a type of judge. The direct translation into French (magistrat) has a completely different meaning. An interpreter must make a value judgement based on the surrounding words on which meaning to give.
At the very least, given that Phredd's post contained a serious error, you must have been obliged to make a guess (a value judgement based on surrounding material) to arrive at his meaning. If you bothered to make this value judgement, why didn't you correct, or at least point out the error? My guess is that you didn't know.
Nobby Nomates wrote:
At the very least, given that Phredd's post contained a serious error, you must have been obliged to make a guess (a value judgement based on surrounding material) to arrive at his meaning. If you bothered to make this value judgement, why didn't you correct, or at least point out the error? My guess is that you didn't know.
Once again you are wrong. There is no obligation on the part of the interpretor to correct perceived errors on the part of either party. In fact, the obligation is too NOT make any adjustments/corrections, if the interpretor is, as here, in a neutral position concerning the parties involved. And the worst possible thing for an interpretor to do would be to interject his/her own thoughts based on a guess, as you are suggesting. That absolutely flies in the face of good interpretation protocol.
Is there anything else I can help you understand?
Mr. Green wrote:
Is there anything else I can help you understand?
are you kidding dude? this genius still doesn't understand that london and poly aren't the same race. give it up. you are tilting at windmills
That absolutely flies in the face of good interpretation protocol.Wrong again.
I notice that you have this humorous habit of copying my phrasing. I say your logic is flawed, then you tell me there is a "hole in my logic." I infom you that you are again wrong, then you tell me I am "wrong again." I wonder if you are capable of original thought.
Also, I will accept your lack of supporting evidence for your last post to mean that you simply have none. It took a while, but we have apparently finally painted you into a corner.
Best of luck to you and everyone else involved with Sunday's marathon.
Actually not, I just had to rush out, but was hoping that, having pointed out your error, you might have bothered to authenticate your statements on "correct" protocol for interpreters. After all, I'm sure you didn't make it up, did you? Thanks for the good wishes, but proof of the "rules" which you so (over?)confidently opined on would be better. I thought perhaps that there might be different rules in different countries, so I had a little look around. I did find this from the US District Court in New York:http://sdnyinterpreters.org/pub/index.php?page=SDNYethics.htmlYou might want to look at rule 7:
Interpreters have the duty to correct any material error in the interpretation of testimony. If anyone challenges an interpretation, they should objectively decide whether a correction should be made.
Germane to the current discussion? Let me know what you think?
Welcome back, Nobby. I thought you had high-tailed it to the hills. And congratulations on finding that link. That must have taken a while. You are right that there are different rules and you seem to have found one that is more an exception rather than the rule. A more typical one can be found here: http://court.nol.org/rules/Interpreter.10.pdf
CANON 1: ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS Interpreters shall render a complete and accurate interpretation or sight translation, without altering, omitting, or adding anything to what is stated or written, and without explanation.
There you have it. And Canon #1, too!
And congratulations on finding that link. That must have taken a while.
It was about the third link when I googled, so, no not that long. I think it must have taken you a while to find your example, Nebraska isn't the first place I'd look, but I suppose if you are desperate to prove a point? You certainly seemed to find an exception to the normal rules for interpreters:
Maryland:
http://www.courts.state.md.us/interpreter/rule16_819.pdf(2) knowingly interpreting falsely;
New Jersey:
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/appinterpret.htmD. Translators may assume a "secondary role" when they find it necessary to include an explanation in the translation of a text being prepared. In such instances they should make clear that that information is the translator's and not a part of the text.
Not the hubs of civilization that Nebraska represents, but telling none the less.
Now that we have established that, unless you are posting from Nebraska, you had both the right and the duty to point out the errors in Phredd's post, the question remains: Why didn't you?
Nobby, welcome back! You've resurrected the thread from page 5! It took you a while to get off the canvas after that last one, but it's good to know you are back for more. A glutton for punishment, perhaps?
Finding your source on the third link is not too bad. Of course, mine was the first link when I googled "interpreters rules." I didn't check beyond the first three links provided, but they all included essentially the same text I provided above. Interestingly, the second and third links were from MD and NJ. Your MD reference was taken out of context. Shame on you! And the NJ reference was also cleverly edited to make your point. Here's the whole thing:
Because interpreters, transliterators, and translators are responsible only for enabling others to communicate, they should not take a primary role in such communications and may take a secondary role (see below) only as necessary for assuring an accurate and faithful interpretation, transliteration, or translation
This would hardly suggest that an interpreter has "both the right and the duty to point out the errors." In fact, it makes it clear that the primary role would not involve anything beyond enabling communication. Now, why would you have left that important part out of your post? Methinks you're getting desperate.
Nice try, but you are wrong again. Try again?
A little 26.22 mile detour, don't you follow the news?
an accurate and faithful interpretation
Accurate factually no doubt, otherwise the instruction would have been simply "faithful", no need for the appositive "accurate" if they were talking about word for word translation.
At the moment you are weaseling badly - after all you are the one who didn't know that Tergat hasn't run Boston, and in your desperation, you are trying to go down a side alley. Try and answer without any more weaseling:
Why didn't you point out the error?
Nobby Nomates wrote:
you are the one who didn't know that Tergat hasn't run Boston, and in your desperation, you are trying to go down a side alley.
Once again you are mistaken, my friend. It was Phredd who mentioned Tergat, not me.
Try and answer without any more weaseling:
Why didn't you point out the error?
I've already explained this to you.
A little 26.22 mile detour, don't you follow the news?
I did read about that on page 5 of the newspaper. They did not mention, however, that it had taken someone 1.5 days to finish. Yikes! Put down your keyboard and get out and run.
Once again you are mistaken, my friend. It was Phredd who mentioned Tergat, not me.That's not in dispute. What is in dispute is your reasons for failing to point out the error. Why is that? Did you not know?
I've already explained this to you.No, you haven't. You've lied about it, you've prevaricated, you've attempted to go down as many side alleys as your weaseling mind can find. What you haven't done is justify your omission (and it's a pretty big one). Why is that? Did you not know?
They did not mention, however, that it had taken someone 1.5 days to finish.Race on Sunday morning. It is now Monday. Interesting Maths. Your ignorance is showing badly.