Translation talk:Wycliffite Prologue

Literalness
In response to your question, JustinCB: Yes, I think there's some over-literalness here. I think, based on a quick look, that I would probably pull out the footnotes currently numbered 2, 10, 18, 23, 24, 26, 35, 36, 40, 45, 46, and so on. Alephb (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Pulled out footnotes. Can you be more specific about what's too literal. JustinCB (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

If you can point out any place where I've been woodenly literal, please point it out(to be inconsistant in wording, formal[but not stiffly formal], or dialectal, that's not woodenly literal[A mix of those would sound as strange to a modern reader as an essay in English would sound to Wycliffe's]). JustinCB (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

For editors
I have followed the sentence structure and punctuation of the original closely, and have only rearranged within phrases for coherency. In translating from Middle English, it happens very much that homophones and words with similar spellings get mixed up in Modern English, and that spellings mix between British and American(although this is somewhat intentional), and even archaick and mispelings(I think I might've used "sepulcre" somewhere[which is the spelling that the original prefered]). If you want to discuss any particular passage, footnote, &c., you can post here. JustinCB (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)