User talk:Ockham

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * Help pages
 * Style Guide
 * Inclusion policy

Please consider putting a brief description of yourself on your user page. If you are already a contributor to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia, please mention this on your user page so we know how to contact you. Also, mention which languages you understand if English is not your first language.

In any case, I hope you enjoy donating your time to grow the Wikisource library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click  [ edit] ) and place  before your question.

Again, welcome! John Vandenberg 08:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Testing
Great to see you are jumping in and trying things out. I suggest you create User:Ockham/sandbox and do your testing in there. That way, you can use "User:Ockham" to record a few details about yourself, such as what your interests and skills are, and list any projects you are working on. I'll comment more shortly once I've thoughts about your questions a little more. John Vandenberg 08:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

side-by-side translations
In addition to side-by-side translations done on one page, such as Catullus 1, we also have a special tool that pulls to languages together. For example, to see Catullus 50 in English and Latin (with English/Latin switching sides):

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catullus_50?match=la http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Catullus_50?match=en

This is also a French translation, so we can use other combinations of languages:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catullus_50?match=fr http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Catullus_50?match=fr http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Po%C3%A9sies_de_Catulle_%E2%80%93_50?match=en http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Po%C3%A9sies_de_Catulle_%E2%80%93_50?match=la

As more translations are added, more combinations will be possible.

All of these have problems with the text not being aligned nicely side-by-side, but that is a problem caused by different projects having different page layouts, especially different heights in the header at the top of each page. With a bit of inter-project coordination, this could be improved.

Anyway, my intention isnt to say that this tool is the right way to do side-by-side translations; I just want to be sure you know of the tools that you have at your disposal. John Vandenberg 13:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Latin texts
Greetings! I've been importing some English translations of early Latin texts—specifically non-canonical New Testament works. So far I've imported various PD translations of Acts of Pilate, Correspondence of Paul and Seneca, Epistle to the Laodiceans, and Gospel of the Nativity of Mary. Not exactly masterpieces of Latin literature, mind you, but historically important nonetheless. The Latin Vulgate original to the Epistle to the Laodiceans is available on the Latin Wikisource at la:Ad Laodicenses, but the other three do not have the originals present at Wikisource. I was wondering if you'd want to work with me on any of these, or on any other Latin apocryphal gospels or epistles. All the best, Quadell 14:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes v interested. However I do like to work in parallel Latin-English, so that the user can always check if necessary what is going on in the original Latin, and also not to rely on some old 19C translation (tho' that sometimes is a necessary second-best as time is limited) but to make a literal translation.  Also I like to have an introduction and endnotes so people have a sense of context and background. But, again, very interested - more at home with later medieval than Patrician but like a challenge.   Here is a page I've been experimenting with.  Ockham 14:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer your question on my talk page, I wish I knew Greek! But no, I had to have a lot of help from Greek Wikimedians to get el:Κλήμεντος Προς Κορινθίους Α' and el:Κλήμεντος Προς Κορινθίους B' (1 and 2 Clement) into the Greek Wikisource.
 * Your parallel translation format is very attractive. Consider Epistle to the Laodiceans a moment; I think it's important to include historical translations, such as William Wake's 18th century translation, because this was the first time the Latin was translated into English and available to the general reader. (It also includes his annotations.) But I think a parallel translation like you've done at User:Ockham/Horace would be a great way of presenting the main page of the text. I've made a rough start at Epistle to the Laodiceans/rewrite. Does this look like a good approach to you? Quadell 15:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This looks good to me. But how to get hold of other Latin material?  I have access to libraries and photographic equipment and can post images.  But as I say I am not expert in this period and you would let me have to know the references.  I suspect the Heythrop in Kensington which is close to me will have the sources you are looking for.  Ockham 15:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's tough to find online. I can find snippets here and there, frequently on pages in other languages — but it's almost hard as searching for a complete autograph, when all you have is translations and fragments! Quadell 14:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then find me a reference source and I will check it out in the Heythrop. Can you get me a list of other primary sources you are trying to locate? [edit update] I've located a bibliography in the Heythrop online database, but it is a book so will need to visit the library.  If there is anything special you want me to look for, let me know.  The book is bibliography on Apocryphal material.  Ockham 17:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I started an attempt at translating the Epistle to the Laodiceans, but I'm a beginner. Could you check it over for me? —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 20:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

CotW
Greetings, I thought you might be particularly interested to know that Ovid has been made this week's COTW - meaning a number of WS editors will get together to churn out as much of Ovid's writings as possible over the next week. We could certainly use your help finding free translations, and moving them to Wikisource! Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Sheet music 21:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In regards to your comment "Could start off with out-of-copyright transl, but the old ones tend to be less literal and not so accurate, unfortunately." .. it is important to not only provide useful translations to the public, but to collate old translations that have been in use. Old translations allow critical discussion of those translations and the translator, and also help people like me assess the translation.  i.e. if I cant see a properly published translation, how can I assess our Wikisource translation to verify that it is not a literary wreck that will misled readers. John Vandenberg 15:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Ockham 15:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Catullus 64/Lines 50-253
An anonymous user has been making changes to Catullus 64/Lines 50-253. We encourage improvements to our "Wikisource" translations, but we need someone to verify that these changes are actually improvements. Could you cast your eye over this and let me know what you think. John Vandenberg 04:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for letting me know about this. Difficult. User 68.38.122.177 clearly is able to translate, i.e. not vandalism by any means, but:


 * 1. As a fundamental principle I believe we should prefer slow and incremental changes rather than this 'be bold' approach.  Catullus not an easy writer and takes immense time to compare all the changes.  Would suggest revert + request to register account name+ suggest that all changes be discussed on talk page.


 * 2. On the changes themselves, some are improvements certainly, as making the translation more 'literal'.  Some are clearly not (I have examples if required).  There is one glaring instance where 68.38.122.177 pasted his or her own text in without bothering to see if it was grammatically consistent with Gatewaycat's version, so it all reads like nonsense.


 * So, on balance, revert, in my view, but not to bite the newcomer either! It's obviously not schoolboy vandalism. Ockham 14:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing. I did notice the translation had swung wildly from Gatewaycat's wording, and I tried to contact Gatewaycat over on w:User talk:Gatewaycat a while ago, to no avail.  It is an incomplete translation that Gatewaycat never finished, and probably wont, so it is not unexpected that when a new person picks up someone elses work that it will change direction.
 * You've raised some good points about how to "manage" our collaborative translations; these are worth discussing on the talk page of Translations (we need to polish this guideline a little and make it a policy document).
 * As you would be the better person for this user to start communicating with, could you revert as much as you feel is necessary, and start some discussion of the changes on "Talk:Catullus 64/Lines 50-253".
 * Note that we did have a Catullus 64, but it was deleted because it contained "Catullus 64 - AP LATIN TRANSLATION FOR CATULLUS UNIT TEST / Complete Literal Spanish Translation / .. text .. / © copyright 17-4-1999 by Brendan Rau". it was uploaded by 24.73.62.208.  I think we need to check those contributions in case they are actually published translations that were copied.  I have sent you the full deleted text of no. 64 via email. John Vandenberg 15:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Catullus 68 is a copy of negenborn.net, which means it is technically a copyright violation, as we do not have any paperwork on file that says Brendan Rau has donated this into the public domain or freely licensed it. Either we can try to contact Brendan Rau and secure a copyright release, or it can be deleted and recreated. John Vandenberg 16:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"filthy" poetry?
It is often said that Wikipedia is not censored so I suppose Wikisource isn't either. However, it would be wrong to be gratuitously offensive. Be honest and put in such profanities as are in the original, but no more.--Poetlister 16:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I'm really curious to know what is being discussed here. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 03:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Catullus 16, probably. John Vandenberg 04:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. The translation needs improvement.  On the other hand, Catullus_10 seems to have been reasonably well done.  Ockham 08:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed; it's always difficult when a discussion is split across several talk pages.-- Poetlister 11:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there is an official English translation of this poem? Latin isn't exactly the easiest language to translate, and inaccuracies can arise if there is no translation of this already. I found one while searching google.&mdash;  DarkFalls talk 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a Wikisource translation (like any translation) should endeavor to convey both the letter and the spirit of the original. If the original text is offensive, the translation should be too, or else it's a bad translation. —Quadell (talk /
 * We can remain offensive, without using neologisms like "pussy" which really isn't what the Latin says at all Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Portal:Branch Davidians 06:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm bemused by the comments of Grammaticus above. I didn't translate any of the Catullus here, nor did I upload any text. Why does it 'appear that he [Ockham] is still a mere student'? This seems unnecessarily rude, particularly as none of my work appears here. Anyway, happy to agree with whatever policy agreed on. One method used of old is to leave the word in the original language, another is to put it in French. The modern style is to attempt a translation by means of some barbaric Anglo-Saxon. As Grammaticus points out, this is not always accurate.


 * Well, that was an odd mix-up. Ockham never touched Catullus. So what "filthy poetry" were you talking about, PoetLister? —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 17:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So many confusions here. 1. I originally left a message on PL's page referring to some 'unspeakably filthy' poetry by Catullus.  The adjective should have made it clear I was being ironic, but then she left a message on my talk page referring to 'filthy' poetry without the ironic qualification.  Now there is all this correspondence going on I barely understand, including someone dropping in to be rude about lack of skill in non-existent translation.  I only joined this wiki to help out!  Ockham 19:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And we thank you, sincerely. Sometimes we Wikisourcerors can get confused, and it's an open secret that Aspies are overrepresented in our little sample (which leads to more unintentional rudeness than might be otherwise seen). Add to that the flared tempers that come up whenever obscenity/censorship issues come up, and you get baptism by fire. (Maybe Grammaticus was confusing you with User:Belial, who did contribute Catullus, and who describes himself as "a Lebowski Achiever and a student at West Virginia University"?) But really, thanks for your help, and we should all remember not to bite the newbies. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 20:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ockham, I was merely rather incensed at the poor quality of the translation in question; and, thus carried by an impetus of rage, did not endeavour to study the editors' names (something which I, perhaps, should have done). Nevertheless, I bore no intention of inciting your bemusement and hope that you will pardon my argumentum ad hominem. For I am sure that you are a 'student of the most commendable merit'. (parenthetical PS: in view of this discussion being posted on your page, it was, indeed, only credible for me to presume that you were the author of this text). — Grammaticus 17:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Grammaticus. Where do you think the quality was poor? I.e. specific instances.  My view is that the English should be no more than a 'crib', and that elegant or 'poetic' forms of translation should be avoided at all costs.  But I am not an expert in classical Latin.  My work is mostly medieval, and in logic and philosophy rather than the poetical stuff.  Ockham 13:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)  (PS: I mentioned Catullus 10 above - not mine, but seems on the face of it reasonable - what specifically is wrong with this?  - anything can be changed) Ockham 13:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the function of Wikisource to publish previously unpublished high-quality literary translations. Translations here should surely just be cribs to facilitate understanding. However, a translation into idiomatic English is probably more use than an overly literal one.-- Poetlister 22:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, hi, hi! I've been away from this project for a while. I notice that there's some controversy about my translation of Catullus 16. That's to be expected, I suppose. It's been controversial ever since Europeans became prudes. Over a thousand years, maybe. I've an MA in classics from Wisconsin, so I know the issues involved. Feel free to comment on my talk page. Oh, I'm also a coffee achiever as well. Belial 12:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. I think the main controversy (started by grammaticus) was over the quality of the translation - also some confusion about which poem we were talking about.  I personally prefer very literal translations so the reader can easily see which Latin word corresponds to which English one.  On which, aren't the first and last lines of Catullus 16 meant to match? Ockham 16:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)