On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Ed Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
> ais523 wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:37 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> Oh, so you're interpreting R2150 as "must include". Again, though, this > >> is trivially satisfied by your theoretical ability to hire one or more > >> sufficiently competent human translators. > > > > Is a theoretical ability enough, though? For instance, I'm not certain > > that I could afford to hire a competent translator for enough time to > > meaningfully participate in Agora. I agree that I probably am, indeed, a > > person; I just thought this would serve as a good subject for a random > > stray CFJ (which apparently doesn't exist, despite the intent being > > clear enough?) > > It was reasonably clear that you intended to initiate a case, but the > details were considerably less clear; presumably an inquiry case on > "I am a person", but the Yoda-esque alteration of word order and > especially "conviction" muddy the waters. > > Does rot13, applied twice, count as a translation service? > > Proto-proto: Amend Rule 2150 to weaken English's status to that of > lingua franca (with the usual irony involved in calling it that). > > > This does actually bring up an interesting question: If someone > > non-English submits a proposal, CFJ, or other such document in their > > native language (it being translated), what counts as the "official" > > proposal? The translated version? > > We could always arrange a test. > > I speak Spanish. I'll draft something in Spanish and use a translator to put it into English later today.
