Translation talk:The Evolution of Space and Time
| Information about this edition | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edition: | L’Évolution de l’espace et du temps | ||||||
| Source: | Scientia 10: 31–54 | ||||||
| Contributor(s): | User:D.H, User:Harald88 | ||||||
| Level of progress: |
| ||||||
| Notes: | Alternative translations:
| ||||||
| Proofreaders: | User:Harald88 | ||||||
Subtleties of translation[edit]
- Le monde" vs "l'univers": Langevin makes a distinction between "le monde", apparently the material world or universe, and "l'univers", which term he uses exclusively for Minkowski's "world of events", as it is typically called in English. And "laws of the universe" would make more sense than "laws of the world", since "universe" is more commonly used for the material world. I already translated "univers" by "world" and I think that it is consistent and clarifying to also translate "monde" by "universe", although it's the opposite of what an apparently literal translation would give. I'll now make this consistent throughout the text (incl. "laws of the universe"). -> Two exceptions came up, which I kept "world": "outside world" (=the universe, "outside universe" isn't English), and "our world"(=the Earth). And I reversed to "conception of the world" in the introduction, as "conception of the universe" sounds weird and it doesn't really matter.
I also noted the subtle difference between "d'univers" and "de l'univers", and followed that difference in translation.
- velocity vs speed Any preferences? I would advice to translate consistently with "velocity" as is common in old English translations.
- "sense" or "meaning" I think that it makes sense (pun intended) to translate "sens" everywhere with "sense"; I noticed no place where this would be inappropriate. Any other opinions?
Harald88 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have no objections. --D.H (talk) 10:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Once "proofread"[edit]
I now finished going through it once, verifying with a photocopy of the original (which also led to a correction in the French); but there were so many corrections, that probably someone else should do a true "proofreading" of the resulting English text. Harald88 (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I put the template "proof-eng" in the article. Thanks for your corrections. --D.H (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)