It is evident that EAHI's translations are superior; more informed and
authentic. For example, why do you say there is no difference in meaning between
"And while I recognised the validity of Catholicism as a positive religion" &
"Concerning Catholicism as a positive religion in general"? The difference is
obvious and very significant. Becoming irrational when someone points out one's
errors, or the errors of one's work, or errors in what one has concern for, is
not manly.
You might seemed to have missed the difference between translating and
interpreting, and you wouldn't be the first or the only one to do so. For
example, interpreting, indeed dumbing down sentences, is the norm in the world
of subtitles for TV and movies.
translate (v.):
c.1300, "to remove from one place to another," also "to turn from one language
to another," from L. translatus "carried over," serving as pp. of transferre "to
bring over, carry over" (see transfer), from trans- (see trans-) + latus "borne,
carried," from *tlatos, from PIE root *tel-, *tol- "to bear, carry" (see extol).
interpret (v.):
late 14c., from O.Fr. interpreter (13c.) and directly from L. interpretari
"explain, expound, understand," from interpres "agent, translator," from inter-
(see inter-) + second element of uncertain origin, perhaps related to Skt.
prath- "to spread abroad," PIE *per- "to traffic in, sell" (see pair (n.).
Do you perhaps also here see no difference?
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <ouro_boros@...> wrote:
>
> You have your interpretations. Our translator has his. Nothing you have posted
has convinced me that our translation is in need of rectification, whatever
name-calling (vis-a-vis your "bad faith" comment) you want to indulge in. You
are welcome to produce your own version.