All UK broadsheets print a deliberate war-mongering mistranslation
banana
Iranian President Ahmadinejad's words, to make it look as though the
Iranian authorities are planning a nuclear first strike against Israel.
There is an official translation of the speech he made to the Tehran
international conference on Jerusalem and Palestine. This has been
circulated by the Iranian news agency IRNA. There is absolutely no way
that it could have failed to reach the 'Guardian's' news desk.
But the 'journalists' preferred to publish the same 'translation' that
has appeared in the war-mongering Zionist newspaper 'Haaretz'.
The same deliberate mistranslation has been published in the
'Telegraph', the 'Scotsman', the 'Independent, and the 'Times'. As well
as in the 'New York Times', the 'Washington Post'
CNN even said that 'Zionist regime' was 'Iran's term for Israel'.
This is, of course, like saying that opposition to apartheid and
ethnic-supremacism in South Africa was tantamount to support for
genocide against white people. And did anyone express that view? Yes,
they did. But it was restricted to white-supremacist neo-Nazi types.
Even staunch supporters of South African apartheid such as the Tory
party didn't put it in such terms.
However, when a similar neo-Nazi view is expressed about Israel, it's
presented as the 'normal', apple-pie-loving 'decent' view........
Watch how many western newspapers mention the fact that Ahmadinejad
called in the same speech) for an opportunity
>>>for all genuine Palestinians; be they Muslims, Christians, or Jews,
>>>residing in Palestine or in Diaspora, to participate in a referendum
>>>to decide the political system of their choice and elect their
>>>leaders.
I hold no brief for the Islamic regime in Iran, which is no less fascist
than the Zionist regime in israel. But the above proposal is certainly
not anti-Semitic in character. Those who say that it is, cannot
reasonably be called opponents of racism (or anti-Semitism) in any way
whatsoever. In fact, if one assumes they are not complete idiots, they
should in fact be called the liars that they are.
Compare the following.
THIS IS FROM THE OFFICIAL IRANIAN TRANSLATION OF AHMADINEJAD'S SPEECH:
<http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0604141214202410.htm>:
***BEGIN EXTRACT FROM OFFICIAL TRANSLATION***
But I tell them that regardless of what they desire, the Zionist regime
is falling apart.
"The young tree of resistance in Palestine is blooming and blooms of
faith and desire for freedom are flowering.
"The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with
a storm. Today even the inhabitants of the occupied Palestine,
especially the African and Asian settlers are living in ain, poverty and
discontent.
"I tell the governments supporting the Zionist regime to open the doors
to the prisons in the occupied Palestine and allow the refugees and
displaced Palestinians to return to their homeland and summon the
usurpers of the Palestinian lands.
"If you still consider yourself indebted to them, then find a proper
place for them in your own territories, if not call upon them to return
to their countries of origin to live like their forefathers.
***END EXTRACT FROM OFFICIAL TRANSLATION***
THIS IS FROM THE 'GUARDIAN':
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1754307,00.html>:
***BEGIN EXTRACT FROM 'GUARDIAN' VERSION***
[Ahmadinejad] told a conference in Tehran in support of the
Palestinians: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward
annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be
eliminated by one storm."
***END EXTRACT FROM 'GUARDIAN' VERSION***
[For other examples of 'newspapers' that have published the same lying
war-mongering mistranslation, click here:
<http://news.google.com/news?q=ahmadinejad+annihilated>]
THIS IS FROM 'HAARETZ':
<http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=705948&contrassID
=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0>
***BEGIN EXTRACT FROM 'HAARETZ' VERSION***
Peres: Ahmadinejad to end up like Iraq's Saddam
By News Agencies
In a first Israeli response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's
latest warnings against Israel, Kadima no. 2 Shimon Peres said on
Saturday that Tehran's leader will eventually pay the price for his
vigilant statements and actions.
Speaking to an Israel Radio reporter, Peres said "Ahmadinejad's
statements remind those of Saddam and he will end up the same way as
Hussein has."
On Friday Ahmadinejad called Israel a "rotten, dried tree" that will be
annihilated by "one storm."
[...]
"Ahmadinejad represents Satan, not God," the veteran statesman said,
adding that "history knew how to denounce madmen and those who wave
their sword, and all those who acted this way ended their careers
accordingly."
***END***
[Note how they call the mass murderer Peres a 'veteran statesman'. In
the UK media he's often called a 'Nobel prize winner'. I wonder what
proportion of newspaper readers in the UK are aware of the fact that
Peres did not win a 'whole' Nobel 'peace' prize, but shared it with
Yassir Arafat (and Yitzhak Rabin)? Of course, people like him are never
portrayed in the west as making 'threats'. Presumably to read any
'threat' into his quoted words is to think like a 'terrorist'].
The importance of the western propaganda is very simple and clear:
unprovoked attacks, probably nuclear, are being planned against Iran.
There should be little doubt that the plan also involves the carrying
out of further 'false flag' terror attacks in the west.
--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)
Harry The Horse
> On its front page today, the 'Guardian' published a mistranslation of
> Iranian President Ahmadinejad's words, to make it look as though the
> Iranian authorities are planning a nuclear first strike against
> Israel.
>
the more accurate translation. However most of the western media will not
allow us to know that there are alternative translations, and therefore
interpretations, of the speech available. If they really cared about
informing their readers, they would print both, and invite various
specialists to debate which is the more accurate portrayal of the Iranian
leader's words. That way people could make up their own minds. However
that's never been what the media has been about. It is pretty clear that
the process of manufacturing consent for an unprovoked war against Iran is
continuing apace.
Fred Shaw
The BBC is also backing the Bush-Cheney cabal line, which tells us a
lot about who controls the 'British' Broadcasting Corporation. Even
going to the lengths of telling in heavy tones how the German town of
Friedrichshafen is trying to adjust to hosting the Iranian football
team during the coming Cup competition. Propaganda in action.
Sling 'em. The lot. Anywhere, but out of here.
basho007
news:uW1z9jAPcNQEFw$0...@borve.demon.co.uk:
> On its front page today, the 'Guardian' published a mistranslation of
> Iranian President Ahmadinejad's words, to make it look as though the
> Iranian authorities are planning a nuclear first strike against Israel.
>
> There is an official translation of the speech he made to the Tehran
> international conference on Jerusalem and Palestine. This has been
> circulated by the Iranian news agency IRNA. There is absolutely no way
> that it could have failed to reach the 'Guardian's' news desk.
>
> But the 'journalists' preferred to publish the same 'translation' that
> has appeared in the war-mongering Zionist newspaper 'Haaretz'.
>
> The same deliberate mistranslation has been published in the
> 'Telegraph', the 'Scotsman', the 'Independent, and the 'Times'. As well
> as in the 'New York Times', the 'Washington Post'
>
>
>
> Watch how many western newspapers mention the fact that Ahmadinejad
> called in the same speech) for an opportunity
>
>>>>for all genuine Palestinians; be they Muslims, Christians, or Jews,
>>>>residing in Palestine or in Diaspora, to participate in a referendum
>>>>to decide the political system of their choice and elect their
>>>>leaders.
the one state solution receives little press. perhaps a sense that short
of genocide or mass expulsions, the Israel occupation could lead only to
a single state, is part of the explanation of the proposed Israeli
withdrawal?
one Palestine, one nation. How's that sound?
what could be more democratic? The same solution as was arrived at in
South Africa.
> The importance of the western propaganda is very simple and clear:
> unprovoked attacks, probably nuclear, are being planned against Iran.
> There should be little doubt that the plan also involves the carrying
> out of further 'false flag' terror attacks in the west.
>
thanks for this info.
let''s note the Guardian's participation.
Many will have noticed the evolution that the Guardian has undergone in
the past three years or so.
It's still a fairly good paper, but brand as a paper of the left is now
largely a matter of history.
TUKA
> It is pretty clear that the process of manufacturing consent for an
> unprovoked war against Iran is continuing apace.
>
Note to you in your fantasy world -- unprovoked is a strange word to be
using. Unjustified? That is one question. But unprovoked? Don't be
ridiculous.
--
Few blame themselves until they have exhausted all other possibilities.
-- anonymous
princeandy
mentioned by frightened little journos hanging on to their jobs.
Marlon Brando and 60 minutes.
http://www.theunjustmedia.com/ben%20stein%20on%20jewish%20media%20control.ht
m
"banana" <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uW1z9jAPcNQEFw$0...@borve.demon.co.uk...
oO
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article357808.ece
Also the timing of this 'Holocaust' article in the Indepedent (see below)
and the prominence given to it is incredible. Looking to portray Ahmadinejad
as the new Hitler. Ties in well with this
http://www.news.com.au/story/print/0,10119,18754045,00.html
"The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Mr Bush and
others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler. 'That's the name they're using,'
the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying."
*********************
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article357644.ece
'Hitler's holocaust plan for Jews in Palestine stopped by Desert Rats'
Adolf Hitler made plans to conduct a holocaust of Jews living in Palestine
during the Second World War, according to German historians who have
examined government archives for a new book that examines the extension of
the extermination programme outside of Europe and Russia.
It was the victory of the famed Desert Rats of Britain's Eighth Army at El
Alamein under the leadership of Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery that saved
the Jews in Palestine from annihilation. The turning point in the desert war
signalled a reprieve from a planned German invasion of what was then the
British Mandate of Palestine.***********
"banana" <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uW1z9jAPcNQEFw$0...@borve.demon.co.uk...
abelard
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk>
typed:
>On its front page today, the 'Guardian' published a mistranslation of
>Iranian President Ahmadinejad's words, to make it look as though the
>Iranian authorities are planning a nuclear first strike against Israel.
an exercise....
first to cut away your superfluous rhetoric....
....
essentially you claim this:-
>***BEGIN EXTRACT FROM OFFICIAL TRANSLATION***
>
>But I tell them that regardless of what they desire, the Zionist regime
>is falling apart.
(cut superfluous ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe rhetoric)
>"The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with
>a storm.
differs from this....
>THIS IS FROM THE 'GUARDIAN':
>
><http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1754307,00.html>:
>
>***BEGIN EXTRACT FROM 'GUARDIAN' VERSION***
>
>[Ahmadinejad] told a conference in Tehran in support of the
>Palestinians: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward
>annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be
>eliminated by one storm."
>
>***END EXTRACT FROM 'GUARDIAN' VERSION***
perhaps you would be more precise and describe exactly the differences
between the two 'translations'
and why the 'report' in the groaniad is 'war-mongering' while the
'official' words/'translation' are not 'war-mongering'...
...
to play your own game of endless bracketing rhetoric on a lesser scale....
perhaps ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe should be labelled a 'peace
loving loon' instead of a 'war-monger' (as you seek to label those
'reporting' his (translated) words.....
i further note your usual attempt to introduce some sort of 'moral
equivalence' between the illegitimate would-be mahdi and the
democratic state of israel....
which you then seek to obfuscate further by references to apartheid
s. africa...
meanwhile omitting to mention the large number of islam controlled
states and the tiny and more vulnerable position of the tiny, only
and low populated jewish controlled state on earth...
or even the constant persecution (and ethnic cleansing) of any but
islamics across much of the islamic controlled world...
you are not a fool...therefore i cannot regard your systematic bias
and omissions as anything but contrived...
....
i await your responses with interest...
particularly to the first part where you claim one translation to be
'war-mongering' and the other (apparently similar to my eye)
'official translation'
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk>
typed:
>On its front page today, the 'Guardian' published a mistranslation of
>Iranian President Ahmadinejad's words, to make it look as though the
>Iranian authorities are planning a nuclear first strike against Israel.
an exercise....
first to cut away your superfluous rhetoric....
....
essentially you claim this:-
>***BEGIN EXTRACT FROM OFFICIAL TRANSLATION***
>
>But I tell them that regardless of what they desire, the Zionist regime
>is falling apart.
(cut superfluous ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe rhetoric)
>"The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with
>a storm.
differs from this....
>THIS IS FROM THE 'GUARDIAN':
>
><http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1754307,00.html>:
>
>***BEGIN EXTRACT FROM 'GUARDIAN' VERSION***
>
>[Ahmadinejad] told a conference in Tehran in support of the
>Palestinians: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward
>annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be
>eliminated by one storm."
>
>***END EXTRACT FROM 'GUARDIAN' VERSION***
Chris X
"banana" <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uW1z9jAPcNQEFw$0...@borve.demon.co.uk...
> Iranian President Ahmadinejad's words, to make it look as though the
> Iranian authorities are planning a nuclear first strike against Israel.
(Snip for brevity)
Brilliant post Banana, as ever !
hummingbird
There ends an abelard party political broadcast on behalf of the
democratic undemocratic 'We Are The Victims' "Zionist Party of
Israel".
--
politicians are the excrement of society and should be flushed away after every sitting.
basho007
news:7ru142d3ai8ed7gaj...@4ax.com:
you might start by considering the degree of agency express or implied in
each translation, then move on to the emotive impact of the words chosen,
then possibly consider the context of other statements attributed
recently to the speaker recently.
hummingbird
Should be very obvious...the official translation makes no threat.
The unofficial introduces the word "annihilation" and "one" storm
instead of "a" storm.
Clearly misleading was the intention. Israel has people who speak
Farsi fluently so it cannot be a error.
Chris X
"hummingbird" <OPRBMD...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:vg12429falatnpfoe...@4ax.com...
liar ...
> The unofficial introduces the word "annihilation" and "one" storm
> instead of "a" storm.
you're lying again, buzzy ...
> Clearly misleading was the intention. Israel has people who speak
> Farsi fluently so it cannot be a error.
your dishonesty and lies are noted, buzzy ...
--
website at www.abe-blah.con - lies, noos, koment, poopaganda, loonacy
on enerjee, edukashon, polytiks etc >70 zilion dokument calls yeerly
WARNING: i kollect privit data from all users who access my webshite
ho hum. All i ask is for you to let my webshite invade yor privicy
i am a paid up member of the neo-con Ministree of Trooth
i rite the Daily Slime and wen i say it is so..IT IS SO
my fav blog is chrenkoff...fav neo-con lie transmittor is Rush Limbaugh
and i adore Leo Strauss doktrins
i also lke the freerepublic forum for slagging liberalism
Middle East oil *belongs* to the West. i sed so. i aM pooP Lardy
my best fiend is auroran...he weras yellow pants and bloo-rinse haire
my secund bestest dork fiend is greg haemorrhoids
George Bush is my ikon & heero, he's a grate leeder
.....i Want Amurrica to bomb Iran cos they're moslems
------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quikly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big yak poop.
the neo-cons stay in power [] trust nobody especially me.
only when it's bummy -- woger 'lardy' wabbit
------------------------------------------------------------------
hummingbird
Frinkenstein
> On its front page today, the 'Guardian' published a mistranslation
> of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's words, to make it look as
> though the Iranian authorities are planning a nuclear first strike
> against Israel.
When of course, what he 'really' said was: "Israel is our friend! We
love Israel! All we want is to live in peace with everyone for ever!
Peace!!!!"
Right?
--
Well, it's just a prototype. With proper funding
I'm confident this little baby could destroy
an area the size of New York City.
abelard
<OPRBMD...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>There ends an abelard party political broadcast on behalf of the
>democratic undemocratic 'We Are The Victims' "Zionist Party of
>Israel".
your persistent dishonesty is once again noted...
╠☼╣Ǚ∑§â€Ð_ID_SBR_X|||بسم اﷲ الرحمان الرحيم
Frinkenstein wrote:
> banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:uW1z9jAPcNQEFw$0...@borve.demon.co.uk:
>
> > On its front page today, the 'Guardian' published a mistranslation
> > of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's words, to make it look as
> > though the Iranian authorities are planning a nuclear first strike
> > against Israel.
>
> When of course, what he 'really' said was: "Israel is our friend! We
> love Israel! All we want is to live in peace with everyone for ever!
> Peace!!!!"
>
> Right?
No!....He is saying that the RACIST MOTHERFUCKING ZIONAZIS who are
COMMITING GENOCIDE AGAINST NON_JEWS in PALESTINIAN OCCUPIED LAND are TO
BE EXTERMINATED such that no other RACIST MOTHERFUCKING Group of
people, ever again commit such CRIMES against humanity!
although, him being a politician, said it more diplomaticaly:-))
abelard
typed:
your comments suggest the task is beyond you..and that fact gives
you discomfort.
abelard
<OPRBMD...@spammotel.com>
typed:
where is the 'threat' in the other version?
>The unofficial introduces the word "annihilation"
so, 'fall with a storm' is not= to 'annihilation'?
>and "one" storm
>instead of "a" storm.
and 'one storm' is not= to 'a storm'
your logic is missing as usual
the term 'a' is semantically equivalent to the term 'one'
>Clearly misleading was the intention. Israel has people who speak
>Farsi fluently so it cannot be a error.
you have not made any sort of a case...but at least you are putting
forth effort, and that must be commended.
Frinkenstein
4pWg4pi84pWjx5niiJHDgsKnw6LigqzDkF9JRF9TQlJfwq1YfHx82KjYs9
mFICDYp++3siDYp9mE2LHYrdmF2KfZhiDYp9mE2LHYrdmK2YU=?="
<Simo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1145114040....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> Frinkenstein wrote:
>> banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:uW1z9jAPcNQEFw$0...@borve.demon.co.uk:
>>
>> > On its front page today, the 'Guardian' published a
>> > mistranslation of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's words, to
>> > make it look as though the Iranian authorities are planning a
>> > nuclear first strike against Israel.
>>
>> When of course, what he 'really' said was: "Israel is our friend!
>> We love Israel! All we want is to live in peace with everyone for
>> ever! Peace!!!!"
>>
>> Right?
>
> No!....He is saying that the RACIST MOTHERFUCKING ZIONAZIS who are
> COMMITING GENOCIDE AGAINST NON_JEWS in PALESTINIAN OCCUPIED LAND
> are TO BE EXTERMINATED such that no other RACIST MOTHERFUCKING
> Group of people, ever again commit such CRIMES against humanity!
>
> although, him being a politician, said it more diplomaticaly:-))
He was very 'poetic' in his use of language. Do you think he (ahem)
bats for the other side? He seems pretty fruity... ;-)
hummingbird
appeared and wrote:
Below.
>>The unofficial introduces the word "annihilation"
>
>so, 'fall with a storm' is not= to 'annihilation'?
Definitely not. 'Annihilation' is used to imply Iranian (human)
intervention. 'Fall with a storm' implies an act of God.
[Personally I think Ahmadinejad was saying that Israel is so dishonest
and corrupt that it will implode by its own actions. If you prefer:
Israel is not a nation built on solid moral foundations and doesn't
have the cultural strength or depth of social cohesion to survive]
>>and "one" storm
>>instead of "a" storm.
>
>and 'one storm' is not= to 'a storm'
>your logic is missing as usual
You need to understand the use/misuse of the words 'a' and 'one'
to appreciate the subtlety. I realise neo-cons are not very subtle.
They are two different implied meanings.
'fall in a storm' implies any storm or act of God. 'One storm' implies
human intervention - eg: "we will annihilate you in one storm" -vs-
"the Zionist regime is like a rotten tree it will fall in a storm".
Spot the difference?
Note that Ahmadinejad's words were heavily wrapped in references
to nature.
The difference is subtle enough to imply a different meaning to the
one used. It's exactly what I'd expect from Israeli translators.
>the term 'a' is semantically equivalent to the term 'one'
They carry different interpretations in the context.
>>Clearly misleading was the intention. Israel has people who speak
>>Farsi fluently so it cannot be a error.
>
>you have not made any sort of a case
That's because your understanding of English is not very good.
English more than most languages has subtleties of meaning:
should -vs- must -vs- ought to etc.
>...but at least you are putting
> forth effort, and that must be commended.
--
hummingbird
appeared and wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:40:55 +0100, hummingbird
><OPRBMD...@spammotel.com>
>
> typed:
>
>>There ends an abelard party political broadcast on behalf of the
>>democratic undemocratic 'We Are The Victims' "Zionist Party of
>>Israel".
>
>your persistent dishonesty is once again noted...
Your persistent attempts to dismiss the difference between the
translations is also noted.
hummingbird
<frinkfr...@yahoo.co.uk>
appeared and wrote:
>banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>news:uW1z9jAPcNQEFw$0...@borve.demon.co.uk:
>
>> On its front page today, the 'Guardian' published a mistranslation
>> of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's words, to make it look as
>> though the Iranian authorities are planning a nuclear first strike
>> against Israel.
>
>When of course, what he 'really' said was: "Israel is our friend! We
>love Israel! All we want is to live in peace with everyone for ever!
>Peace!!!!"
>
>Right?
You're the only one making that claim Stevie...
Frinkenstein
news:pu6242t59t8hj96pu...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:06:11 +0000 (UTC) Frinkenstein
> <frinkfr...@yahoo.co.uk>
> appeared and wrote:
>
>>banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>>news:uW1z9jAPcNQEFw$0...@borve.demon.co.uk:
>>
>>> On its front page today, the 'Guardian' published a
>>> mistranslation of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's words, to make
>>> it look as though the Iranian authorities are planning a nuclear
>>> first strike against Israel.
>>
>>When of course, what he 'really' said was: "Israel is our friend!
>>We love Israel! All we want is to live in peace with everyone for
>>ever! Peace!!!!"
>>
>>Right?
>
> You're the only one making that claim Stevie...
You don't quite get sarcasm do you? Are you American? :-D
abelard
<OPRBMD...@spammotel.com>
why do you assume a difference?
the tree that falls in a storm is annihilated from community of
prospering trees....
whether the agency is attributed to the woodsman or the almighty....
meanwhile ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe gives me the distinct
impression he may consider hisself the valid agent of the almighty...
>[Personally I think Ahmadinejad was saying that Israel is so dishonest
>and corrupt that it will implode by its own actions. If you prefer:
>Israel is not a nation built on solid moral foundations and doesn't
>have the cultural strength or depth of social cohesion to survive]
as maybe....but ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe is hardly an oracle
of 'moral foundations' whatever they may be....
>>>and "one" storm
>>>instead of "a" storm.
>>
>>and 'one storm' is not= to 'a storm'
>>your logic is missing as usual
>
>You need to understand the use/misuse of the words 'a' and 'one'
>to appreciate the subtlety. I realise neo-cons are not very subtle.
>
>They are two different implied meanings.
>'fall in a storm' implies any storm or act of God. 'One storm' implies
>human intervention - eg: "we will annihilate you in one storm" -vs-
>"the Zionist regime is like a rotten tree it will fall in a storm".
>Spot the difference?
imv that is a stretch mediated by your tastes....
>Note that Ahmadinejad's words were heavily wrapped in references
>to nature.
>
>The difference is subtle enough to imply a different meaning to the
>one used. It's exactly what I'd expect from Israeli translators.
you seem merely to have a taste driven interpretation...
not a viable case...
>>the term 'a' is semantically equivalent to the term 'one'
>
>They carry different interpretations in the context.
not clearly and not reliably...
>>>Clearly misleading was the intention. Israel has people who speak
>>>Farsi fluently so it cannot be a error.
>>
>>you have not made any sort of a case
>
>That's because your understanding of English is not very good.
>
>English more than most languages has subtleties of meaning:
>should -vs- must -vs- ought to etc.
the alleged 'subtleties' seem mainly housed in your imagination.....
banana
<abel...@abelard.org> writes
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:20:47 +0100, banana
><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>>On its front page today, the 'Guardian' published a mistranslation of
>>Iranian President Ahmadinejad's words, to make it look as though the
>>Iranian authorities are planning a nuclear first strike against Israel.
>
>an exercise....
>first to cut away your superfluous rhetoric....
>....
>
>essentially you claim this:-
>
>>***BEGIN EXTRACT FROM OFFICIAL TRANSLATION***
>>
>>But I tell them that regardless of what they desire, the Zionist regime
>>is falling apart.
>
>(cut superfluous ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe rhetoric)
Mockery of a name is very cheap rhetoric.
>>"The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with
>>a storm.
>
>differs from this....
>
>>THIS IS FROM THE 'GUARDIAN':
>>
>><http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1754307,00.html>:
>>
>>***BEGIN EXTRACT FROM 'GUARDIAN' VERSION***
>>
>>[Ahmadinejad] told a conference in Tehran in support of the
>>Palestinians: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward
>>annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be
>>eliminated by one storm."
>>
>>***END EXTRACT FROM 'GUARDIAN' VERSION***
>perhaps you would be more precise and describe exactly the differences
> between the two 'translations'
'The empire is crumbling. It's a tree that will fall down in the wind'.
'The empire will be annihilated, eliminated by one storm'.
Can you not get the difference?
>and why the 'report' in the groaniad
...and the rest of the UK and US media.
>is 'war-mongering' while the
> 'official' words/'translation' are not 'war-mongering'...
It's obvious.
<snip>
>i further note your usual attempt to introduce some sort of 'moral
> equivalence' between the illegitimate would-be mahdi and the
> democratic state of israel....
Hmm - where the law prevents anyone from standing for public office on a
platform that opposes the 'Jewish' nature of the State.
>which you then seek to obfuscate further by references to apartheid
> s. africa...
>meanwhile omitting to mention the large number of islam controlled
> states and the tiny and more vulnerable position of the tiny, only
> and low populated jewish controlled state on earth...
> or even the constant persecution (and ethnic cleansing) of any but
> islamics across much of the islamic controlled world...
If you are against ethnic cleansing, how come you support a regime that
is based on ethnic cleansing, and that has been carrying out ethnic
cleansing for the last 60 years?
>you are not a fool...therefore i cannot regard your systematic bias
> and omissions as anything but contrived...
>
>....
>i await your responses with interest...
>particularly to the first part where you claim one translation to be
> 'war-mongering' and the other (apparently similar to my eye)
> 'official translation'
As I said, it's obvious.
abelard
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk>
typed:
naturally i can 'get the difference'...not that it makes any difference to
the tree or hel[ps to the identity of the agency that finished it
off...
>>and why the 'report' in the groaniad
>
>...and the rest of the UK and US media.
almost all the fossil media mindlessly and lazily repeat wire
service handouts...
>>is 'war-mongering' while the
>> 'official' words/'translation' are not 'war-mongering'...
>
>It's obvious.
not a convincing argument....
><snip>
>
>>i further note your usual attempt to introduce some sort of 'moral
>> equivalence' between the illegitimate would-be mahdi and the
>> democratic state of israel....
>
>Hmm - where the law prevents anyone from standing for public office on a
>platform that opposes the 'Jewish' nature of the State.
as if this is unusual....
in iran nobody who opposes the mullahs can stand...
in europe standing against democracy is not encouraged....
>>which you then seek to obfuscate further by references to apartheid
>> s. africa...
>>meanwhile omitting to mention the large number of islam controlled
>> states and the tiny and more vulnerable position of the tiny, only
>> and low populated jewish controlled state on earth...
>> or even the constant persecution (and ethnic cleansing) of any but
>> islamics across much of the islamic controlled world...
>
>If you are against ethnic cleansing, how come you support a regime that
>is based on ethnic cleansing, and that has been carrying out ethnic
>cleansing for the last 60 years?
i am an observer....not a dogmatist....
i am well aware that ethnic cleansing in a legion of forms is widespread..
and often with far less pragmatic necessity (and using greater force)
than in israel...
i don't like it but it is a fact of human herding, intellectual weakness
and (at times) obvious threats....
>>you are not a fool...therefore i cannot regard your systematic bias
>> and omissions as anything but contrived...
>>
>>....
>>i await your responses with interest...
>>particularly to the first part where you claim one translation to be
>> 'war-mongering' and the other (apparently similar to my eye)
>> 'official translation'
>
>As I said, it's obvious.
that remains a poor substitute for analysis or the making of a substantive
case....
regards...
abelard
<OPRBMD...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 17:13:00 +0200 abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>appeared and wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:40:55 +0100, hummingbird
>><OPRBMD...@spammotel.com>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>There ends an abelard party political broadcast on behalf of the
>>>democratic undemocratic 'We Are The Victims' "Zionist Party of
>>>Israel".
>>
>>your persistent dishonesty is once again noted...
>
>Your persistent attempts to dismiss the difference between the
>translations is also noted.
your persistent dishonesty is yet again in evidence.....
i see no substantive difference....you are claiming such a difference
exists....i look forward to your attempts to back your assertions....
i have 'dismissed' nothing....merely put you to the task of supporting
your contentions.
Ariadne
abelard wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:40:55 +0100, hummingbird
> <OPRBMD...@spammotel.com>
>
> typed:
>
> >There ends an abelard party political broadcast on behalf of the
> >democratic undemocratic 'We Are The Victims' "Zionist Party of
> >Israel".
>
> your persistent dishonesty is once again noted...
>
> --
You are too kind, abelard, in omitting the
obsessiveness and malice!
abelard
typed:
>
>abelard wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:40:55 +0100, hummingbird
>> <OPRBMD...@spammotel.com>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>> >There ends an abelard party political broadcast on behalf of the
>> >democratic undemocratic 'We Are The Victims' "Zionist Party of
>> >Israel".
>>
>> your persistent dishonesty is once again noted...
>You are too kind, abelard, in omitting the
>obsessiveness and malice!
i see no merit or profit in flogging the afflicted....
he has sufficient tribulations....
regards...
--
basho007
news:gc3242thnbib6o9kj...@4ax.com:
you've been given the tools, but have chosen not to use them.
It is possible that you don't know the meaning of "agency" in this
context.
The patterns of your writing, however, do show other more general
symptoms.
abelard
your dodging is no more impressive than your incompetence.
but it is amusing...
matthe...@ntlworld.nospamta.com
wrote:
>perhaps you would be more precise and describe exactly the differences
> between the two 'translations'
For me the interesting word is 'annihilation'. A tree that falls in a
storm might be a phrase used to describe Marcos in the Philippines.
'Annihilation' implies something quite different
--
cheers
matt
FACE
<abel...@abelard.org> scrivened:
<Snip everything>
I have looked only lightly at this thread and it is much ado about nothing.
The Persians speak Farsi. There is not as much word-to-word translation
between Farsi and English as between English and the other romance
languages. Certainly less in nuance.
You are correct, Abelard, in that the essence of the meaning of the two
translations presented here are the same.
I'd say that certain people simply crave new conspiracy theories, baseless
though they may be.
As to names, i prefer Ahmadijihad or Steyn's Ahmaddamatree.
FACE
abelard
typed:
i think you are correct to home in on that....but i have already suggested
problems with building upon such a poor foundation.....
i also note and accord with the comment of 'face'
imv the story being promoted by the banana has insecure wheels.....
but some of the attempts to make it run continue to interest me....
the description of the tree (empty rhetoric) is quite another issue
from the eventual outcome/s for that tree....
to attempt to conflate them is non-sense.....
the various attempts to decorate the alleged (and suspiciously
insubstantial) promise of candyfloss look to me more revealing
than the banana flavour....
regards...
James Hammerton
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On its front page today, the 'Guardian' published a mistranslation of
>Iranian President Ahmadinejad's words, to make it look as though the
>Iranian authorities are planning a nuclear first strike against Israel.
>
>There is an official translation of the speech he made to the Tehran
>international conference on Jerusalem and Palestine. This has been
>circulated by the Iranian news agency IRNA. There is absolutely no way
>that it could have failed to reach the 'Guardian's' news desk.
>
>But the 'journalists' preferred to publish the same 'translation' that
>has appeared in the war-mongering Zionist newspaper 'Haaretz'.
Why assume the IRNA translation is either more honest or less error
prone than the other translations in circulation?
Also, isn't it the case that when you translate from one language to
another there can often be ambiguity as to precisely how something
should be translated?
Is it not also the case that a text can be translated to another
language in more than one way?
[snip]
>
>Compare the following.
>
>
>
>
>THIS IS FROM THE OFFICIAL IRANIAN TRANSLATION OF AHMADINEJAD'S SPEECH:
>
><http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0604141214202410.htm>:
>
>***BEGIN EXTRACT FROM OFFICIAL TRANSLATION***
>
>But I tell them that regardless of what they desire, the Zionist regime
>is falling apart.
>
>"The young tree of resistance in Palestine is blooming and blooms of
>faith and desire for freedom are flowering.
>
>"The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with
>a storm. Today even the inhabitants of the occupied Palestine,
>especially the African and Asian settlers are living in ain, poverty and
>discontent.
>
>"I tell the governments supporting the Zionist regime to open the doors
>to the prisons in the occupied Palestine and allow the refugees and
>displaced Palestinians to return to their homeland and summon the
>usurpers of the Palestinian lands.
>
>"If you still consider yourself indebted to them, then find a proper
>place for them in your own territories, if not call upon them to return
>to their countries of origin to live like their forefathers.
>
>***END EXTRACT FROM OFFICIAL TRANSLATION***
>
>
>
>
>
>THIS IS FROM THE 'GUARDIAN':
>
><http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1754307,00.html>:
>
>***BEGIN EXTRACT FROM 'GUARDIAN' VERSION***
>
>[Ahmadinejad] told a conference in Tehran in support of the
>Palestinians: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward
>annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be
>eliminated by one storm."
>
>***END EXTRACT FROM 'GUARDIAN' VERSION***
>
AFAICT the main difference between the above quotation and the
equivalent passage from the IRNA translation is the phrase "the
Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation" which does not appear
in the IRNA translation.
Arguably there is little difference between saying "The Zionist regime
is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with a storm" and "The
Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one
storm".
I grant the phrase "the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation"
is more suggestive of an attack than "The Zionist regime is a decaying
and crombling tree that will fall with a storm" or "The Zionist regime
is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."
I note this passage from the IRNA translation:
``The Zionist regime is a clear example of oppression and its
fundamental nature represents actual and permanent threat. The very
purpose behind the establishment of this regime was to put in place a
permanent threat in the region. Therefore, the continued existence of
this regime is premised on the persistence of this threat. It will
have no existence without threat and aggression and it is not
inherently capable to survive in an atmosphere of peace and
tranquility. Even if it manages to remain in one square meter of the
Palestinian land, it will continue to be a threat to the region.''
James
--
James Hammerton, http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
Contributor to Magna Carta Plus: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
Magna Carta Plus News weblog: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/index.php
Harry The Horse
> On 2006-04-15, Harry The Horse <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It is pretty clear that the process of manufacturing consent for an
>> unprovoked war against Iran is continuing apace.
>>
>
> Note to you in your fantasy world -- unprovoked is a strange word to
> be using. Unjustified? That is one question. But unprovoked? Don't be
> ridiculous.
>
How do you know that Iran has 'provoked' the current situation? Answer:
your newspapers and TV are telling you that is the case. Now they may be
correct or they may not be. If they want to be taken as *credible* sources
of news you might think that they would print both interpretations of the
speech.
James Hammerton
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:56:15 +0200 abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>appeared and wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:20:47 +0100, banana
>><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk>
>>
>> typed:
>>>On its front page today, the 'Guardian' published a mistranslation of
>>>Iranian President Ahmadinejad's words, to make it look as though the
>>>Iranian authorities are planning a nuclear first strike against Israel.
>>
>>an exercise....
>>first to cut away your superfluous rhetoric....
>>....
>>
>>essentially you claim this:-
>>
>>>***BEGIN EXTRACT FROM OFFICIAL TRANSLATION***
>>>
>>>But I tell them that regardless of what they desire, the Zionist regime
>>>is falling apart.
>>
>>(cut superfluous ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe rhetoric)
>>
>>>"The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with
>>>a storm.
>>
>>differs from this....
>>
>>>THIS IS FROM THE 'GUARDIAN':
>>>
>>><http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1754307,00.html>:
>>>
>>>***BEGIN EXTRACT FROM 'GUARDIAN' VERSION***
>>>
>>>[Ahmadinejad] told a conference in Tehran in support of the
>>>Palestinians: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward
>>>annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be
>>>eliminated by one storm."
>>>
>>>***END EXTRACT FROM 'GUARDIAN' VERSION***
>>
>>
>>perhaps you would be more precise and describe exactly the differences
>> between the two 'translations'
>
>Should be very obvious...the official translation makes no threat.
I'm not sure I agree, but the language in either translation can be
interpreted in both threatening and unthreatening ways.
>The unofficial introduces the word "annihilation"
Granted.
> and "one" storm
>instead of "a" storm.
Granted but that makes little difference.
>Clearly misleading was the intention.
Maybe, but equally it could be that IRNA was intending to mislead. It
is after all the official news agency for Iran and therefore likely to
follow what ever line is given it by the Iranian authorities.
Of course *both* translations could have been written by people who
intended to mislead...
And then there's the possibility that the original Farsi can be
translated in more than one way and the possibility that errors were
made in translation (in both cases).
>Israel has people who speak
>Farsi fluently so it cannot be a error.
To conclude this you would have to assume that:
* IRNA would not make a mistake in translation
* IRNA would not distort the translation
* the can only be one valid translation of the original Farsi into
English
None of these assumptions can be taken for granted and, moreover, the
final one is most likely false.
A fluent Farsi speaker who has good English might be able to tell you
whether either translation is plausible from the original words. It is
possible that *both* are, and that only knowing the intent of
Ahmadinejad would clarify which was the more accurate translation.
James Hammerton
wrote:
ISTM the phrase "fall with a storm" in the 'official' version
corresponds to "will be eliminated by one storm" in the 'unofficial'
version.
The "Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation" bit in the
unofficial version does not appear to have a counterpart in the
official version AFAICT.
>>and "one" storm
>>instead of "a" storm.
>
>and 'one storm' is not= to 'a storm'
I see no difference in this context.
>your logic is missing as usual
>
>the term 'a' is semantically equivalent to the term 'one'
That's definitely in line with the more usual usage of these words.
hummingbird
appeared and wrote:
>You are too kind, abelard, in omitting the
>obsessiveness and malice!
I expect he prefers not to be too hard on yer deary; we all know
you've got a head problem.
hummingbird
<AFaceIn...@bellsouth.net>
appeared and wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:41:38 +0200, in uk.politics.misc abelard
><abel...@abelard.org> scrivened:
>
><Snip everything>
>
>I have looked only lightly at this thread and it is much ado about nothing.
>
>The Persians speak Farsi. There is not as much word-to-word translation
>between Farsi and English as between English and the other romance
>languages. Certainly less in nuance.
Rubbish. There is very little in any language which cannot be
translated into English and retain the meaning.
>You are correct, Abelard, in that the essence of the meaning of the two
>translations presented here are the same.
Utter nonsense.
You obviously don't understand the English language.
hummingbird
appeared and wrote:
I'm not assuming anything, simply describing the different received
interpretations of the two phrases.
If as you seem to be arguing there is no difference, then why did
the media not use the official translation? We know the answer.
>the tree that falls in a storm is annihilated from community of
> prospering trees....
>whether the agency is attributed to the woodsman or the almighty....
>
>meanwhile ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe gives me the distinct
> impression he may consider hisself the valid agent of the almighty...
Hearsay and gossip encouraged by western politicians/media.
>>[Personally I think Ahmadinejad was saying that Israel is so dishonest
>>and corrupt that it will implode by its own actions. If you prefer:
>>Israel is not a nation built on solid moral foundations and doesn't
>>have the cultural strength or depth of social cohesion to survive]
>
>as maybe....but ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe is hardly an oracle
> of 'moral foundations' whatever they may be....
Speculation. All you know about him is that he was elected president.
>>>>and "one" storm
>>>>instead of "a" storm.
>>>
>>>and 'one storm' is not= to 'a storm'
>>>your logic is missing as usual
>>
>>You need to understand the use/misuse of the words 'a' and 'one'
>>to appreciate the subtlety. I realise neo-cons are not very subtle.
>>
>>They are two different implied meanings.
>>'fall in a storm' implies any storm or act of God. 'One storm' implies
>>human intervention - eg: "we will annihilate you in one storm" -vs-
>>"the Zionist regime is like a rotten tree it will fall in a storm".
>
>>Spot the difference?
>
>imv that is a stretch mediated by your tastes....
If you can't see the difference in the two statements, I'm sorry for
you. Time to learn English eh abelfraud?
>>Note that Ahmadinejad's words were heavily wrapped in references
>>to nature.
>>
>>The difference is subtle enough to imply a different meaning to the
>>one used. It's exactly what I'd expect from Israeli translators.
>
>you seem merely to have a taste driven interpretation...
> not a viable case...
Er no.
>>>the term 'a' is semantically equivalent to the term 'one'
>>
>>They carry different interpretations in the context.
>
>not clearly and not reliably...
We're not talking about technically provable translations but of what
language is understood to mean in use.
>>>>Clearly misleading was the intention. Israel has people who speak
>>>>Farsi fluently so it cannot be a error.
>>>
>>>you have not made any sort of a case
>>
>>That's because your understanding of English is not very good.
>>
>>English more than most languages has subtleties of meaning:
>>should -vs- must -vs- ought to etc.
>
>the alleged 'subtleties' seem mainly housed in your imagination.....
Not at all. You obviously don't understand English very well. tch tch.
hummingbird
<jamesha...@yahoo.co.uk>
appeared and wrote:
The difference is that Ahmadinejad used "a" in his speech which was
heavily wrapped in nature, so "The Zionist regime is a decaying and
crumbling tree that will fall with a storm" can mean any old storm.
Decaying old trees have a habit of falling in storms don't yer know.
The western translation: "Like it or not the Zionist regime is heading
toward annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that
will be eliminated by one storm." has a much harsher sentiment.
One (nuke) storm could bring about annihilation.
>>Clearly misleading was the intention.
>
>Maybe, but equally it could be that IRNA was intending to mislead. It
>is after all the official news agency for Iran and therefore likely to
>follow what ever line is given it by the Iranian authorities.
>
>Of course *both* translations could have been written by people who
>intended to mislead...
I don't discount that.
>And then there's the possibility that the original Farsi can be
>translated in more than one way and the possibility that errors were
>made in translation (in both cases).
I think we have to accept that the IRNA translation is official and
the one intended unless someone has a recording of his speech.
>>Israel has people who speak
>>Farsi fluently so it cannot be a error.
>
>To conclude this you would have to assume that:
>
>* IRNA would not make a mistake in translation
>
>* IRNA would not distort the translation
Non sequitur.
>* the can only be one valid translation of the original Farsi into
>English
IME there are few words and phrases in other languages which cannot
be translated into English to convert the intended meaning. English is
a very broad language able to represent foreign sentiments well.
It usually comes down to the skill of the translator.
>None of these assumptions can be taken for granted and, moreover, the
>final one is most likely false.
>
>A fluent Farsi speaker who has good English might be able to tell you
>whether either translation is plausible from the original words. It is
>possible that *both* are, and that only knowing the intent of
>Ahmadinejad would clarify which was the more accurate translation.
No, I disagree. I don't discount the possibility that IRNA produced a
translation which knowingly differed from the actual words spoken in
order to soften his comments but we do not know if that's the case.
What we do know is that the western translation (sourced from the
IRNA Farsi transcript I assume) uses harsher terms.
hummingbird
<frinkfr...@yahoo.co.uk>
appeared and wrote:
>hummingbird <OPRBMD...@spammotel.com> wrote in
>news:pu6242t59t8hj96pu...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:06:11 +0000 (UTC) Frinkenstein
>> <frinkfr...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> appeared and wrote:
>>
>>>banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>>>news:uW1z9jAPcNQEFw$0...@borve.demon.co.uk:
>>>
>>>> On its front page today, the 'Guardian' published a
>>>> mistranslation of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's words, to make
>>>> it look as though the Iranian authorities are planning a nuclear
>>>> first strike against Israel.
>>>
>>>When of course, what he 'really' said was: "Israel is our friend!
>>>We love Israel! All we want is to live in peace with everyone for
>>>ever! Peace!!!!"
>>>
>>>Right?
>>
>> You're the only one making that claim Stevie...
>
>You don't quite get sarcasm do you? Are you American? :-D
Wow! That's awesome.
abelard
<jamesha...@yahoo.co.uk>
i am unconvinced by that...
assuming 'the conservation of matter' makes annihilation merely a poetic
version of 'fall' or a very close simile for 'eliminated'
>>>and "one" storm
>>>instead of "a" storm.
>>
>>and 'one storm' is not= to 'a storm'
>
>I see no difference in this context.
>
>>your logic is missing as usual
>>
>>the term 'a' is semantically equivalent to the term 'one'
>
>That's definitely in line with the more usual usage of these words.
no other problem with your comments
James Hammerton
ISTM an attempt to 'read between the lines' might lead one to infer
that as a possible meaning for the phrase "the Zionist regime is
heading toward annihilation"...
> 'Fall with a storm' implies an act of God.
That phrase is more ambiguous, but ISTM that 'reading between the
lines' might still yield the interpretation that "fall with a storm"
is a reference to possible Iranian intervention.
>[Personally I think Ahmadinejad was saying that Israel is so dishonest
>and corrupt that it will implode by its own actions. If you prefer:
>Israel is not a nation built on solid moral foundations and doesn't
>have the cultural strength or depth of social cohesion to survive]
I think the speech is deliberately crafted to allow that
interpretation without ruling a more interventionist one out...
>>>and "one" storm
>>>instead of "a" storm.
>>
>>and 'one storm' is not= to 'a storm'
>>your logic is missing as usual
>
>You need to understand the use/misuse of the words 'a' and 'one'
>to appreciate the subtlety. I realise neo-cons are not very subtle.
>
>They are two different implied meanings.
>'fall in a storm' implies any storm or act of God. 'One storm' implies
>human intervention
So if someone says "that tree will be blown over by a storm" you
assume they mean any storm or act of God will knock it over but if
they say "that tree will be blown over by one storm" you assume they
mean that it will be blown over through human intervention?
That's a decidedly unusual interpretation of the word "one"...
> - eg: "we will annihilate you in one storm" -vs-
>"the Zionist regime is like a rotten tree it will fall in a storm".
>
>Spot the difference?
Yes, but your first phrase above *explicitly* involves a "we" doing
some annihilating! The "one storm" vs "a storm" bit is irrelevant to
that.
abelard
<jamesha...@yahoo.co.uk>
typed:
agreed at all points.
regards.
James Hammerton
wrote:
unconvinced of what?
>assuming 'the conservation of matter' makes annihilation merely a poetic
> version of 'fall' or a very close simile for 'eliminated'
ISTM both versions of the speech can be read as a call for the
elimination of the state of Israel and that is the natural reading for
both versions.
However ISTM the 'unofficial' version contains more 'hints' of an
Iranian intervention to perform the elimination than the 'official'
version.
The 'official' version can be read as being agnostic on precisely how
Israel is eliminated more easily than the 'unofficial' version can.
James Hammerton
<OPRBMD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
I agree the translation used by the Western press invokes a harsher
sentiment. I disagree that the "one storm" vs "a storm" bit makes or
even contributes to this difference. It's the "the Zionist regime is
heading toward annihilation" bit that makes the difference...
>One (nuke) storm could bring about annihilation.
>
>>>Clearly misleading was the intention.
>>
>>Maybe, but equally it could be that IRNA was intending to mislead. It
>>is after all the official news agency for Iran and therefore likely to
>>follow what ever line is given it by the Iranian authorities.
>>
>>Of course *both* translations could have been written by people who
>>intended to mislead...
>
>I don't discount that.
>
>>And then there's the possibility that the original Farsi can be
>>translated in more than one way and the possibility that errors were
>>made in translation (in both cases).
>
>I think we have to accept that the IRNA translation is official
Well IRNA is effectively the Iranian regime's outlet...
> and
>the one intended
The one intended for external consumption...
>unless someone has a recording of his speech.
We won't settle the question of which is the more accurate translation
without (a) a recording of the original speech (b) a Farsi/English
translator who can make a judgement for us (or becoming Farsi/English
translators ourselves!).
>>>Israel has people who speak
>>>Farsi fluently so it cannot be a error.
>>
>>To conclude this you would have to assume that:
>>
>>* IRNA would not make a mistake in translation
>>
>>* IRNA would not distort the translation
>
>Non sequitur.
To assume the Israeli version is the one in error, you have to assume
the IRNA version is undistorted...
>>* the can only be one valid translation of the original Farsi into
>>English
>
>IME there are few words and phrases in other languages which cannot
>be translated into English to convert the intended meaning. English is
>a very broad language able to represent foreign sentiments well.
>It usually comes down to the skill of the translator.
What experience do you have of translating from other languages into
English?
>>None of these assumptions can be taken for granted and, moreover, the
>>final one is most likely false.
>>
>>A fluent Farsi speaker who has good English might be able to tell you
>>whether either translation is plausible from the original words. It is
>>possible that *both* are, and that only knowing the intent of
>>Ahmadinejad would clarify which was the more accurate translation.
>
>No, I disagree.
You disagree that it is possible that both are plausible translations?
> I don't discount the possibility that IRNA produced a
>translation which knowingly differed from the actual words spoken in
>order to soften his comments but we do not know if that's the case.
I didn't claim that we knew it was the case.
>What we do know is that the western translation (sourced from the
>IRNA Farsi transcript I assume) uses harsher terms.
I grant that. Why assume that this difference is due to greater
honesty on the part of IRNA's translation?
abelard
<jamesha...@yahoo.co.uk>
that the terms are not capable of being read as equivalents....
as in the following sentence....
am i miscommunicating again :-)
>>assuming 'the conservation of matter' makes annihilation merely a poetic
>> version of 'fall' or a very close simile for 'eliminated'
>
>ISTM both versions of the speech can be read as a call for the
>elimination of the state of Israel and that is the natural reading for
>both versions.
>
>However ISTM the 'unofficial' version contains more 'hints' of an
>Iranian intervention to perform the elimination than the 'official'
>version.
>
>The 'official' version can be read as being agnostic on precisely how
>Israel is eliminated more easily than the 'unofficial' version can.
'can be read' is not the original text/meaning.....
only the originator knows his meaning.....
ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe is imv an appropriate name....
i regard his contact with reality as probably tenuous.....
it is also widespread in the m.e. to provide one version for
home consumption and another for world consumption....
deniability is also an apparent objective....
my original post was directed at the mishmash produced by banana
....in order to clarify the core hiding in among his lengthy
rhetoric....
ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe has to be even more deranged than
i yet believe...if his blustering is to be regarded seriously...
rather than as crude rabble rousing....
as doubtless you will know there are even islamic assertions coming
out of iran suggesting he is heretical....
abelard
<OPRBMD...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:22:25 +0200 abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>why do you assume a difference?
>
>I'm not assuming anything, simply describing the different received
>interpretations of the two phrases.
>If as you seem to be arguing there is no difference, then why did
>the media not use the official translation? We know the answer.
you know no such thing.
neither do you qualify as a 'we'
>>the tree that falls in a storm is annihilated from community of
>> prospering trees....
>>whether the agency is attributed to the woodsman or the almighty....
>>
>>meanwhile ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe gives me the distinct
>> impression he may consider hisself the valid agent of the almighty...
>
>Hearsay and gossip encouraged by western politicians/media.
i see no relevance to that trivial claim...
>>>[Personally I think Ahmadinejad was saying that Israel is so dishonest
>>>and corrupt that it will implode by its own actions. If you prefer:
>>>Israel is not a nation built on solid moral foundations and doesn't
>>>have the cultural strength or depth of social cohesion to survive]
>>
>>as maybe....but ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe is hardly an oracle
>> of 'moral foundations' whatever they may be....
>
>Speculation. All you know about him is that he was elected president.
rubbish...i have other data on the regime.
he has also made other speeches....
>>>>>and "one" storm
>>>>>instead of "a" storm.
>>>>
>>>>and 'one storm' is not= to 'a storm'
>>>>your logic is missing as usual
>>>
>>>You need to understand the use/misuse of the words 'a' and 'one'
>>>to appreciate the subtlety. I realise neo-cons are not very subtle.
>>>
>>>They are two different implied meanings.
>>>'fall in a storm' implies any storm or act of God. 'One storm' implies
>>>human intervention - eg: "we will annihilate you in one storm" -vs-
>>>"the Zionist regime is like a rotten tree it will fall in a storm".
>>
>>>Spot the difference?
>>
>>imv that is a stretch mediated by your tastes....
>
>If you can't see the difference in the two statements, I'm sorry for
>you. Time to learn English eh abelfraud?
more of your empty/dishonest rhetoric
>>>Note that Ahmadinejad's words were heavily wrapped in references
>>>to nature.
>>>
>>>The difference is subtle enough to imply a different meaning to the
>>>one used. It's exactly what I'd expect from Israeli translators.
>>
>>you seem merely to have a taste driven interpretation...
>> not a viable case...
>
>Er no.
yet another of your repetitive evasions
>>>>the term 'a' is semantically equivalent to the term 'one'
>>>
>>>They carry different interpretations in the context.
>>
>>not clearly and not reliably...
>
>We're not talking about technically provable translations but of what
>language is understood to mean in use.
as so often, your understanding of language is too crude for you to follow
the discussion
neither do you qualify as a 'we'....
until you abandon your false dogmatic beliefs in the rigidity of language
and meaning, you will remain incapable of following the subtleties of
complex communications....
>>>>>Clearly misleading was the intention. Israel has people who speak
>>>>>Farsi fluently so it cannot be a error.
>>>>
>>>>you have not made any sort of a case
>>>
>>>That's because your understanding of English is not very good.
>>>
>>>English more than most languages has subtleties of meaning:
>>>should -vs- must -vs- ought to etc.
>>
>>the alleged 'subtleties' seem mainly housed in your imagination.....
>
>Not at all. You obviously don't understand English very well. tch tch.
again you make no case....
your empty rhetoric and assertions are no useful substitute
James Hammerton
wrote:
Ah ok...
I was not claiming they're not capable of being read as equivalents...
My point is that the 'official' version has a sentence saying "The
Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with a
storm. ".
ISTM that this most probably corresponds to the sentence in the
'unofficial' version that reads "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried
tree that will be eliminated by one storm".
Thus ISTM it does not correspond to the sentence that contains the
phrase "the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation". Also, ISTM
this latter sentence does not have a corresponding sentence in the
'unofficial' translation we've seen.
I grant that you could read the latter sentence as meaning something
similar to "The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that
will fall with a storm.".
>as in the following sentence....
>
>am i miscommunicating again :-)
Nope, it is just that your language is ambiguous, but so is all
language...
>>>assuming 'the conservation of matter' makes annihilation merely a poetic
>>> version of 'fall' or a very close simile for 'eliminated'
>>
>>ISTM both versions of the speech can be read as a call for the
>>elimination of the state of Israel and that is the natural reading for
>>both versions.
>>
>>However ISTM the 'unofficial' version contains more 'hints' of an
>>Iranian intervention to perform the elimination than the 'official'
>>version.
>>
>>The 'official' version can be read as being agnostic on precisely how
>>Israel is eliminated more easily than the 'unofficial' version can.
>
>'can be read' is not the original text/meaning.....
Agreed.
>only the originator knows his meaning.....
Agreed.
>ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe is imv an appropriate name....
>i regard his contact with reality as probably tenuous.....
>
>it is also widespread in the m.e. to provide one version for
> home consumption and another for world consumption....
Indeed.
ISTM IRNA's English translations of Ahmadinjad's speech are unlikely
to be for internal consumption...
>deniability is also an apparent objective....
No dissent...
>my original post was directed at the mishmash produced by banana
> ....in order to clarify the core hiding in among his lengthy
> rhetoric....
>
>ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe has to be even more deranged than
> i yet believe...if his blustering is to be regarded seriously...
> rather than as crude rabble rousing....
>as doubtless you will know there are even islamic assertions coming
> out of iran suggesting he is heretical....
ISTM the possibility that Ahmadinejad is rabble rousing can't be
discounted.
FACE
<OPRBMD...@spammotel.com> scrivened:
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:46:06 -0400 FACE
><AFaceIn...@bellsouth.net>
>appeared and wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:41:38 +0200, in uk.politics.misc abelard
>><abel...@abelard.org> scrivened:
>>
>><Snip everything>
>>
>>I have looked only lightly at this thread and it is much ado about nothing.
>>
>>The Persians speak Farsi. There is not as much word-to-word translation
>>between Farsi and English as between English and the other romance
>>languages. Certainly less in nuance.
>
>Rubbish. There is very little in any language which cannot be
>translated into English and retain the meaning.
>
>>You are correct, Abelard, in that the essence of the meaning of the two
>>translations presented here are the same.
>
>Utter nonsense.
>You obviously don't understand the English language.
Oh my, the conspiracy nut is upset at me, whatever shall I do.
abelard
<jamesha...@yahoo.co.uk>
ummmm...'fall' replaced by 'eliminated'....
i wish i had time to chase up the original and translations....
strange...it is the term 'eliminated' that is the more 'poetic'.....
>Thus ISTM it does not correspond to the sentence that contains the
>phrase "the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation". Also, ISTM
>this latter sentence does not have a corresponding sentence in the
>'unofficial' translation we've seen.
interesting for the 'same' reason as the last comment.....
it would certainly be a curiosity to be examined...
it almost looks like different translators with different notions of
language...i would guess that the 'official' version was done by
an english speaker...and the 'unofficial' by a farsi speaker....
....that would be interesting....to me...
>I grant that you could read the latter sentence as meaning something
>similar to "The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that
>will fall with a storm.".
sure...but the repeat is a point of investigation....
>>as in the following sentence....
>>
>>am i miscommunicating again :-)
>
>Nope, it is just that your language is ambiguous, but so is all
>language...
:-)
indeed....but that looks a dangerous/foolish road even within iran...to
me....
regards..
hummingbird
<AFaceIn...@bellsouth.net>
appeared and wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 23:13:49 +0100, in uk.politics.misc hummingbird
><OPRBMD...@spammotel.com> scrivened:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:46:06 -0400 FACE
>><AFaceIn...@bellsouth.net>
>>appeared and wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:41:38 +0200, in uk.politics.misc abelard
>>><abel...@abelard.org> scrivened:
>>>
>>><Snip everything>
>>>
>>>I have looked only lightly at this thread and it is much ado about nothing.
>>>
>>>The Persians speak Farsi. There is not as much word-to-word translation
>>>between Farsi and English as between English and the other romance
>>>languages. Certainly less in nuance.
>>
>>Rubbish. There is very little in any language which cannot be
>>translated into English and retain the meaning.
>>
>>>You are correct, Abelard, in that the essence of the meaning of the two
>>>translations presented here are the same.
>>
>>Utter nonsense.
>>You obviously don't understand the English language.
>
>Oh my, the conspiracy nut is upset at me, whatever shall I do.
Rotfl. Take a course in English maybe?
TUKA
Apparently in your fantasy world the whole thing rides on the single
question of two interpretations of one speech. It is much more than
that of course, but in your world apparently one false dichotomy decides
the entire thing.
--
Prove you aren't stupid. Say NO to Passport.
basho007
news:h2g242dogc2ak4fd2...@4ax.com:
let me know please if you ever wish to say something substantial about
the points in questions.
you might start with a discussion of agency.
basho007
news:j2s2429kka9o4h5kk...@4ax.com:
if you look at the recurring affectations of syntax in A's posts over a
period of time, you can discern something of the mentalite behind the
person.
I expect that at critical life-points there were socialisation issues.
Stephen Horgan
> On its front page today, the 'Guardian' published a mistranslation of
> Iranian President Ahmadinejad's words, to make it look as though the
> Iranian authorities are planning a nuclear first strike against Israel.
>
> international conference on Jerusalem and Palestine. This has been
> circulated by the Iranian news agency IRNA. There is absolutely no way
> that it could have failed to reach the 'Guardian's' news desk.
>
detail. If not then consider this: most large news organisations either
employ or have access to Farsi to English translators. They do not have
to rely on the 'official' Iranian translation, nor would they. Which is
more likely: that every news organisation in the world deliberately
misinterpreted the Iranian president's words the same way, or that the
Iranians are trying to spin it so that their president can say one
thing to his own people and something else to everyone else.
Trevjon
"banana" <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uW1z9jAPcNQEFw$0...@borve.demon.co.uk...
> On its front page today, the 'Guardian' published a mistranslation of
> Iranian President Ahmadinejad's words, to make it look as though the
> Iranian authorities are planning a nuclear first strike against Israel.
>
> There is an official translation of the speech he made to the Tehran
> international conference on Jerusalem and Palestine. This has been
> circulated by the Iranian news agency IRNA. There is absolutely no way
> that it could have failed to reach the 'Guardian's' news desk.
>
Why do you believe the "official" translation coming out of Iran?
In the past you have offered a distinct mistrust of anything labelled as
"official"?
Why are you treating it as gospel in this case?
Harry The Horse
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:46:06 -0400 FACE
> <AFaceIn...@bellsouth.net>
> appeared and wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:41:38 +0200, in uk.politics.misc abelard
>> <abel...@abelard.org> scrivened:
>>
>> <Snip everything>
>>
>> I have looked only lightly at this thread and it is much ado about
>> nothing.
>>
>> The Persians speak Farsi. There is not as much word-to-word
>> translation between Farsi and English as between English and the
>> other romance languages. Certainly less in nuance.
>
> Rubbish. There is very little in any language which cannot be
> translated into English and retain the meaning.
>
>> You are correct, Abelard, in that the essence of the meaning of the
>> two translations presented here are the same.
>
> Utter nonsense.
> You obviously don't understand the English language.
>
banana
<tre...@btinternet.com> writes
You are missing the point.
The speech has been officially published both in Farsi and in English.
Why didn't the UK newspapers use the official version? Do they have
reason to believe that it is incorrect, i.e. that Ahmadinejad said
something in Farsi, that was misleadingly translated by the Iranian
authorities into English? If so, WHY DON'T THEY ACTUALLY COVER THAT
STORY? There's no problem with sources, since both the Farsi transcript
and the official English translation have been officially published and
circulated by the Iranian news agency.
But NO. They are NOT putting forward that view. Rather, they are
presenting an alternative version as if it were the gospel truth.
Without saying it's an alternative version.
Where did they get that alternative version?
Why are they all using exactly the same alternative version?
(Or were the 'native' translators in Tehran so silly that they
didn't realise that a clumsy attempt to mistranslate would be picked
up within about five seconds by the 'expert' linguists in MI6, CIA,
and Israel?)
Do you think there isn't a single central source?
Why do none of them admit it's different from the official version?
Those are the important questions. It is as plain as anything that this
is war-mongering pro-Zionist propaganda. It's rather similar to the lies
about Iraq's military strength - although obviously the propaganda boys
have decided that it's best to portray Iran as aggressive and
threatening rather than merely secretly strong.
If Ahmadinejad said the Israel would soon be 'annihilated' in 'one
storm' (i.e. Iran will nuke occupied Palestine), but his officials
pretended that he really said that the Zionist regime was like a
crumbling and decrepid tree that will blow down in the wind, why aren't
the western propagandists making a story out of that?
What do you believe?
--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)
banana
<abel...@abelard.org> writes
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 17:27:06 +0100, banana
><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>>In article <mqu1421mmqg0844g5...@4ax.com>, abelard
>><abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:20:47 +0100, banana
>>><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk>
<snip>
>almost all the fossil media mindlessly and lazily repeat wire
> service handouts...
Yes - and in this case the wire service obviously wasn't the Iranian
news agency that published the speech both in Farsi and in English.
banana
eCr...@bellsouth.net> writes
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:41:38 +0200, in uk.politics.misc abelard
><abel...@abelard.org> scrivened:
>
><Snip everything>
>
>I have looked only lightly at this thread and it is much ado about nothing.
>
>The Persians speak Farsi. There is not as much word-to-word translation
>between Farsi and English as between English and the other romance
>languages.
Irrelevant. A translation can be as accurate from (Indo-European) Farsi
to (Indo-European) English as it can be from French to English.
Quantitative comparison of equivalence relations, whether word-to-word,
phrase-to-phrase, word-to-phrase, phrase-to-word, clause-to-phrase, etc.
etc. would just be obfuscatory.
Oh and BTW, English is not a Romance language.
A translation could even be as accurate from a non-Indo-European
language, such as Hungarian or Finnish, to English, as it could be from
French to English.
>Certainly less in nuance.
>
>You are correct, Abelard, in that the essence of the meaning of the two
>translations presented here are the same.
Why do you talk shit?
Obviously there is an extreme difference between talking about a country
being annihilated in 'one storm' and a regime crumbling in the wind.
Do you really fucking believe that this difference wouldn't be apparent
in Farsi?
banana
<OPRBMD...@spammotel.com> writes
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:46:06 -0400 FACE
><AFaceIn...@bellsouth.net>
>appeared and wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:41:38 +0200, in uk.politics.misc abelard
>><abel...@abelard.org> scrivened:
>>
>><Snip everything>
>>
>>I have looked only lightly at this thread and it is much ado about nothing.
>>
>>The Persians speak Farsi. There is not as much word-to-word translation
>>between Farsi and English as between English and the other romance
>>languages. Certainly less in nuance.
>
>Rubbish. There is very little in any language which cannot be
>translated into English and retain the meaning.
Absolutely right.
>>You are correct, Abelard, in that the essence of the meaning of the two
>>translations presented here are the same.
>
>Utter nonsense.
>You obviously don't understand the English language.
Nor what translation is about.
The reference to word-to-word equivalences as opposed to other kinds was
just ridiculous. Whenever you translate from a source language to a
target language, there are going to be equivalences other than between
syntactical units of the same type. But this is irrelevant. You just
wonder why someone comes out with this crap. Accuracy of translation is
precisely about meaning, about semantics.
banana
eCr...@bellsouth.net> writes
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 23:13:49 +0100, in uk.politics.misc hummingbird
Well, your cackhanded attempt to refer to linguistics, as if you had the
slightest clue what you were talking about, has already left you flat on
your face. So what do you want to do?
abelard
typed:
>let me know please if you ever wish to say something substantial about
>the points in questions.
>
>you might start with a discussion of agency.
your posing is a vacuous substitute for your incompetence.
abelard
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk>
typed:
up to that point you make sense...
then you become hyperbolic.
>Those are the important questions. It is as plain as anything that this
>is war-mongering pro-Zionist propaganda. It's rather similar to the lies
>about Iraq's military strength - although obviously the propaganda boys
>have decided that it's best to portray Iran as aggressive and
>threatening rather than merely secretly strong.
>
>If Ahmadinejad said the Israel would soon be 'annihilated' in 'one
>storm' (i.e. Iran will nuke occupied Palestine), but his officials
>pretended that he really said that the Zionist regime was like a
>crumbling and decrepid tree that will blow down in the wind, why aren't
>the western propagandists making a story out of that?
>
>What do you believe?
--
abelard
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk>
typed:
up to that point you make sense...
then you become hyperbolic.
>Those are the important questions. It is as plain as anything that this
>is war-mongering pro-Zionist propaganda. It's rather similar to the lies
>about Iraq's military strength - although obviously the propaganda boys
>have decided that it's best to portray Iran as aggressive and
>threatening rather than merely secretly strong.
>
>If Ahmadinejad said the Israel would soon be 'annihilated' in 'one
>storm' (i.e. Iran will nuke occupied Palestine), but his officials
>pretended that he really said that the Zionist regime was like a
>crumbling and decrepid tree that will blow down in the wind, why aren't
>the western propagandists making a story out of that?
>
>What do you believe?
--
abelard
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk>
typed:
>Obviously there is an extreme difference between talking about a country
>being annihilated in 'one storm' and a regime crumbling in the wind.
you are here exaggerating the difference in the translation texts....
>Do you really fucking believe that this difference wouldn't be apparent
>in Farsi?
translations take place in human minds....
abelard
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk>
typed:
>In article <43824219ghk9oq72g...@4ax.com>, abelard
><abel...@abelard.org> writes
>
>>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 17:27:06 +0100, banana
>><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk>
>>
>> typed:
>>>In article <mqu1421mmqg0844g5...@4ax.com>, abelard
>>><abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:20:47 +0100, banana
>>>><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk>
>
><snip>
>
>>almost all the fossil media mindlessly and lazily repeat wire
>> service handouts...
>
>Yes - and in this case the wire service obviously wasn't the Iranian
>news agency that published the speech both in Farsi and in English.
ok....but that is not sufficient to make your case...or any much case...
regards...
hummingbird
<jamesha...@yahoo.co.uk>
appeared and wrote:
In the end that's all that really matters.
>I disagree that the "one storm" vs "a storm" bit makes or
>even contributes to this difference.
I'm not too hung up about the use of 'one' -vs- 'a' but the former
is more specific than the latter and when used with 'annihilation' it
conveys a more threatening sentiment. ie: "...will be annihilated in
one storm" is more threatening than "...will fall in a storm" to most
observers, especially since his words were wrapped in references to
nature and the term 'annihilated' isn't normally used in that context.
Trees blown down in the UK storm of 1987 were not referred to as
having been 'annihilated' were they. The word implies military action.
> It's the "the Zionist regime is
>heading toward annihilation" bit that makes the difference...
Indeed.
>>One (nuke) storm could bring about annihilation.
>>
>>>>Clearly misleading was the intention.
>>>
>>>Maybe, but equally it could be that IRNA was intending to mislead. It
>>>is after all the official news agency for Iran and therefore likely to
>>>follow what ever line is given it by the Iranian authorities.
>>>
>>>Of course *both* translations could have been written by people who
>>>intended to mislead...
>>
>>I don't discount that.
>>
>>>And then there's the possibility that the original Farsi can be
>>>translated in more than one way and the possibility that errors were
>>>made in translation (in both cases).
>>
>>I think we have to accept that the IRNA translation is official
>
>Well IRNA is effectively the Iranian regime's outlet...
Problem is we don't know whether the IRNA official translation into
English was actually a true translation of what he said or whether it
was toned down for public release.
Nor do we know the true source of the Israeli translation. Was it a
true translation of the IRNA release in Farsi or was it translated
from the actual speech? We know it wasn't taken from the English
release from IRNA!
>> and
>>the one intended
>
>The one intended for external consumption...
>
>>unless someone has a recording of his speech.
>
>We won't settle the question of which is the more accurate translation
>without (a) a recording of the original speech (b) a Farsi/English
>translator who can make a judgement for us (or becoming Farsi/English
>translators ourselves!).
Quite so. The problem is that the Israeli version doesn't match the
official IRNA English version.
>>>>Israel has people who speak
>>>>Farsi fluently so it cannot be a error.
>>>
>>>To conclude this you would have to assume that:
>>>
>>>* IRNA would not make a mistake in translation
>>>
>>>* IRNA would not distort the translation
>>
>>Non sequitur.
>
>To assume the Israeli version is the one in error, you have to assume
>the IRNA version is undistorted...
It depends on the source of the Israeli version.
>>>* the can only be one valid translation of the original Farsi into
>>>English
>>
>>IME there are few words and phrases in other languages which cannot
>>be translated into English to convert the intended meaning. English is
>>a very broad language able to represent foreign sentiments well.
>>It usually comes down to the skill of the translator.
>
>What experience do you have of translating from other languages into
>English?
Some ... English to/from Brazilian Portuguese...
It is often said that when you learn another language, you also learn
a lot about your own language because translation involves choosing
words/phrases which convey the same sentiment.
Eg: many people argue that the Portuguese term 'saudade' cannot be
adequately translated into English. I have always disagreed because
English is a very powerful language and there are several terms which
adequately convey the same sentiment.
Consider: translation of the film title 'Gone With The Wind'.
What does the word *gone* actually mean in this context?
Consider: the Rio local slang term 'tirar a onda' (to take the wave).
What does this actually mean in English? It has nowt to do with
surfing!
>>>None of these assumptions can be taken for granted and, moreover, the
>>>final one is most likely false.
>>>
>>>A fluent Farsi speaker who has good English might be able to tell you
>>>whether either translation is plausible from the original words. It is
>>>possible that *both* are, and that only knowing the intent of
>>>Ahmadinejad would clarify which was the more accurate translation.
>>
>>No, I disagree.
>
>You disagree that it is possible that both are plausible translations?
Correct. I think there is likely only one accurate translation. There
are likely others but only one will be most accurate and this will be
the one which uses the right words to convey the same sentiment.
>> I don't discount the possibility that IRNA produced a
>>translation which knowingly differed from the actual words spoken in
>>order to soften his comments but we do not know if that's the case.
>
>I didn't claim that we knew it was the case.
OK.
>>What we do know is that the western translation (sourced from the
>>IRNA Farsi transcript I assume) uses harsher terms.
>
>I grant that. Why assume that this difference is due to greater
>honesty on the part of IRNA's translation?
I don't know. Unless we know the source of the Israeli translation we
cannot solve the puzzle but whatever it has served its purpose, ie to
convey the idea that Iran is once again making threats.
I wonder if Ahmadinejad actually threatened to 'wipe Israel off the
map' some while ago....or whether that was just a western translation.
One has to remember that we are in the propaganda war phase with Iran
as Bush/Blair wind up the anti to justify military attacks and western
media does what is expected of it.
Maria
Doesn't bode well for the Koran does it, or for Muslims, or for
anti-Islamists who claim to know that something is written there when
Muslims deny it!
What a farce...who would have believed that language could be such a
divisive thing?
abelard
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk>
typed:
>In article <0ur2425bdcnviu2pm...@4ax.com>, hummingbird
><OPRBMD...@spammotel.com> writes
>
>>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:46:06 -0400 FACE
>><AFaceIn...@bellsouth.net>
>>appeared and wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:41:38 +0200, in uk.politics.misc abelard
>>><abel...@abelard.org> scrivened:
>>>
>>><Snip everything>
>>>
>>>I have looked only lightly at this thread and it is much ado about nothing.
>>>
>>>The Persians speak Farsi. There is not as much word-to-word translation
>>>between Farsi and English as between English and the other romance
>>>languages. Certainly less in nuance.
>>
>>Rubbish. There is very little in any language which cannot be
>>translated into English and retain the meaning.
>
>Absolutely right.
that is exaggeration again....
>>>You are correct, Abelard, in that the essence of the meaning of the two
>>>translations presented here are the same.
>>
>>Utter nonsense.
>>You obviously don't understand the English language.
>
>Nor what translation is about.
>
>The reference to word-to-word equivalences as opposed to other kinds was
>just ridiculous. Whenever you translate from a source language to a
>target language, there are going to be equivalences other than between
>syntactical units of the same type. But this is irrelevant. You just
>wonder why someone comes out with this crap. Accuracy of translation is
>precisely about meaning, about semantics.
and there is no substantive difference for a tree is it be 'annihilated'
(meaningless)...or 'eliminated' (meaningless) or 'fall'....
nowhere in your two versions is there any clear reference to the
agency/ies felling the 'tree'.....
this is far more complex semantically than you would (appear to)
wish readers to infer....
it is you that are 'wishing' to inject an agency....
it is ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe who (presumably) chose his
simile...
the simile was approximately of a 'rotten tree'...(very likely more
appropriate to his own regime...but that is only of passing
relevance)
he is claiming that 'tree' will fall/anihilate/eliminate....
such 'poetic' and even exaggerated rhetoric is common among
m.e. cultures....imv it is far less common among (educated) western
cultures....
the passage is a translation between cultures...not some literal
computer translation....(your claims of clear meaning are far from
convincing)
your introduction of some allegedly active agency are (at the very
least) shallow...
i expect nonsense from the less able posters....
i do not accept it from you.....
if you intend to make a real/serious argument let's hear it....
presenting obfuscatory rhetoric will not satisfy the standards
i am fully convinced that you can meet....
regards..
abelard
typed:
>abelard wrote:
>> 'can be read' is not the original text/meaning.....
>> only the originator knows his meaning.....
>Doesn't bode well for the Koran does it, or for Muslims, or for
>anti-Islamists who claim to know that something is written there when
>Muslims deny it!
>What a farce...who would have believed that language could be such a
>divisive thing?
well said
now to get civilisations to grok these problems....only then can we make
serious progress....
Chris X
"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:2eb442lc14de28sk0...@4ax.com...
> On 16 Apr 2006 04:39:07 -0700, "Maria" <in...@tajarts.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
>>abelard wrote:
>
>>> 'can be read' is not the original text/meaning.....
>>> only the originator knows his meaning.....
>
>>Doesn't bode well for the Koran does it, or for Muslims, or for
>>anti-Islamists who claim to know that something is written there when
>>Muslims deny it!
>>What a farce...who would have believed that language could be such a
>>divisive thing?
>
> well said
> now to get civilisations to grok these problems....only then can we make
> serious progress....
He said "regime" - that means the government, Fraudelard. He's saying that
the "Israeli" government will be destroyed.
What part of that are you incapable of understanding, you demented, drooling
old faker ?
abelard
typed:
po'r old hakky...
all regimes fall over time.
Chris X
This one's been there since 1948. Long overdue for a change, don't you
think.
hummingbird
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk>
appeared and wrote:
Exactly so. I'd find it very hard to believe that Israel doesn't have
fluent Farsi speakers able to convey an accurate sentiment if they
wanted to.
hummingbird
appeared and wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 22:35:25 +0100, James Hammerton
><jamesha...@yahoo.co.uk>
[snip]
>>A fluent Farsi speaker who has good English might be able to tell you
>>whether either translation is plausible from the original words. It is
>>possible that *both* are, and that only knowing the intent of
>>Ahmadinejad would clarify which was the more accurate translation.
>
>agreed at all points.
That's because you don't understand language, don't understand the
purpose of translation and you have an agenda to obfuscate.
James Hammerton
<OPRBMD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
Yes but neither version said "will be annihilated in a storm". The
word annihilated appeared in a different sentence...
> to most
>observers, especially since his words were wrapped in references to
>nature and the term 'annihilated' isn't normally used in that context.
>
>Trees blown down in the UK storm of 1987 were not referred to as
>having been 'annihilated' were they. The word implies military action.
>
>> It's the "the Zionist regime is
>>heading toward annihilation" bit that makes the difference...
>
>Indeed.
And that sentence did not talk about storms...
>>>One (nuke) storm could bring about annihilation.
>>>
>>>>>Clearly misleading was the intention.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe, but equally it could be that IRNA was intending to mislead. It
>>>>is after all the official news agency for Iran and therefore likely to
>>>>follow what ever line is given it by the Iranian authorities.
>>>>
>>>>Of course *both* translations could have been written by people who
>>>>intended to mislead...
>>>
>>>I don't discount that.
>>>
>>>>And then there's the possibility that the original Farsi can be
>>>>translated in more than one way and the possibility that errors were
>>>>made in translation (in both cases).
>>>
>>>I think we have to accept that the IRNA translation is official
>>
>>Well IRNA is effectively the Iranian regime's outlet...
>
>Problem is we don't know whether the IRNA official translation into
>English was actually a true translation of what he said or whether it
>was toned down for public release.
>
>Nor do we know the true source of the Israeli translation. Was it a
>true translation of the IRNA release in Farsi or was it translated
>from the actual speech? We know it wasn't taken from the English
>release from IRNA!
Agreed!
ISTM all we know at this point is that two different versions
appeared, one the IRNA version another that seems to have originally
appeared in Haaretz.
Ergo --- we cannot claim either version is a lie... we need more
information.
>>> and
>>>the one intended
>>
>>The one intended for external consumption...
>>
>>>unless someone has a recording of his speech.
>>
>>We won't settle the question of which is the more accurate translation
>>without (a) a recording of the original speech (b) a Farsi/English
>>translator who can make a judgement for us (or becoming Farsi/English
>>translators ourselves!).
>
>Quite so. The problem is that the Israeli version doesn't match the
>official IRNA English version.
But is this really a problem? ISTM both versions are a call for the
elimination of the Israeli regime. Also, ISTM both versions can be
read as being agnostic as to how this elimination occurs, though one
version is more easily read as implying Iranian intervention to
achieve it than the other.
>>>>>Israel has people who speak
>>>>>Farsi fluently so it cannot be a error.
>>>>
>>>>To conclude this you would have to assume that:
>>>>
>>>>* IRNA would not make a mistake in translation
>>>>
>>>>* IRNA would not distort the translation
>>>
>>>Non sequitur.
>>
>>To assume the Israeli version is the one in error, you have to assume
>>the IRNA version is undistorted...
>
>It depends on the source of the Israeli version.
It depends on the accuracy of the two translations....
>>>>* the can only be one valid translation of the original Farsi into
>>>>English
>>>
>>>IME there are few words and phrases in other languages which cannot
>>>be translated into English to convert the intended meaning. English is
>>>a very broad language able to represent foreign sentiments well.
>>>It usually comes down to the skill of the translator.
>>
>>What experience do you have of translating from other languages into
>>English?
>
>Some ... English to/from Brazilian Portuguese...
Are you fluent in Portuguese?
>It is often said that when you learn another language, you also learn
>a lot about your own language because translation involves choosing
>words/phrases which convey the same sentiment.
Agreed -- I learned Dutch to a level where I could hold a slow
conversation punctuated by asking how to say certain things, and read
short newspaper articles.
>Eg: many people argue that the Portuguese term 'saudade' cannot be
>adequately translated into English. I have always disagreed because
>English is a very powerful language and there are several terms which
>adequately convey the same sentiment.
I can't judge that not knowing any Portuguese.
>Consider: translation of the film title 'Gone With The Wind'.
>What does the word *gone* actually mean in this context?
>Consider: the Rio local slang term 'tirar a onda' (to take the wave).
>What does this actually mean in English? It has nowt to do with
>surfing!
>
>>>>None of these assumptions can be taken for granted and, moreover, the
>>>>final one is most likely false.
>>>>
>>>>A fluent Farsi speaker who has good English might be able to tell you
>>>>whether either translation is plausible from the original words. It is
>>>>possible that *both* are, and that only knowing the intent of
>>>>Ahmadinejad would clarify which was the more accurate translation.
>>>
>>>No, I disagree.
>>
>>You disagree that it is possible that both are plausible translations?
>
>Correct. I think there is likely only one accurate translation. There
>are likely others but only one will be most accurate and this will be
>the one which uses the right words to convey the same sentiment.
I dispute this for several reasons.
There is usually more than one way of saying things. E.g. "I went to
the shops yesterday", "I went shopping yesterday", "Yesterday, I did
some shopping" are different ways of indicating that you did some
shopping yesterday.
All language is to some degree ambiguous and we do not ever have
direct access to the author's intended meaning -- unless you are the
author yourself.
If people use figurative language in the original text, it can be
doubly hard to know how best to translate it -- figurative language
causes many headaches for people producing natural language processing
systems because the intended meaning is often not a product of the
meaning of the words that make them up.
If translation was as simple as your comments imply, ISTM machine
translation would not become an active area of research in computer
science for several decades, where even now with the powerful
computers we have today, the very best systems still only work well
within a limited domain and the results have to be checked over by
professional translators.
I suspect if you paid two professional Farsi/English translators to
translate any but the shortest of Farsi texts you'll get two different
translations and it won't necessarily be down to one translator being
better or more honest than the other.
>>> I don't discount the possibility that IRNA produced a
>>>translation which knowingly differed from the actual words spoken in
>>>order to soften his comments but we do not know if that's the case.
>>
>>I didn't claim that we knew it was the case.
>
>OK.
>
>>>What we do know is that the western translation (sourced from the
>>>IRNA Farsi transcript I assume) uses harsher terms.
>>
>>I grant that. Why assume that this difference is due to greater
>>honesty on the part of IRNA's translation?
>
>I don't know. Unless we know the source of the Israeli translation we
>cannot solve the puzzle but whatever it has served its purpose, ie to
>convey the idea that Iran is once again making threats.
ISTM either version can be read that way!
>I wonder if Ahmadinejad actually threatened to 'wipe Israel off the
>map' some while ago....or whether that was just a western translation.
>
>One has to remember that we are in the propaganda war phase with Iran
>as Bush/Blair wind up the anti to justify military attacks and western
>media does what is expected of it.
One also has to remember that Iran is playing its own games with its
own propaganda...
James
--
James Hammerton, http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
Contributor to Magna Carta Plus: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
Magna Carta Plus News weblog: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/index.php
James Hammerton
Of course unless you were there, understood Farsi and heard what
Ahmadinejad said, you can't discount the possibility that even the
Farsi translation published by IRNA is inaccurate...
>But NO. They are NOT putting forward that view. Rather, they are
>presenting an alternative version as if it were the gospel truth.
>Without saying it's an alternative version.
Here you have a point. Possibly they weren't aware of the different
versions, more probably they simply copied info given to them by
sources they trust without checking.
>
>Where did they get that alternative version?
>
>Why are they all using exactly the same alternative version?
ISTM it's common practice for the newspapers to use the same report
from the same news agency on all sorts of topics if they haven't got
their own reporters in place to give their own angle. I suspect this
is an example.
> (Or were the 'native' translators in Tehran so silly that they
> didn't realise that a clumsy attempt to mistranslate would be picked
> up within about five seconds by the 'expert' linguists in MI6, CIA,
> and Israel?)
The differences don't necessarily arise from one being a
mistranslation and the other not...
>Do you think there isn't a single central source?
Given the papers have all produced the same version, then I suspect
there is a central source...
>Why do none of them admit it's different from the official version?
That is a good question, but explainable by the Western media simply
accepting a particular source without question and running with it as
they seem to do on other topics.
>
>
>Those are the important questions. It is as plain as anything that this
>is war-mongering pro-Zionist propaganda.
And now you launch into hyperbole....