We are launching an effort to translate Xavier Leroy and Didier R�my's
course on Unix system programming in Objective Caml .
We are looking for one translator and one proofreader for each of the
seven main chapters. To facilitate the task of proof readers and get
the best translation preference will be given to native english
speaking contributors. If you are interested in participating please
email me privately with the following information : chapter you'd like
to translate/proofread and whether your are a native english speaker
The work of the translators will be published online as html and pdf
documents at this adress  under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA french
license . Note that the non commercial aspect of the license
doesn't preclude a subsequent publication of the result as a (non free
as in wine) book. However in that case an agreement would be sought
between the authors, the translators and the publisher.
Thanks for your help,
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
I am volunteer to be reviewer.
However, I think it should not be a criteria to be a mother tongue english
for many reason:
"Non mother tongue english" people use "simple" english and does not
understand very advanced english. Mother tongue english are tempted to
fully use english.
I think a reviewer with just basic english would be "very good"...
Anyway, just my opinion...
Chef de projet chez Vectoris
Phone: +261 33 11 207 36
System: xUbuntu 8.10 with almost all from package install
I think *accurate* English is more difficult for a non native than
*basic* English is for a native, hence their preference. As an
anecdotal evidence, the easiest papers I've read on functional
programming happen to be written by native English speakers (I'm
Moreover, a good translation should also translate the tone of the
authors. Any distortion would be very difficult to recover from. It
may even be important to choose between British and American, and be
consistent with that choiceï¿½ I consider myself fluent, yet *this* is
completely out of my reach.
A technical text written in "advanced" English reads badly to a
native-English speaker as well - complex English constructions belong in
novels! Good reviewing, by either a native or non-native English speaker,
should simplify grammar and vocabulary where necessary anyway. Given
Xavier's (and presumably Didier's) level of English, I think it would be a
terrible disservice to produce an English translation containing bad
Loup Vaillant wrote:
> I think *accurate* English is more difficult for a non native than
> *basic* English is for a native, hence their preference. As an
> anecdotal evidence, the easiest papers I've read on functional
> programming happen to be written by native English speakers (I'm
> Moreover, a good translation should also translate the tone of the
> authors. Any distortion would be very difficult to recover from. It
> may even be important to choose between British and American, and be
> consistent with that choice. I consider myself fluent, yet *this* is
> completely out of my reach.
Given that both of the authors of the original text speak fluent English,
might it be easiest just to ask them to read and comment on the reviewed
Good point. That would alleviate the tone problem, provided they have
the time (I won't make any assumption).
> Given that both of the authors of the original text speak fluent
> might it be easiest just to ask them to read and comment on the
If they have time they are more than welcome. They should just let me
know so that I can warn them before the final version is published.
Besides I forgot to say the following in my first email. Those of you
that sent me an email and didn't get a response yet are not being
ignored. I'm gathering proposals during approximately a week to allow
a good allocation of "ressources". Everyone will eventually get a