Live data from Hacker News

Lost in Translation: Writing treaties in two languages can lead to problems

historytoday.com

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: Lost in Translation: Writing treaties in two languages can lead to problems

#41

As a software engineer who cares deeply about testing, I sometimes find myself wishing that there was a way to run a binding moot court on a law before it got ratified.

If it is binding then it not really moot is it?

Sure. but "binding moot court" was the most concise way I could think of to say "A legal proceeding where you assume a certain set of facts are known, then argue how the law would apply to them, then a judgement is made which becomes binding precedent on how the law is interpreted unless the law is changed by the legislature to produce more clarity."

Re: Lost in Translation: Writing treaties in two languages can lead to problems

#43
post #40
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should have seen developers rigorously implement requirements. Just saying.

The way I see it, that's what a developer is: a tool for translating fuzzy requirements into rigid definitions. Sometimes they're just plain lazy about that task, but even when it's done well, they discover vagueness and incompleteness in the specifications. They use their judgment to fill that in, but they're often wrong, especially when they don't really know the domain. Programmers want rigid requirements, because…

I was hinting toward frustrating programmers, testers and manager, who don't bother reading requirements (or think they know better) and proceed to code and test against own imagination. Despite requirements being unambiguous about this or that point.

Re: Lost in Translation: Writing treaties in two languages can lead to problems

#44
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is my second point: citizens will have to follow and vote on the law of their country, including international treaties, without understanding them since they are not written in their language.

I imagine most voters do not read proposed bills in their own language as it stands, instead relying on reporters' summaries as they would for foreign language versions.

Agreed, but that's not a reason to write laws or treaties in a language the general population does not speak. That's too high a barrier to understand the rules of your nation, which should be easily accessible to every citizen. Legalese is complicated enough in your native tongue :).

Re: Lost in Translation: Writing treaties in two languages can lead to problems

#45
post #43
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I see it, that's what a developer is: a tool for translating fuzzy requirements into rigid definitions. Sometimes they're just plain lazy about that task, but even when it's done well, they discover vagueness and incompleteness in the specifications. They use their judgment to fill that in, but they're often wrong, especially when they don't really know the domain. Programmers want rigid requirements, because…

I was hinting toward frustrating programmers, testers and manager, who don't bother reading requirements (or think they know better) and proceed to code and test against own imagination. Despite requirements being unambiguous about this or that point.

Oh, definitely agreed. We programmers do rather suck at our profession, especially as I define our profession. Not all of us, and not all the time, but we get rather feted for our technical sk1llz while failing to deliver the thing we're actually supposed to be doing -- even just outright ignoring it.

Re: Lost in Translation: Writing treaties in two languages can lead to problems

#46
post #22

The problems discussed in the article are not relevant anymore today: We can now have many professional translators work on the same documents. It's not like we have to copy treaties manually, go on a months-long journey by boat, horse or foot just to get a second opinion on a translation.

The treaties mentioned on the article were signed in 1889 at the earliest. By that time, telegraph lines were already connection most nations on the world.

That's just 25 years before WW1.

Post reply on HN