3 ms·

Translation into actual English: >I think you are very wrong. >Sure, if you think you were born to have fun, doing something such as reading books will be "fu

by alexb_ 4y ago

Translation into actual English: >I think you are very wrong. >Sure, if you think you were born to have fun, doing something such as reading books will be "fun" too, since it's different from your normal life. But you aren't actually seeing the real value in reading. >One of the main reasons books exist is so my company can be more "high-class", since those who don't read often are usually not as fun to hang out with. FTR I think this is an insane way of thinking, but I thought I would try and translate it to the best of my ability to words people can actually understand

mdp2021 4y ago
You have translated it, and you have not understood it. The correct approach with text is to give an interpretation and a level of confidence - and wait until the confidence is high. I do not think the ideas of the poster are just "wrong" (though it's a very good term, originally meaning "giving the reaction of disgust (which can also be given by disapproval)"): I wrote «blasphemies» because the depreciate what has high value. And those mentions of «high-class» and «fun to hang out with» are completely out of what was meant. And completely out of perspective: nobody told you you are there to have "fun". And one does not even meet people for "fun". It's your time, you are not there to waste it; "fun" is one part of it - "break", "completeness", "recovery" or whatever. More that "«insane»", that way of thinking would be "childish" (and surely more), but it was not what was expressed - you put that in. And your reading fails on the guidelines about "strongest plausible interpretation" and "assum[ption of] good faith". Edit: Nonetheless, the translation «Sure, if you think you were born to have fun, doing something such as reading books will be "fun" too, since it's different from your normal life. But you aren't actually seeing the real value in reading» was quite close to the original intention - though not overlapping. With "«yell at cars»", for example, I meant to stress the improductive side, the "consuming the day without much focus on growth". In the idea that the opposite of "growth" is "waste" ("fun" already may contain some value).

by alexb_ 4y ago

mdp2021 4y ago

You have translated it, and you have not understood it. The correct approach with text is to give an interpretation and a level of confidence - and wait until the confidence is high. I do not think the ideas of the poster are just "wrong" (though it's a very good term, originally meaning "giving the reaction of disgust (which can also be given by disapproval)"): I wrote «blasphemies» because the depreciate what has high value. And those mentions of «high-class» and «fun to hang out with» are completely out of what was meant. And completely out of perspective: nobody told you you are there to have "fun". And one does not even meet people for "fun". It's your time, you are not there to waste it; "fun" is one part of it - "break", "completeness", "recovery" or whatever. More that "«insane»", that way of thinking would be "childish" (and surely more), but it was not what was expressed - you put that in. And your reading fails on the guidelines about "strongest plausible interpretation" and "assum[ption of] good faith". Edit: Nonetheless, the translation «Sure, if you think you were born to have fun, doing something such as reading books will be "fun" too, since it's different from your normal life. But you aren't actually seeing the real value in reading» was quite close to the original intention - though not overlapping. With "«yell at cars»", for example, I meant to stress the improductive side, the "consuming the day without much focus on growth". In the idea that the opposite of "growth" is "waste" ("fun" already may contain some value).