Message-Id: <9202141728.AA11366@relay2.UU.NET>
Date:         Fri, 14 Feb 1992 12:25:16 EST
Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LOJBAN>
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>
Subject:      Translations
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
In-Reply-To:  "61510::GILSON"'s message of Fri, 14 Feb 1992 10:53:00 EST
Status: RO

Bruce writes:
>OK -- if "common" (I did not use "usually" in the passage he quoted) is too
>vague, put it this way. If _any_ foreign language translates, then translate.

Aren't you just asking for it again?  What if I find that the natives of
Tasmania or something translate the "Zealand" part of "New Zealand"?  Just
*any* foreign language?  Or only "major" ones?  And which are those?  I
suppose we can use Lojban's Big Six, but is that a good plan?  By your
reckoning, not only would "Nova Scotia" get translated, but so would
Newfoundland since the French call it "Terre Neuve."  That may not be so
bad, actually.  Or it might.  And what of Mount Scopus?  That's a
translation from the Hebrew (both words), but I doubt anyone translates it
any further into other languages (any proof/rebuttal out there?).  I don't
know.  This sounds like leading down the garden path to inconsistent
naming.  Trouble is, I can't very well think of a consistent plan that I
like.  It'd be nice to see the "New" and the "West" and the "Upper" parts
of things translated, but how to do it well and consistently?

~mark