JKhedrup wrote:Yes I think that a translation should be evaluated by one's peers before it can be called good.
But... the peers of a bad translator tend to be other bad translators. The peers of people with weird interpretations tend to be other people with weird interpretations.
But it should also be translated in a way that is hopefully accessible to practitioners.
Is accessibility for practitioners of a single type? ie. kind of "accessible" means all practitioners can access it, and "inaccessible" that none can? Or, are different types of translations accessible to different types of practitioners?
Is it possible to be accessible to all practitioners? If so, what qualities would such a translation have? Or, only to some of them?
Just some stuff to think 'bout.