<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Wahawafe, </SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">I would have to agree with Ingvild here. To create an inclusive we, and then say we are from Earth (the planet) is to provide a context that is planetary inclusive. That is a context that is not national, nor neighborhood, nor next person over, but by definition of Earth, an interplanetary context. The addressed party of "we" is whole planet, and so the widest inclusion of "we" possible until we have settlers on Mars or the Moon. This is the message of the Voyager spacecraft, the originator of the website notwithstanding. </SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Words have meaning beyond their origination and cannot be reduced to a given context when one goes beyond one language. If the originator would realize that, then this could be a great leveler of people looking up and beyond themselves, not single planet solely. If you say "from Earth" that presumes that someone else would say "from the Moon". <VAR id=yui-ie-cursor></VAR></SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">One may try to make it to "exclusive" by a disclaimer, but that really does not work if one mentions the planet "Earth."</SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Charles Butler</SPAN></div>
<div><BR></div>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px" class=hr contentEditable=false readonly="true"></DIV><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Ingvild Roald <iroald@HOTMAIL.COM><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> SW-L@LISTSERV.VALENCIACOLLEGE.EDU<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Tuesday, August 9, 2011 2:22 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: Wahawafe - a multilingual translation project<BR></FONT><BR>
<DIV id=yiv1270055893>
<STYLE><!--
#yiv1270055893 .yiv1270055893hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px;}
#yiv1270055893 .yiv1270055893hmmessage
{
font-size:10pt;
font-family:Tahoma;}
--></STYLE>
<DIV dir=ltr>OK -here the path of the index is wider, including you and your friends<BR><BR>Ingvild <BR><BR>
<DIV>> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 20:10:36 +0530<BR>> From: nik.azn@GMAIL.COM<BR>> Subject: Re: Wahawafe - a multilingual translation project<BR>> To: SW-L@LISTSERV.VALENCIACOLLEGE.EDU<BR>> <BR>> Hi!<BR>> Thank you very much for your translation! :-) but, could you please<BR>> rewrite this using the inclusive form of we? Quite a few people have<BR>> thought of aliens because of the line "from Earth". So, i have<BR>> mentioned on my site that this project is only for humans and you<BR>> should use the inclusive form. Sorry for the trouble!<BR>> Thanks again! :)<BR>> Nikhil.<BR>> <BR>> On 09/08/2011, Ingvild Roald <iroald@hotmail.com> wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> > As I suppose the sentence is something you could use if you were to meet<BR>> > extraterrestrials, I have chosen to use the exclusive but extensive 'we',<BR>> > and the Norwegian SL-sentence would translitterate something like 'humans
we<BR>> > yes, live Earth we yes', where the 'we' is 'all of us here, but not you'. I<BR>> > am not a 'native' signer, and cannot guarantee that this would be the best<BR>> > way of putting it in Norwegian SL, but I think it would do. The sign-text is<BR>> > a screen dump. as I always have problems with the SignText in combination<BR>> > with e-mail<BR>> ><BR>> > Ingvild<BR>> > Roald, Norway<BR>> ><BR>> >> Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 22:28:57 +0530<BR>> >> From: nik.azn@GMAIL.COM<BR>> >> Subject: Re: Wahawafe - a multilingual translation project<BR>> >> To: SW-L@LISTSERV.VALENCIACOLLEGE.EDU<BR>> >><BR>> >> Hi! I don't claim that my sentence will not cause any problem in<BR>> >> translation. I accept that languages are really different from one<BR>> >> another to come up with an easily translatable and meaningful<BR>> >>
sentence. However, this sentence can be satisfactorily rendered in<BR>> >> most languages, at least spoken ones. I don't have much idea of sign<BR>> >> language grammars.<BR>> >> You should use the version of "we", which includes the maximum number<BR>> >> of people. If there is a difference between inclusive and exclusive<BR>> >> "we", then use the inclusive one. Both the we's refer to the same<BR>> >> group of people. If it's not possible to say the whole thing in one<BR>> >> sentence, you can break this into two, by dropping the "and".<BR>> >> Nikhil.<BR>> >><BR>> >> On 31/07/2011, Trevor Jenkins <bslwannabe@gmail.com> wrote:<BR>> >> > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Valerie Sutton<BR>> >> > <sutton@signwriting.org>wrote:<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > Nikhil needs the translations in written SIGN LANGUAGES, not
spoken<BR>> >> >> languages!<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >> I am not an ASL expert, or I would do the translation myself in ASL. I<BR>> >> >> actually do not how to sign that phrase in ASL, so that is why I was<BR>> >> >> waiting<BR>> >> >> for someone who knows ASL to do the translation for NIkhil in<BR>> >> >> ASL...written<BR>> >> >> in SignWriting.<BR>> >> >><BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > I'm in a similar situation with BSL. I'm increasing fluent in its use<BR>> >> > but<BR>> >> > not a native speaker. However, I am fluent in English yet I don't know<BR>> >> > how<BR>> >> > to understand the phrase:<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >> "We are humans and we are from Earth."<BR>> >> >><BR>>
>> ><BR>> >> > How many are the "we"s? English, plus I guess many (all?) of the spoken<BR>> >> > languages given here as exemplars, the first person plural is<BR>> >> > uncountable.<BR>> >> > It would be possible to translate it into Swedish with "vi" and still<BR>> >> > obscure the number of participants. In BSL, at least, the first person<BR>> >> > plural is countable; up to four maybe five even 10. It is signed<BR>> >> > differently<BR>> >> > depending on the number of participants. For example, if "we" consists<BR>> >> > of me<BR>> >> > and my wife then I sign that slightly different from me, my wife, and<BR>> >> > you<BR>> >> > (Valerie), plus the physical proximity of the "we" one to another would<BR>> >> > change the sign(s) needed. However these small groups are signed<BR>>
>> > entirely<BR>> >> > differently from "we" as the subscribers to this list (if all of us<BR>> >> > happened<BR>> >> > to be assembled in one locale).<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > The presence of the "and" indicates that the second "we" is a distinct<BR>> >> > different group from the first but with the speaker (signer) a member<BR>> >> > of<BR>> >> > both groups. There is a famous phrase that exemplifies the same problem<BR>> >> > "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path." In this case<BR>> >> > the<BR>> >> > AND is a transliteration from the source language but its inclusion<BR>> >> > creates<BR>> >> > an ambiguity that is not in the original. If that second "we" of the<BR>> >> > sample<BR>> >> > sentence were to refer to me, my wife and my dog then the
"and" is<BR>> >> > vital.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > There's also a BSL issue here. We have no sign for AND. There are ways<BR>> >> > to<BR>> >> > indicate that two things are connected but not immediately.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > The "from" affects the translational choices too. Where is this<BR>> >> > discourse<BR>> >> > dislocated sentence being transacted and how did the various "we"s<BR>> >> > arrive<BR>> >> > there, or were "we" there from the beginning. Similarly the actors to<BR>> >> > whom<BR>> >> > this phrase is being relayed are they from somewhere else coming to the<BR>> >> > "here" or were they there from the beginning. This information will<BR>> >> > change<BR>> >> > how the sentence can be translated.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > It's not that
the sentence is un-translatable *per se* but that rather<BR>> >> > it is<BR>> >> > not context free as Nikhil claimed somewhere (possibly on his web site).<BR>> >> > At<BR>> >> > least for BSL, context is required otherwise the processing costs in<BR>> >> > the<BR>> >> > sense of Relevance Theory is astronomically high. Without the enclosing<BR>> >> > context it isn't really possible to provide a BSL translation.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > Regards, Trevor.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > <>< Re: deemed!<BR>> >> ><BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> --<BR>> >> निखिल सिन्हा | Nikhil Sinha<BR>> >> nik.azn@gmail.com<BR>> >> www.wahawafe.zxq.net - Wahawafe - a multilingual translation project.<BR>> >> "We are humans and we are from Earth." in several
languages.<BR>> >><BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -- <BR>> निखिल सिन्हा | Nikhil Sinha<BR>> nik.azn@gmail.com<BR>> www.wahawafe.zxq.net - Wahawafe - a multilingual translation project.<BR>> "We are humans and we are from Earth." in several languages.<BR>> <BR></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR><BR></DIV></DIV></div></body></html>