# reputedly, math PhDs should know French, German or Russian - why not just translate it all? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 6, 2010, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reputedly-math-phds-should-know-french-german-or-russian-why-not-just-translate-it-all/545649 "2010-07-06T00:16:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![President\_Johnny\_Gentle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@President\_Johnny\_Gentle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/President_Johnny_Gentle)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reputedly-math-phds-should-know-french-german-or-russian-why-not-just-translate-it-all/545649/81 "2010-07-12T16:33:50Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > I had considered that, but seeing as how I didn’t have a subscription to the JSTOR site and that the introductory paragraphs still have some clearly technical language - specialized enough that I had to do some research to try to find what I believe to be the right phrases in English - that this should still be proof enough of concept. I defer to **PJG** and **Itself** on this point, however, and if they feel the same perhaps we can work on getting something further in. At a quick glance, the translated portion looks good, other than one fairly major error (_lacets_ translates as “loops”, not “braids” - I call it fairly major because “braids” have a different topological meaning). I agree with the objections about the introduction generally being easier to translate. I’m trying to find a portion of the paper that would be fairly tricky, but that’s somewhat difficult in this case – one reason this paper is considered a classic in the field is that it’s well-written. Perhaps **Itself** can come up with something - perhaps involving _faisceaux_? ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reputedly-math-phds-should-know-french-german-or-russian-why-not-just-translate-it-all/545649/82 "2010-07-12T17:07:47Z")
Thanks for the correction - I would call that a major error as well. Given that I’m not a translator with experience in working with mathematics, and that this is a ‘proof of concept’ exercise rather than coursework or an accreditation exam, how tricky do you feel it needs to be? The fact that it’s well-written isn’t an advantage in this case, as it’s the unfamiliar terminology that’s the bigger obstacle here. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reputedly-math-phds-should-know-french-german-or-russian-why-not-just-translate-it-all/545649/83 "2010-07-13T03:00:43Z")
Frankly, in order for this test to be meaningful at all, it needs to be carried out on the most mathematically and conceptually “tricky” passages that can be found. No-one doubts that a competent translator can translate the straightforward stuff, or, indeed, that they will be able to look up unfamiliar terms. The issue is whether a translator who is not also an expert mathematician will make errors when it comes to more conceptually difficult points where the intended meaning can only be disambiguated (even when reading in one’s native language) by someone who actually understands the mathematical argument that is being made. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2010, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reputedly-math-phds-should-know-french-german-or-russian-why-not-just-translate-it-all/545649/84 "2010-07-13T06:25:57Z")
Fair enough. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reputedly-math-phds-should-know-french-german-or-russian-why-not-just-translate-it-all/545649.md?page=4)