Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Setting the record straight
#30
Christina Wrote:Shlama akhi Dawid,

A few things before I go:

Dawid Wrote:I fully agree that if I had followed all his posts I might have understood this. But should a person have to follow every post that Mr. Roth has made to understand what he or she is buying? I'm not saying that Mr. Roth was being deceitful, I just think it could have been made more clear what the AENT is.

This is good point, nevertheless the customer can always email their concerns to the translator/publisher for clarification before they jump to conclusions, Albion at least did that much, Dave and Ryan on the other hand didn't bother.
There was no reason for anyone to have a question from what we knew ahead of time. Once the item has been purchased then you would realise what you had...but isn't it too late then?

Christina Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:I've really never heard anyone say that an interlinear is not a translation before. For instance, if I were to say that the Hebrew word "Halach" means "he walked" did I just translate that word? Absolutely. And this is exactly what an interlinear is. A word-by-word translation. Halach=he walked is a translation, and it is identical to an interlinear...except that I haven't downloaded the Semitic languages thingee on my new computer yet. :-D

I suppose we can agree to disagree on this matter, but I'm sure you know that not every Hebrew word can be translated into one English word, likewise with Aramaic, which akhan Paul can explain in greater detail. This is why I do not view Paul's interlinear as an actual translation, simply because it's not possible to translate every Aramaic word into one English word, everyone I know personally who has some basic knowledge of Semitic languages (eg: Pastors & lay Bible readers) agrees. Nevertheless akhan Paul did the work, and he's adamant that it's not a translation - it's his work so it's for him to define, and he doesn't define it as a translation.
So if I translate the Three Musketeers into English, but leave "d'Artagnan" untranslated, then this is not still a translation? What Paul is contending is that formal equivalency is not translation. I understand why he says this, but it still comes across as a semantic game to avoid his church's disapproval of translations. But for this distinction we have a name. Formal equivalency and dynamic equivalency translations. Both are translation.
No, he can't define it. I can make a sandwich and call it a pillow, but it's still a sandwich. As much as dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, and as much as definitions are fluid and change with time, we must be careful to not be deceptive with our terms. Not that Mr. Younan is deceiving anyone intentionally, but not using words carefully can cause us to be unintentionally deceptive.

Christina Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:I'm not going to say that Mr. Bauscher reacted properly, but I am going to use the tired old saying that two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes, this is good advice.

Dawid Wrote:[quote="Christina"]See what Andrew wrote above.
Is there a particular post? There are so many and so long I start going cross-eyed. lol.

LOL I hear you! It's the post that's directly after Dave's last post, but I'll quote it for you:[/quote] Thanks.

Christina Wrote:
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama all--

A few things:

1) I never heard of Lawrence Sheets before these accusations. If he also copied Paul's work, then that's fine, because again Paul's work cannot be plagiarized. David, you are so ignorant. You think that Mr. Sheet's can claim originality from Paul's work but I am a plagiarist? Do you see how stupid and inconsistent that is? Either both Mr. Sheets and I could copy or neither of us could. But Paul himself has clarified this--I helped him when you probably didn't even know what the Peshitta was. Since Paul never worked with Mr. Sheets, but he has worked with me why aren't you going after him for "plagiarizing" Paul? Or is it just me who has that "privilege". I wonder why...
Again, there are two kinds of plagiarism. One is a legal problem, the other is not. To use a work and not attribute it is plagiarism even if the work is public domain. It simply won't get you slapped with a fine. Why is this? Because it is considered intellectually dishonest to put your name on something that you didn't come up with.
For clarification: I am not saying that Mr. Roth plagiarized. He did not. I want to make it utterly clear where I stand, that no plagiarism was involved here. However, without proper attribution, even of a public domain work, you can be guilty of plagiarism. It is still intellectually dishonest, even if it is not illegal.

Christina Wrote:
AGR Wrote:2) If Paul says he wasn't plagiarized, that should suffice. As I said, PUBLIC DOMAIN works can NOT be plagiarized.
Again, Mr. Roth, with all due respect, I must beg to differ. There are two kinds of plagiarism. Only one of them is illegal. I think you and Mr. Bauscher are using different definitions of plagiarism, both of which are valid in their proper applications.

Christina Wrote:
AGR Wrote:3) Nevertheless, you David say that the preface was the proper place to give attribution, not the footnotes. Which leads to these observations:

a) You admit that I give credit in the footnotes.
b) You have NO PROOF for his assertion that I did not give attribution. Where and how I did so is less important than the fact that I did so.
c) As a matter of fact, I do give attribution in the Preface section. If you David had bothered to read the rebuttal I gave on Refiners Fire, or just go to p v of AENT, this is what you would have seen:

"To retain as much consistency as possible, Paul Younan's translation has been compared from Matthew 1 to Acts 15 and James Murdock's translation for the remainder, each word has been cross-checked with Aramaic"....

In some cases, both sources are woven together with translation, under a unifying editorial vision and approach. That approach includes the following: In places where James Murdock used the later Western Peshitto readings, the Eastern originals have been restored. In places where a more accurate or detailed reading was required than detailed by my mentors, the preferred readings were substituted in this edition.

"cross checked" also has a meaning that you apparently don't understand. Really, it's not my fault you don't understand English fully.
Here I will agree generally with his points, but not with his attitude toward Mr. Bauscher. I know I'm going to get nailed for this like I do every time I stick up for someone who is unpopular, but even though Mr. Bauscher has overstepped his bounds on his criticism, that doesn't give us an excuse to do the same. Insults like "you don't understand English"? I think we can do better than that.

Christina Wrote:
AGR Wrote:And David, I have refuted you, and it is you who will repent or YHWH will take you out of my way. Why don't YOU admit that you have, putting it kindly, major animosity towards anyone who disagrees with you, especially if they are of my lineage? Why don't you admit that you are trying to promote your translation at my expense? Your hateful speech on this forum betrays your intentions.
I don't know how to say this respectfully, but hasn't your speech toward Mr. Bauscher also been hateful?

Christina Wrote:
AGR Wrote:I am not only not sorry, I am proud of my work and the way I explained it. I call the work MARI (Murdock-Roth-Younan). I also call it "a compilation, annotation and translation". I give attribution in the Preface, in the footnotes and throughout the work. It is not my fault that you are so ignorant as to neither understand these words nor the proper defintion of plagiarism.
Though I heard it throughout the months leading up to the release of MARI/PEACE, I never knew what these stood for until Sunday. I understand that your intention was for these to make it perfectly clear, but I'm afraid it didn't. I know I'm not the most active member here, but you're not just selling this book to people who post regularly on Peshitta.org. If I could be here and not know what it was, that may mean that there was a problem with it being unclear. Like I said, I understand that you meant for this name to make it completely clear, but for at least some of us it really didn't.

Christina
AGR Wrote:And BTW, as long as we're at it, what about 400 pages OTHER than the translation? If I'm just cutting and pasting, what about the 1500 other footnotes that are all mine? Also, unlike you, I didn't just blindly cut and paste the 1905-20 Critical Edition on the Aramaic side, but carefully restored the Eastern readings of the Peshitta that you left on the cutting room floor, such as Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9. I also itemized hundreds of variances between Khabouris and your precious later Western imitation.

I suggest that you repent of your nastiness, anti-Semitism and religious prejudice. I have refuted you with words from your own mouth. Why don't you follow the Scriptures you say you venerate?

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

1 Cor 13:1-13 (From Crosswalk.com)

Dawid Wrote:I looked at your last post. But from how I understand the copyright notice, that's only talking about consecutive verses. Did I misunderstand it?

No you understood it correctly, nevertheless their quotes do include consecutive verses which do outnumber 70 verses from what I counted. Also Dave mentioned "testing EVERY line of EVERY chapter of the 60 chapters" with the essay rater program - 60 chapters is way over 70 consecutive verses.[/quote Wrote:
Ah. Okay, thank you for setting me straight on that.
But like I said before, there's no violation of copyright law for him to copy it into a program on his computer. Having a backup copy or something like that is not illegal.

Christina Wrote:[quote="Dawid"]It escaped being plagiarism by the narrow margin of one paragraph in the introduction. I have no doubt that Mr. Roth has the best of intentions, but I'm really thinking that this controversy should show us that it needs to be more clearly noted. He has done nothing wrong, but it is easy to get the impression that he did.

This is a good suggestion though you and anyone else should really forward your concerns to Baruch.

Dawid Wrote:You can ask Mr. Bauscher, he and I have not discussed this. My conclusions are my own and completely independent, but it is probably insufficiently noted.

Oh, I believe you, I didn't suspect that you were siding with him or anything like that, my apologies if I gave you this impression.
I just wanted to make it abundantly clear, because things have a way of being misunderstood on the internet.

Christina Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:Now, what you say about Dave is very strong. Let's try to look at this objectively. They are being nasty, that much is true. Deceitful? Not so much. I think they're wrong on several things, but not everyone who says something wrong is lying. Their accusations are false, indeed, but not intentionally so. Mr. Bauscher is not the type to lie. And I honestly don't think the other two are being deceptive.

I respectfully disagree that their nastiness is unintentional, for 3 reasons:

a) neither Dave nor Ryan bothered to ask Andrew for clarification before launching into their attacks, they could've but chose to jump to conclusions and make false accusations, so their behaviour is without excuse
Maybe I'm just an incurable optimist who doesn't like to think badly of anyone, but I think this was a knee-jerk reaction. Then they didn't want to back down, which is something that's easy to get into. I mean, I've been conned into defending things I didn't even believe when people thought I did and started arguing with me over them.
Again, this is not to vindicate what they did. But I still like to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that I think it was not deliberate or premeditated.

Christina Wrote:b) while Albion did have some private correspondence with Andrew and Baruch about his concerns, he came over here using a different alias and also made false accusations and decided to join Dave & Ryan in trashing Andrew's work & character on amazon. Albion was given the privilege of viewing AENT Matthew months before AENT was published and he had no complaints, so why the change of mind now?
Do you know how hard it is to say something like that under your real name? It's very hard to come to a friend that you believe has done something wrong and tell them to their face. That doesn't justify it. These things should be addressed under real names, face-to-face. But it is easy to understand why someone would do this.
For one thing, he hadn't seen the full thing to know how it was attributed. For another, it may have taken him a while to catch on. I know I didn't notice at first.

Christina Wrote:c) Dave is stubbornly still accusing Andrew of plagiarism, when everyone, including Paul has shown him this isn't so. Murdock's work has been in the public domain for years, and Paul himself has said that his work cannot be plagiarized but Dave refuses to admit that he's a wrong and has now resorted to insulting Paul and the rest of us by calling us "brainless sheep".
As I mentioned earlier, there is a legal definition of plagiarism, and then there is an academic one. Legally this book is the furthest thing from plagiarism. I'm not saying that it is intellectual plagiarism. It is not. But it may need to be more clearly noted.

Christina Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:Accusations have flown thick and fast in this discussion. Not a one of them from either side would stick in court. How about we slow down, back off a little, breathe deeply, and then maybe both sides can come at this without so much venom.

What you say is good, but I'm considering locking this thread because quite frankly Bauscher and the other 2 have clearly made up their minds so I don't think further discussion will be fruitful. Also complaints & suggestions about the AENT should be made to Baruch not posted here. This forum is for more important things than arguing over their plagiarism claims, though akhan Andrew is entitled defend his work and himself, which he has done. I don't think there's more to be said at this point, though we can carry on if we wish in a civil manner, but if things turn even nastier then I'm gonna have to lock the thread.
I think that closing it down might well be a good idea. It's not helping anything, it doesn't seem.


Messages In This Thread
Re: Setting the record straight - by Christina - 04-30-2009, 07:30 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Paul Younan - 04-30-2009, 05:08 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Christina - 04-30-2009, 06:57 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Thirdwoe - 05-01-2009, 05:18 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Paul Younan - 05-01-2009, 04:03 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by gbausc - 05-01-2009, 04:34 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Paul Younan - 05-01-2009, 07:12 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Christina - 05-02-2009, 01:28 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by gbausc - 05-02-2009, 10:47 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Dawid - 05-02-2009, 03:37 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Christina - 05-02-2009, 04:07 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Christina - 05-02-2009, 04:32 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Dawid - 05-02-2009, 05:02 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Christina - 05-02-2009, 06:34 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Thirdwoe - 05-02-2009, 07:39 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Christina - 05-02-2009, 09:45 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Christina - 05-02-2009, 09:52 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Paul Younan - 05-03-2009, 02:45 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Paul Younan - 05-03-2009, 02:58 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Paul Younan - 05-03-2009, 03:03 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Paul Younan - 05-03-2009, 03:21 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Paul Younan - 05-03-2009, 03:48 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by gbausc - 05-03-2009, 02:10 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Dawid - 05-03-2009, 03:46 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Dawid - 05-03-2009, 04:16 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Dawid - 05-03-2009, 04:21 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Christina - 05-03-2009, 04:23 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Dawid - 05-03-2009, 07:03 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Christina - 05-03-2009, 07:23 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Dawid - 05-03-2009, 07:42 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Christina - 05-03-2009, 08:18 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Dawid - 05-03-2009, 08:24 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Christina - 05-03-2009, 09:13 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Paul Younan - 05-04-2009, 04:19 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Paul Younan - 05-04-2009, 04:42 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by judge - 05-04-2009, 11:53 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by gbausc - 05-04-2009, 02:13 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Christina - 05-04-2009, 07:11 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Christina - 05-04-2009, 09:17 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Paul Younan - 05-04-2009, 09:50 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by judge - 05-05-2009, 06:46 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by judge - 05-05-2009, 07:28 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Paul Younan - 05-05-2009, 02:30 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Burning one - 05-05-2009, 09:17 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by judge - 05-05-2009, 10:16 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Christina - 05-05-2009, 10:29 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Christina - 05-05-2009, 11:10 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by enarxe - 05-06-2009, 12:03 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by judge - 05-06-2009, 02:57 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Burning one - 05-06-2009, 05:33 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by gbausc - 09-13-2009, 09:44 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by gbausc - 09-14-2009, 03:12 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Burning one - 09-14-2009, 06:20 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Dawid - 09-14-2009, 11:20 AM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Christina - 09-14-2009, 03:33 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by gbausc - 09-14-2009, 05:15 PM
Re: Setting the record straight - by Christina - 09-14-2009, 07:02 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)