Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Leaning on the Loeb or what have you feels like a crutch. What's the point of all of that language training if I won't be confident in my own translation in the event?
(To be clear, I am not trying to be snobbish towards historians who dip into the ancient world and haven't the languages b/c their expertise is elsewhere. I understand they rely on others for translations the same way I have to rely on others for nutrition statistics, etc)
This sounds like a crutch, but I always use Loeb or other standard translations when I can. Firstly, 90% of the time there is just no value added by me doing my own translation. Secondly, the audience knows that I am not reading my own interpretation into my translation/
BUT, I do often "follow" the Loeb, so changing100 year old language to follow modern usage, or tweaking things IF I note that my analysis disagrees with the standard translation (so at least the reader knows what idiosyncratic reading I am inserting into the translation).
I'm now curious when you acquired your Latin and Greek. At school, at university? Also is it now as easy for you to read those languages as reading English?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
