http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7702913.stm :) On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: > On 2013-04-30 21:06:02 veegee wrote: > > > It's not the fact that they never learned the language, or they're > > new to it. It's more about the lack of care that they're taking in > > communicating, explaining, and marketing the product. If they can't > > even put the minimal effort to learn the international standard (for > > better or worse) that is the English language, or even get a friend > > to check their grammar, how can one trust them to put care into their > > work? > > I'm not so sure. Taking Jim's example (else-thread), sometimes you hire > a professional translator and get some weird stuff without knowing it. > You have put considerable effort into it (by hiring a pro), but it's > still not good, or even correct. You may even hire (or ask) a native... > we all know to what this can lead :) > > In general, I don't think that you can conclude from a badly written > text that the originator didn't put adequate effort into it, nor that > the substance behind it is on the same level as the text. The former > because of the reasons I described in the first paragraph, and the > second because it's the first argument that makes you affirm the > second... and because the skill set is different. > > > In this day and age, there's no excuse for not taking the extra five > > minutes to double check your grammar, > > Good luck with checking the grammar of a language that you don't speak > fluently, and in five minutes. Google translator is not up to snuff... > > Gerhard > -- > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .