New:
1. Vendetta in Death by J.D. Robb
2. Be With: Letters to a Caregiver by Mike Barnes
Reread:
1. Loyalty in Death
Thursday, October 31, 2019
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Wish strategy
1. If you ever find a genie in a bottle or some other wish-granting mechanism, here's how you do the most good:
If you get more than one wish, make the your subsequent wishes under the influence of that first wish.
2. Conversely, if you're wholly selfish, your first wish should be:
3. If you want to do good and are also a bit selfish and have more than one wish, your first wish should be:
Then wish for broadly-optimal decisions under the influence of the first wish (if it still comes out that way), and the third wish under the influence of broadly-optimal decisions.
4. Conventional wisdom is that you can't use wishes to make anyone fall in love with you, and, really, we want to be loved for who we are, not because the object of our affections has been brainwashed.
I previously theorized that a getting-to-know-you spell would be a good alternative to a love potion, and I think you could also do the same thing with wishes.
If you're brave, your wish could be:
If you're more cautious, your wish could be:
That way, they still fall in love with you (or not) on your own merits, they just fast-forward to knowing what those merits are.
I wish that every decision ever made from now on will be optimal on as broad a level as possible.
If you get more than one wish, make the your subsequent wishes under the influence of that first wish.
2. Conversely, if you're wholly selfish, your first wish should be:
I wish that every decision ever made from now on will be optimal for me.
3. If you want to do good and are also a bit selfish and have more than one wish, your first wish should be:
I wish that nothing will ever get worse for me or anyone I care about.
Then wish for broadly-optimal decisions under the influence of the first wish (if it still comes out that way), and the third wish under the influence of broadly-optimal decisions.
4. Conventional wisdom is that you can't use wishes to make anyone fall in love with you, and, really, we want to be loved for who we are, not because the object of our affections has been brainwashed.
I previously theorized that a getting-to-know-you spell would be a good alternative to a love potion, and I think you could also do the same thing with wishes.
If you're brave, your wish could be:
I wish that [object of my affection] will know everything about me.
If you're more cautious, your wish could be:
I wish that [object of my affection] will know everything about me that they perceive to be positive.
That way, they still fall in love with you (or not) on your own merits, they just fast-forward to knowing what those merits are.
Saturday, October 26, 2019
Voted
I usually blog about my voting experience directly after the election, but I've had an extremely busy week so I'm not getting to it until now.
Voting went literally as quickly as humanly possible. I walked out the door straight to the polling place (pausing only to pet two friendly dogs who proactively greeted me). There was no line at the door, there was no line at the table for my poll, I cast my vote immediately and walked straight home. No more than 10 minutes elapsed between locking my door on the way out of the apartment and unlocking the door on the way back in.
I saw more than the usual amount of signs this time around, in the usual proportions. On the weekend before the election, a fringe candidate in my riding put up a bunch of signs on lampposts - some at the perfect height to smack pedestrians in the face, others so high up that the property owners would need a ladder to remove them. The next day, I noticed that many of the face-height signs were battered and torn.
I got one flyer each from my Liberal, NDP and Conservative candidates. The Liberal and NDP flyers were the usual boilerplate. The Conservative flyer managed to assume both that I'm wealthier than I actually am and that I have a harder time making ends meet than I actually do. It also failed to mention the candidate's name.
The Conservative candidate also had a branded SUV that they kept parking just outside the riding (probably because my neighbourhood marks the boundary of three ridings and street parking is scarce.) I can't tell if this was an advertising measure or if that was just their campaign vehicle. (Do candidates in transit-intensive urban neighbourhoods have campaign vehicles?)
One thing I do appreciate is that my Liberal candidate's campaign office configured their phone service so that a name showed up on call display. I find that fewer and fewer callers are doing that lately, and I particularly appreciate knowing who's calling when it's for a legitimate reason. I don't know if any of the other campaigns called me. I didn't get any voicemail messages from them or see any of their names on call display, and I don't answer the phone to unknown numbers.
Voting went literally as quickly as humanly possible. I walked out the door straight to the polling place (pausing only to pet two friendly dogs who proactively greeted me). There was no line at the door, there was no line at the table for my poll, I cast my vote immediately and walked straight home. No more than 10 minutes elapsed between locking my door on the way out of the apartment and unlocking the door on the way back in.
I saw more than the usual amount of signs this time around, in the usual proportions. On the weekend before the election, a fringe candidate in my riding put up a bunch of signs on lampposts - some at the perfect height to smack pedestrians in the face, others so high up that the property owners would need a ladder to remove them. The next day, I noticed that many of the face-height signs were battered and torn.
I got one flyer each from my Liberal, NDP and Conservative candidates. The Liberal and NDP flyers were the usual boilerplate. The Conservative flyer managed to assume both that I'm wealthier than I actually am and that I have a harder time making ends meet than I actually do. It also failed to mention the candidate's name.
The Conservative candidate also had a branded SUV that they kept parking just outside the riding (probably because my neighbourhood marks the boundary of three ridings and street parking is scarce.) I can't tell if this was an advertising measure or if that was just their campaign vehicle. (Do candidates in transit-intensive urban neighbourhoods have campaign vehicles?)
One thing I do appreciate is that my Liberal candidate's campaign office configured their phone service so that a name showed up on call display. I find that fewer and fewer callers are doing that lately, and I particularly appreciate knowing who's calling when it's for a legitimate reason. I don't know if any of the other campaigns called me. I didn't get any voicemail messages from them or see any of their names on call display, and I don't answer the phone to unknown numbers.
Saturday, October 19, 2019
Voters' Resources (Canada 2019 edition)
Getting started
Election Day is October 21!
First, go to the Elections Canada website and type in your postal code to find out if you're registered to vote, your riding, your candidates, and where to vote.
You need ID to vote. Here's the list of acceptable combinations of ID.
Your employer needs to allow you three consecutive hours off during voting hours.
Platforms
Bloc Québécois (PDF)
Conservative Party
Green Party
Liberal Party
New Democratic Party
My posts about deciding how to vote
How to decide who to vote for
How to decide where to vote if you have a choice
How to vote strategically
To figure out which party is best for you
CBC Vote Compass
Political Compass: compare your results on the test with the Canadian federal elections 2019 chart
Riding-by-riding predictions
Election Prediction Project
338 Canada
LISPOP
Too Close to Call
This post will be updated through to Election Day as I find more information. Do you know of anything else that should be included here? Are any of the links dead? Let me know in the comments!
Election Day is October 21!
First, go to the Elections Canada website and type in your postal code to find out if you're registered to vote, your riding, your candidates, and where to vote.
You need ID to vote. Here's the list of acceptable combinations of ID.
Your employer needs to allow you three consecutive hours off during voting hours.
Platforms
Bloc Québécois (PDF)
Conservative Party
Green Party
Liberal Party
New Democratic Party
My posts about deciding how to vote
How to decide who to vote for
How to decide where to vote if you have a choice
How to vote strategically
To figure out which party is best for you
CBC Vote Compass
Political Compass: compare your results on the test with the Canadian federal elections 2019 chart
Riding-by-riding predictions
Election Prediction Project
338 Canada
LISPOP
Too Close to Call
This post will be updated through to Election Day as I find more information. Do you know of anything else that should be included here? Are any of the links dead? Let me know in the comments!
How to vote strategically
This is part of my Voters' Resources post.
Some people vote for the party whose platform they find most suitable (the Best Party). If that's what you're trying to do, this post isn't for you. Go vote for the Best Party.
Other people try to prevent the party whose platform they find most harmful (the Worst Party) from being elected, by voting for the party that's most likely to defeat the Worst Party (the Compromise Party). This is called strategic voting.
The most important thing about strategic voting is that your strategy has to apply to the reality in your riding. The media feeds us national polls for breakfast every day, but they're not directly relevant. Regardless of what the rest of the country is doing, your vote will only be used to elect the MP for your own riding. If your riding is already disinclined to elect the Worst Party, there's no point in a strategic vote - you'd just end up making the Compromise Party look more popular than they really are.
So here's what to do if your priority is stopping the Worst Party from winning:
1. Ask yourself: "If I don't vote, who's going to win in this particular riding?"
If the answer is a party other than the Worst Party, vote for the Best Party. If the answer is "the Worst Party" or "it's too close to tell," go on to step 2.
2. Ask yourself: "If I don't vote, who's most likely to defeat the Worst Party in this particular riding?"
This is your Compromise Party. Read their platform. If it's acceptable, vote for the Compromise Party. If it's not acceptable, vote for the Best Party.
Remember: ignore the national polls; think only about the situation in your riding!
Links to tools to help you figure out what's going to happen in your riding are available in the Voters' Resources post
Some people vote for the party whose platform they find most suitable (the Best Party). If that's what you're trying to do, this post isn't for you. Go vote for the Best Party.
Other people try to prevent the party whose platform they find most harmful (the Worst Party) from being elected, by voting for the party that's most likely to defeat the Worst Party (the Compromise Party). This is called strategic voting.
The most important thing about strategic voting is that your strategy has to apply to the reality in your riding. The media feeds us national polls for breakfast every day, but they're not directly relevant. Regardless of what the rest of the country is doing, your vote will only be used to elect the MP for your own riding. If your riding is already disinclined to elect the Worst Party, there's no point in a strategic vote - you'd just end up making the Compromise Party look more popular than they really are.
So here's what to do if your priority is stopping the Worst Party from winning:
1. Ask yourself: "If I don't vote, who's going to win in this particular riding?"
If the answer is a party other than the Worst Party, vote for the Best Party. If the answer is "the Worst Party" or "it's too close to tell," go on to step 2.
2. Ask yourself: "If I don't vote, who's most likely to defeat the Worst Party in this particular riding?"
This is your Compromise Party. Read their platform. If it's acceptable, vote for the Compromise Party. If it's not acceptable, vote for the Best Party.
Remember: ignore the national polls; think only about the situation in your riding!
Links to tools to help you figure out what's going to happen in your riding are available in the Voters' Resources post
How to decide where to vote (if you have a choice)
This is part of my Voters' Resources post.
Some people (such as university students renting housing in the community where they go to school who also still have their parents' house as their "permanent address") are in a situation where they could legitimately vote in one of two possible ridings. This post is intended to help them decide where to vote.
1. If one of the ridings is a really close race, vote in that riding. If both are close, vote in the riding with the closest race. If neither is really close, follow the instructions below.
2. Of the parties running candidates in your riding, decide which one has the best platform that comes closest to meeting your needs and your vision for the country (hereafter the Best Party). Then decide which one has the worst platform that is furthest from meeting your needs and deviates the most from your vision for the country (hereafter the Worst Party). You are judging the parties as a whole, not the individual candidates in your riding. Assess each party individually without regard to possible strategic voting - that comes later.
3. Based on your own needs and your own vision for the country, decide whether it is more important to you that the Best Party win, or that the Worst Party does not win.
4. If it's more important to you that the Best Party win, vote for the Best Party in the riding where the Best Party is least likely to win.
5. If it's more important to you that the Worst Party not win, and the Worst Party has a chance in either of your ridings, vote for the party most likely to defeat the Worst Party in the riding where the Worst Party is most likely to win.
6. If the Worst Party doesn't have a chance in either of your ridings, vote for the Best Party in the riding where the Best Party is least likely to win.
Tools to help you figure out where you're eligible to vote and which party is most likely to win in your ridings can be found in the Voters' Resources post
Some people (such as university students renting housing in the community where they go to school who also still have their parents' house as their "permanent address") are in a situation where they could legitimately vote in one of two possible ridings. This post is intended to help them decide where to vote.
1. If one of the ridings is a really close race, vote in that riding. If both are close, vote in the riding with the closest race. If neither is really close, follow the instructions below.
2. Of the parties running candidates in your riding, decide which one has the best platform that comes closest to meeting your needs and your vision for the country (hereafter the Best Party). Then decide which one has the worst platform that is furthest from meeting your needs and deviates the most from your vision for the country (hereafter the Worst Party). You are judging the parties as a whole, not the individual candidates in your riding. Assess each party individually without regard to possible strategic voting - that comes later.
3. Based on your own needs and your own vision for the country, decide whether it is more important to you that the Best Party win, or that the Worst Party does not win.
4. If it's more important to you that the Best Party win, vote for the Best Party in the riding where the Best Party is least likely to win.
5. If it's more important to you that the Worst Party not win, and the Worst Party has a chance in either of your ridings, vote for the party most likely to defeat the Worst Party in the riding where the Worst Party is most likely to win.
6. If the Worst Party doesn't have a chance in either of your ridings, vote for the Best Party in the riding where the Best Party is least likely to win.
Tools to help you figure out where you're eligible to vote and which party is most likely to win in your ridings can be found in the Voters' Resources post
How to decide which party to vote for
This is part of my Voters' Resources post
1. Of the parties running candidates in your riding, determine which one has the best platform that comes closest to meeting your needs and your vision of Canada (hereinafter the Best Party). Then determine which one has the worst platform that is furthest from meeting your needs and deviates the most from your vision of Canada (hereinafter the Worst Party). You are judging the parties as a whole, not the individual candidates in your riding. Assess each party individually without regard to possible strategic voting - that comes later.
2. Based on your own needs and your own vision for Canada, decide whether it is more important to you that the Best Party win, or that the Worst Party does not win.
3. If it is more important to you that the Best Party wins, vote for the Best Party. If not, continue to the next step.
4. If it is more important to you that the Worst Party does not win, assess the Worst Party's chances of winning in your riding. Not in the country as a whole, just in your riding. If you feel that there's too great a risk of the Worst Party winning in your riding, vote for the party most likely to defeat the Worst Party. If you feel the risk of the Worst Party winning in your riding is acceptably low, vote for the Best Party.
Remember: do NOT use national polls to inform any strategic voting you might choose to do. Your vote is only effective in your riding. No matter how earnestly you vote, you cannot cancel out votes in another riding. Vote strategically only if the situation in your very own riding demands it, regardless of what the rest of the country is doing.
Information about how to find who's running in your riding and links to party platforms can be found in the Voters' Resources post. Further information on how to assess parties' chances in your riding and other aspects of effective strategic voting can be found in the How To Vote Strategically post.
1. Of the parties running candidates in your riding, determine which one has the best platform that comes closest to meeting your needs and your vision of Canada (hereinafter the Best Party). Then determine which one has the worst platform that is furthest from meeting your needs and deviates the most from your vision of Canada (hereinafter the Worst Party). You are judging the parties as a whole, not the individual candidates in your riding. Assess each party individually without regard to possible strategic voting - that comes later.
2. Based on your own needs and your own vision for Canada, decide whether it is more important to you that the Best Party win, or that the Worst Party does not win.
3. If it is more important to you that the Best Party wins, vote for the Best Party. If not, continue to the next step.
4. If it is more important to you that the Worst Party does not win, assess the Worst Party's chances of winning in your riding. Not in the country as a whole, just in your riding. If you feel that there's too great a risk of the Worst Party winning in your riding, vote for the party most likely to defeat the Worst Party. If you feel the risk of the Worst Party winning in your riding is acceptably low, vote for the Best Party.
Remember: do NOT use national polls to inform any strategic voting you might choose to do. Your vote is only effective in your riding. No matter how earnestly you vote, you cannot cancel out votes in another riding. Vote strategically only if the situation in your very own riding demands it, regardless of what the rest of the country is doing.
Information about how to find who's running in your riding and links to party platforms can be found in the Voters' Resources post. Further information on how to assess parties' chances in your riding and other aspects of effective strategic voting can be found in the How To Vote Strategically post.
Saturday, October 12, 2019
Analogy for spicy food
Imagine you're at an amazing concert - the music is beautiful, the lyrics are deep, the artistry is incredible...except someone pointed a microphone at a speaker, causing loud high-pitched feedback.
The feedback is so loud and high-pitched that it causes you physical pain. It's louder than the music, it's hurting and hurting and getting worse the longer you hear it, and no one is doing anything to fix it for the duration of the entire concert.
That's what it's like to eat spicy food when you have a low tolerance for spiciness.
It hurts (the roof of your mouth, your tongue, your esophagus), and the pain gets worse the more you eat. On top of that, it completely overwhelms and buries the other flavours of the rest of the food, so you can't even perceive the interaction of the other flavours and textures. You may as well be eating spicy chalk.
People who enjoy spicy food seem to feel that the spiciness interacts interestingly with the other flavours.
But, for those of us with a low tolerance, that's like saying that the microphone feedback harmonizes delightfully with the rest of the music. We can't even tell, because it hurts and we can't even hear the delightful harmonies beneath.
Sometimes, people who enjoy spicy food point out that all spices are different, and, if you think a particular cuisine is too spicy for you, it's likely just one spice or style of preparation that's causing that effect, and you should try a variety of dishes and narrow down what exactly is bothering you.
That's like if you go to a concert at a particular venue and there's a lot of painful feedback. But when you say you don't want to go to that venue any more, people say "It's just that one set-up. You should go to more concerts there to see if they have other set-ups that don't cause the feedback." But why would you subject yourself to more pain to pinpoint the precise source of the pain when you could just go to one of the many other concert venues in the city, or listen to your own music at home?
The feedback is so loud and high-pitched that it causes you physical pain. It's louder than the music, it's hurting and hurting and getting worse the longer you hear it, and no one is doing anything to fix it for the duration of the entire concert.
That's what it's like to eat spicy food when you have a low tolerance for spiciness.
It hurts (the roof of your mouth, your tongue, your esophagus), and the pain gets worse the more you eat. On top of that, it completely overwhelms and buries the other flavours of the rest of the food, so you can't even perceive the interaction of the other flavours and textures. You may as well be eating spicy chalk.
People who enjoy spicy food seem to feel that the spiciness interacts interestingly with the other flavours.
But, for those of us with a low tolerance, that's like saying that the microphone feedback harmonizes delightfully with the rest of the music. We can't even tell, because it hurts and we can't even hear the delightful harmonies beneath.
Sometimes, people who enjoy spicy food point out that all spices are different, and, if you think a particular cuisine is too spicy for you, it's likely just one spice or style of preparation that's causing that effect, and you should try a variety of dishes and narrow down what exactly is bothering you.
That's like if you go to a concert at a particular venue and there's a lot of painful feedback. But when you say you don't want to go to that venue any more, people say "It's just that one set-up. You should go to more concerts there to see if they have other set-ups that don't cause the feedback." But why would you subject yourself to more pain to pinpoint the precise source of the pain when you could just go to one of the many other concert venues in the city, or listen to your own music at home?
Wednesday, October 02, 2019
[X] or [X+1] [noun]s
A turn of phrase I've noticed recently, although it seems old-fashioned (or possibly British) is "[X] or [X+1] [noun]s".
Examples:
- "An army of 300 or 400 soldiers."
- "I drove there with 2 or 3 friends."
- "The house had 13 or 14 windows."
This turn of phrase is interesting to me, because I think it has connotations and I can't tell what they are. I suspect it's not (or perhaps not always) literal - like how "a dozen eggs" means literally 12 eggs, but "a dozen people in line" can mean 10 or 14.
Does "300 or 400 soldiers" mean between 300 and 400? Or might it be 298 or 407? Or might it be between 300 and 500? (i.e. "three hundred and something or four hundred and something")? The speaker knows, I can't tell.
The "2 or 3 friends" phase is a real-life example, i.e. someone actually said that. (Unfortunately, I didn't save the source.) That's a situation where they'd actually know the real number - surely when it's only 2 or 3 people, you can remember who exactly was there. So why did they phrase it that way?
This sounds like a strange thing to worry about - even if I don't know what the speaker's thinking, it's clear enough for our purposes - but this kind of thing is sometimes relevant in translation, when the target language doesn't do the same thing with numbers or doesn't have the same connotations.
For example, in French they have the word dizaine, deriving from dix, meaning 10. As I mentioned above, in English we have "dozen", which means either "12" or "approximately 12" depending on the context. (French also has douzaine, meaning "dozen".) Dizaine does the same thing with 10 as "dozen" does with 12 - it either means "10" or "approximately 10", depending on context.
But because English doesn't have a word for dizaine, the French to English translator needs to figure out from context where this particular instance of dizaine means "10" or "approximately 10", and whether the approximateness needs to be explicitly stated in the translation. (For example, if I say "Cassandra can cook Thanksgiving dinner for 10 all by herself!" and there were really 11 people at dinner, no harm is done by my saying 10. If I say "Cassandra invited her 10 nieces and nephews to Thanksgiving dinner" and Cassandra actually has 11 nieces and nephews, someone might read that and wonder whom Cassandra has disowned.)
This doesn't seem like it would be relevant to translating "[x] or [x+1]" - all languages have words for numbers and for the concept of "or". (And if there are any that don't, please let me know in the comments!) You can just plug the words for the numbers and for "or" into the sentence, and the translation is complete, right?
Not necessarily.
It's possible that a number phrase that's perfectly cromulent in one language might sound unduly weird in another, and the translator might have to adjust.
An example I routinely encounter in technical and administrative documents written in French is an approximating adjective followed by a non-round number, for example environ 473 voitures ("around 473 cars").
It is a simple matter to translate the words, but it sounds conspicuously weird to the English reader in a way that it doesn't to the French reader, so the English translator has to figure out the connotations (do they mean literally 473 or approximately? If they mean approximately, how did they land on that number rather than 470 or 475?) and the implications (what would be the consequences if you said "473" without any modifier and it turned out to be approximate? Or vice versa?) and adjust their translation accordingly, or find a workaround. (I like "some" as a workaround here - "some 473 cars". It conveys the notion of approximateness, but is also more easily overlooked by the English reader).
There might be some languages where "300 or 400 soldiers" also sounds conspicuously weird in a way it doesn't to the English reader, so a translator working away from English might need to understand the connotations so they can eliminate the conspicuous weirdness without eliminating accuracy.
And that translator may well ask me, in my capacity as a native-speaker Anglophone, exactly what the connotations are.
And I haven't a clue! Isn't that weird?
Examples:
- "An army of 300 or 400 soldiers."
- "I drove there with 2 or 3 friends."
- "The house had 13 or 14 windows."
This turn of phrase is interesting to me, because I think it has connotations and I can't tell what they are. I suspect it's not (or perhaps not always) literal - like how "a dozen eggs" means literally 12 eggs, but "a dozen people in line" can mean 10 or 14.
Does "300 or 400 soldiers" mean between 300 and 400? Or might it be 298 or 407? Or might it be between 300 and 500? (i.e. "three hundred and something or four hundred and something")? The speaker knows, I can't tell.
The "2 or 3 friends" phase is a real-life example, i.e. someone actually said that. (Unfortunately, I didn't save the source.) That's a situation where they'd actually know the real number - surely when it's only 2 or 3 people, you can remember who exactly was there. So why did they phrase it that way?
This sounds like a strange thing to worry about - even if I don't know what the speaker's thinking, it's clear enough for our purposes - but this kind of thing is sometimes relevant in translation, when the target language doesn't do the same thing with numbers or doesn't have the same connotations.
For example, in French they have the word dizaine, deriving from dix, meaning 10. As I mentioned above, in English we have "dozen", which means either "12" or "approximately 12" depending on the context. (French also has douzaine, meaning "dozen".) Dizaine does the same thing with 10 as "dozen" does with 12 - it either means "10" or "approximately 10", depending on context.
But because English doesn't have a word for dizaine, the French to English translator needs to figure out from context where this particular instance of dizaine means "10" or "approximately 10", and whether the approximateness needs to be explicitly stated in the translation. (For example, if I say "Cassandra can cook Thanksgiving dinner for 10 all by herself!" and there were really 11 people at dinner, no harm is done by my saying 10. If I say "Cassandra invited her 10 nieces and nephews to Thanksgiving dinner" and Cassandra actually has 11 nieces and nephews, someone might read that and wonder whom Cassandra has disowned.)
This doesn't seem like it would be relevant to translating "[x] or [x+1]" - all languages have words for numbers and for the concept of "or". (And if there are any that don't, please let me know in the comments!) You can just plug the words for the numbers and for "or" into the sentence, and the translation is complete, right?
Not necessarily.
It's possible that a number phrase that's perfectly cromulent in one language might sound unduly weird in another, and the translator might have to adjust.
An example I routinely encounter in technical and administrative documents written in French is an approximating adjective followed by a non-round number, for example environ 473 voitures ("around 473 cars").
It is a simple matter to translate the words, but it sounds conspicuously weird to the English reader in a way that it doesn't to the French reader, so the English translator has to figure out the connotations (do they mean literally 473 or approximately? If they mean approximately, how did they land on that number rather than 470 or 475?) and the implications (what would be the consequences if you said "473" without any modifier and it turned out to be approximate? Or vice versa?) and adjust their translation accordingly, or find a workaround. (I like "some" as a workaround here - "some 473 cars". It conveys the notion of approximateness, but is also more easily overlooked by the English reader).
There might be some languages where "300 or 400 soldiers" also sounds conspicuously weird in a way it doesn't to the English reader, so a translator working away from English might need to understand the connotations so they can eliminate the conspicuous weirdness without eliminating accuracy.
And that translator may well ask me, in my capacity as a native-speaker Anglophone, exactly what the connotations are.
And I haven't a clue! Isn't that weird?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)