80 replies to this topic

[Harsh86_Patel]

cormac mac airt, on 11 October 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

So you're changing the goalposts from translation to transliteration, huh? If you don't understand the language then perhaps you shouldn't critique the translation, particularly since it was the translation (not the transliteration) you claimed was misleading and rubbish.

cormac

I said "further translation" refering to transliteration.Re read the post.I said it in context of the translation and the transliteration provided by Clob.

[cormac mac airt]

Harsh86_Patel, on 11 October 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

I said "further translation" refering to transliteration.Re read the post.I said it in context of the translation and the transliteration provided by Clob.

No, you didn't. You said specifically:

Quote

Oh so you do acknowledge that the literal translation can be misleading or utter rubish and further interpretation is required for it to make sense.

If you don't understand the English in which you're writing, then perhaps you shouldn't be writing it.

cormac

[tipsy_munchkin]

cormac mac airt, on 11 October 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

So you're changing the goalposts from translation to transliteration, huh? If you don't understand the language then perhaps you shouldn't critique the translation, particularly since it was the translation (not the transliteration) you claimed was misleading and rubbish.

cormac

I must confess i glossed over and ignored the shift between translation and transliteration and continued to refer to translation. I thought it was easier to discuss the overall concept of translation than to delve into the abyss. Those conducting translations are well aware of the potential pitfalls of transliteration and also where it is useful so it seemed irrelevant to single it out from the materiel provided by scholars.

[tipsy_munchkin]

Harsh86_Patel, on 11 October 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

I said "further translation" refering to transliteration.Re read the post.I said it in context of the translation and the transliteration provided by Clob.

Further Translation does not = transliteration

Transliteration is a technique used when translating words that have no corresponding word in the target language so it is transcribed phonetically, or at least that's what i thought.

Edited by tipsy_munchkin, 11 October 2012 - 01:29 PM.

[cormac mac airt]

tipsy_munchkin, on 11 October 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

I must confess i glossed over and ignored the shift between translation and transliteration and continued to refer to translation. I thought it was easier to discuss the overall concept of translation than to delve into the abyss. Those conducting translations are well aware of the potential pitfalls of transliteration and also where it is useful so it seemed irrelevant to single it out from the materiel provided by scholars.

Evidently Harsh86_Patel isn't aware of this as he keeps putting his foot in his mouth.

cormac

[Harsh86_Patel]

cormac mac airt, on 11 October 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

Evidently Harsh86_Patel isn't aware of this as he keeps putting his foot in his mouth.

cormac

Keep raising non-issues buy dumbing yourself down.You very well understand the context in which i was saying it but you can continue.

[cormac mac airt]

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 October 2012 - 05:07 AM, said:

Keep raising non-issues buy dumbing yourself down.You very well understand the context in which i was saying it but you can continue.

Keep pretending to know what you're talking about. The rest of us see through your ignorance.

cormac

[Harsh86_Patel]

"Rest of us" cant you stand on your own and let the others come and support you as they would.Speak for yourself when passing your flimsy judgements."Rest of us" know that you are trying to raise non-issues and not contributing coherently to the topic.And incase you want to debate on semantics we can start a seperate thread.

[cormac mac airt]

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 October 2012 - 05:28 AM, said:

"Rest of us" cant you stand on your own and let the others come and support you as they would.Speak for yourself when passing your flimsy judgements."Rest of us" know that you are trying to raise non-issues and not contributing coherently to the topic.And incase you want to debate on semantics we can start a seperate thread.

Ignoring what everyone else has posted so you can take exception to what I said, because I see your posts for what they are?  Which is total BS. Sounds like you have a comprehension problem if you can't understand what everyone else has been telling you. Either that, or you prefer sticking your fingers in your ears and telling everyone else "I can't hear you". You've contributed nothing but fiction from the start, it's nobody's fault but your own that no one takes you seriously.

cormac

[Harsh86_Patel]

cormac mac airt, on 12 October 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

Ignoring what everyone else has posted so you can take exception to what I said, because I see your posts for what they are?  Which is total BS. Sounds like you have a comprehension problem if you can't understand what everyone else has been telling you. Either that, or you prefer sticking your fingers in your ears and telling everyone else "I can't hear you". You've contributed nothing but fiction from the start, it's nobody's fault but your own that no one takes you seriously.

cormac

Again your resort to "everyone" why don't you just talk about yourself or do you not have an individual back bone.I am responding to everyone who is posting and none of them are resorting to the 'everyone' 'rest of us' 'no one' trick,they are speaking for themselves and i am speaking for myself.If you think this thread is BS why come here to join "us fools",take it to the moderator.You can see my post for what they are and so can everyone else who can read are you saying you are smarter then the "rest of us"?Do you think "we" are all stupid and you are the smart one who can see through us simpletons.I am amused that you can't say one thing without "implying majority" or claiming "yourself to be superior".I am not posting here for "you" to take me seriously but inorder to discuss and debate and learn somethings new and also give some new information and i am not claiming that i know it all under the pain of being daft,something you should take a clue from.I am hearing everyone as individuals and am replying to them in my individual capacity not as an implied "Cartel".And like i said if you term this thread as Fiction then there are a whole series of threads in this section of UM that are dedicated to discussing pure fiction and that is not necessarily a bad thing but on the contrary gives oppurtunity for people to contribute their own creative ideas/theories,something i feel you are incapable of.

[cormac mac airt]

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 October 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

Again your resort to "everyone" why don't you just talk about yourself or do you not have an individual back bone.I am responding to everyone who is posting and none of them are resorting to the 'everyone' 'rest of us' 'no one' trick,they are speaking for themselves and i am speaking for myself.If you think this thread is BS why come here to join "us fools",take it to the moderator.You can see my post for what they are and so can everyone else who can read are you saying you are smarter then the "rest of us"?Do you think "we" are all stupid and you are the smart one who can see through us simpletons.I am amused that you can't say one thing without "implying majority" or claiming "yourself to be superior".I am not posting here for "you" to take me seriously but inorder to discuss and debate and learn somethings new and also give some new information and i am not claiming that i know it all under the pain of being daft,something you should take a clue from.I am hearing everyone as individuals and am replying to them in my individual capacity not as an implied "Cartel".And like i said if you term this thread as Fiction then there are a whole series of threads in this section of UM that are dedicated to discussing pure fiction and that is not necessarily a bad thing but on the contrary gives oppurtunity for people to contribute their own creative ideas/theories,something i feel you are incapable of.

You haven't said anything worthy of merit yet. I've already caught you in one fabrication and you tried to claim it was taken out of context when it was exactly what you said. In short, you got caught in a lie. Others have found you fabricating things in other areas as well. That's your doing, not anyone elses.

cormac

[Harsh86_Patel]

cormac mac airt, on 12 October 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

You haven't said anything worthy of merit yet. I've already caught you in one fabrication and you tried to claim it was taken out of context when it was exactly what you said. In short, you got caught in a lie. Others have found you fabricating things in other areas as well. That's your doing, not anyone elses.

cormac

Finally i see an improvement,you have stopped using collectives to pass of your own objections.Now there was literal translation and then a subjective transliteration provided by Clob and that is what i was trying to point out.I have not lied about anything,you might have misunderstood what i was trying to get across or i might have been deficient in my language to get it across for which i apologise.There were no lies involved so stop lying about me lying.
I can own up to my mistakes which don't amount to lies in a rational world.But i can see you are trying hard to prove i am a liar or have deliberately lied.The whole conversation is in public domain and if your read through it then it will become clear what i was objecting to.When Clob can be subjective about transliterating Old english similar respect has to be shown for tranliteration of the Vedas.I have stated the crux of my objection once again now you and the others can decide if i have lied.

[cormac mac airt]

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 October 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

Finally i see an improvement,you have stopped using collectives to pass of your own objections.Now there was literal translation and then a subjective transliteration provided by Clob and that is what i was trying to point out.I have not lied about anything,you might have misunderstood what i was trying to get across or i might have been deficient in my language to get it across for which i apologise.There were no lies involved so stop lying about me lying.
I can own up to my mistakes which don't amount to lies in a rational world.But i can see you are trying hard to prove i am a liar or have deliberately lied.The whole conversation is in public domain and if your read through it then it will become clear what i was objecting to.When Clob can be subjective about transliterating Old english similar respect has to be shown for tranliteration of the Vedas.I have stated the crux of my objection once again now you and the others can decide if i have lied.

When you made an incorrect statement the first time, I pointed it out as incorrect. But when you further claimed that you didn't say what you actually did, that was an obvious lie. Sorry, but you did it to yourself. You've already made it quite clear, both in reference to my posts as well as in your posts to others that you really don't understand as much as you think you do. An obvious shortcoming on your part that you might want to correct.

cormac

[Harsh86_Patel]

Daśāvatāras and evolution

The British geneticist and evolutionary biologist J B S Haldane observed that the Dasavataras (ten principal avatars of Lord Vishnu) provide a true sequential depiction of the great unfolding of evolution. The avatars of Vishnu show an uncanny similarity to the biological theory of evolution of life on earth.^{[39][not in citation given]} Avatars Explanation Evolution Matsya. First avatar is a fish, one which is creature living in water. If we compare it with biological evolution on different Geological Time Scale first developed life was also in the form of fish which originated duringCambrian period. Kurma Second avatar was in the form of Tortoise (reptiles). In geology also first reptiles comes as second important evolution which originated in Mississippian period just after Amphibians. Varaha Third avatar was in the form of Boar. Evolution of the amphibian to the land animal. Narasimha The Man-Lion (Nara= man, simha=lion) was the fourth avatar. But in geology no such evidences are mentioned. It may have been related with Ape Man The term may sometimes refer to extinct early human ancestors. Vamana Fifth Avatar is the dwarf man. It may be related with the first man originated during Pliocene. It may be related with Neanderthals. Neanderthals were generally only 12 to 14 cm (4½–5½ in) shorter than modern humans, contrary to a common view of them as "very short" or "just over 5 feet". Parashurama, The man with an axe was the sixth avatar. It has the similarities with the first modern man originated during Quaternary period or the man of Iron Age.
Lord Rama, Lord Krishna and Lord Buddha were the seventh, eighth and ninth other avatars of Lord Vishnu. It indicates the physical and mental changes and evolution in the man from its time of appearance.


http://en.wikipedia....istic_evolution

[Harsh86_Patel]

cormac mac airt, on 12 October 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

When you made an incorrect statement the first time, I pointed it out as incorrect. But when you further claimed that you didn't say what you actually did, that was an obvious lie. Sorry, but you did it to yourself. You've already made it quite clear, both in reference to my posts as well as in your posts to others that you really don't understand as much as you think you do. An obvious shortcoming on your part that you might want to correct.

cormac

What did i do to myself?If i make a small mistake and rectify it by restating what i actually meant,is that really a very bad thing.Does it mean i am lying or i don't have any credibility?If you are living by such strict impositons on yourself then i can only pity you.I am usually multi tasking and working when i make these posts so i feel i can excuse myself for misreading or misinterpreting slightly as long as i can verify and correct myself later.