Welcome to the Judaism community on Codidact!

Will you help us build our community of learners? Drop into our study hall, ask questions, help others with answers to their questions, share a d'var torah if you're so inclined, invite your friends, and join us in building this community together. Not an ask-the-rabbi service, just people at all levels learning together.

Post History

50%

+1 −1

Meta What is our policy regarding using non-English languages in a post?

My opinion: Should we allow users to write questions in non-English languages? No. The primary language of the site should be English, so each question should be substantially English for the f...

posted 4y ago by manassehkatz‭ · edited 4y ago by Dani‭

Answer

#3: Post edited by

Dani‭ · 2020-07-23T02:09:40Z (almost 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

My *opinion*:
~~> 1. hould we allow users to write questions in non-English languages?~~
No. The primary language of the site should be English, so each question should be substantially English for the functional question. It may depend upon Hebrew (Aramaic, etc.) text for part of the question, but it should be discoverable and substantially understandable by any English speaker.
> 2. Should we allow users to write questions in specifically Hebrew or other Jewish languages like Judeo-Aramaic, Yiddish, and Ladino?
No, unless they provide it in both English and the alternate language.
> 3. Should we require the question to be written entirely in English where possible?
No. Hebrew (Aramaic, etc.) can significantly enhance a question. In fact, there may be questions (already one example of "b'mezid" vs. "intentional") where *only* a simple translation leaves out key meaning of the question.
> 4. In instances where a word cannot be fully translated into English (particularly legal or technical terminology), should we require the word to be at least transliterated into English, or should it be left in Hebrew script?
No. It really depends on the word. Sometimes a word just really has no simple translation, and transliteration is, by itself, often not that useful. Using the "b'mezid" example, that is a word where it could be in Hebrew or in transliteration, or both, but including the basic translation ("intentional") is very helpful even though it is not a complete/Halachically precise translation.
But I can see other words (particularly names of people/places, names of non-kosher birds or animals from the Chumash, etc.) where a translation is counter-productive if the question is "what is this?" and a transliteration really doesn't help much. In such cases, a *reference* (Sefaria link if possible) together with the Hebrew text and English text of the rest of the question would work well.
> 5. In instances where a word cannot be fully translated into English (particularly legal or technical terminology), should we require an in-line translation of the word as well?
I think it depends on the word. "Fully translated" can range from "pretty close" (like "b'mezid" vs. "intentional") to "almost pure guesswork" (some bird or animal names).
> 6. When citing Judaic literature in a non-English language, should we require users to include a translation of the excerpt as well?
Require, no. Often providing a translation in the excerpt would either self-answer the question (so if they could do that, they wouldn't be asking) or bias the answer (due to too many words that have variant meaning). That being said, I think if a reasonable translation is readily available *and having the translation present doesn't significantly affect the intent of the question*, then including a translation is a good idea.
An example of that (on Mi Yodeya, not here):
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/115362/shlish-mi-yodeya/115407#115407
I originally referenced Bamidbar 28:14 (since that is the Pasuk that came to mind). I included the translation. It was changed to reference Bamidbar 15:6-7 *arguably better because it is an earlier reference and has the key word Shlishi twice, so I really have no problem with that* but no translation was included. (I just added the translation now.)

My *opinion*:
> 1. Should we allow users to write questions in non-English languages?
No. The primary language of the site should be English, so each question should be substantially English for the functional question. It may depend upon Hebrew (Aramaic, etc.) text for part of the question, but it should be discoverable and substantially understandable by any English speaker.
> 2. Should we allow users to write questions in specifically Hebrew or other Jewish languages like Judeo-Aramaic, Yiddish, and Ladino?
No, unless they provide it in both English and the alternate language.
> 3. Should we require the question to be written entirely in English where possible?
No. Hebrew (Aramaic, etc.) can significantly enhance a question. In fact, there may be questions (already one example of "b'mezid" vs. "intentional") where *only* a simple translation leaves out key meaning of the question.
> 4. In instances where a word cannot be fully translated into English (particularly legal or technical terminology), should we require the word to be at least transliterated into English, or should it be left in Hebrew script?
No. It really depends on the word. Sometimes a word just really has no simple translation, and transliteration is, by itself, often not that useful. Using the "b'mezid" example, that is a word where it could be in Hebrew or in transliteration, or both, but including the basic translation ("intentional") is very helpful even though it is not a complete/Halachically precise translation.
But I can see other words (particularly names of people/places, names of non-kosher birds or animals from the Chumash, etc.) where a translation is counter-productive if the question is "what is this?" and a transliteration really doesn't help much. In such cases, a *reference* (Sefaria link if possible) together with the Hebrew text and English text of the rest of the question would work well.
> 5. In instances where a word cannot be fully translated into English (particularly legal or technical terminology), should we require an in-line translation of the word as well?
I think it depends on the word. "Fully translated" can range from "pretty close" (like "b'mezid" vs. "intentional") to "almost pure guesswork" (some bird or animal names).
> 6. When citing Judaic literature in a non-English language, should we require users to include a translation of the excerpt as well?
Require, no. Often providing a translation in the excerpt would either self-answer the question (so if they could do that, they wouldn't be asking) or bias the answer (due to too many words that have variant meaning). That being said, I think if a reasonable translation is readily available *and having the translation present doesn't significantly affect the intent of the question*, then including a translation is a good idea.
An example of that (on Mi Yodeya, not here):
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/115362/shlish-mi-yodeya/115407#115407
I originally referenced Bamidbar 28:14 (since that is the Pasuk that came to mind). I included the translation. It was changed to reference Bamidbar 15:6-7 *arguably better because it is an earlier reference and has the key word Shlishi twice, so I really have no problem with that* but no translation was included. (I just added the translation now.)

#2: Post edited by

manassehkatz‭ · 2020-07-22T22:11:55Z (almost 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

My *opinion*:
> 1. hould we allow users to write questions in non-English languages?
No. The primary language of the site should be English, so each question should be substantially English for the functional question. It may depend upon Hebrew (Aramaic, etc.) text for part of the question, but it should be discoverable and substantially understandable by any English speaker.
> 2. Should we allow users to write questions in specifically Hebrew or other Jewish languages like Judeo-Aramaic, Yiddish, and Ladino?
No, unless they provide it in both English and the alternate language.
> 3. Should we require the question to be written entirely in English where possible?
No. Hebrew (Aramaic, etc.) can significantly enhance a question. In fact, there may be questions (already one example of "b'mezid" vs. "intentional") where *only* a simple translation leaves out key meaning of the question.
> 4. In instances where a word cannot be fully translated into English (particularly legal or technical terminology), should we require the word to be at least transliterated into English, or should it be left in Hebrew script?
No. It really depends on the word. Sometimes a word just really has no simple translation, and transliteration is, by itself, often not that useful. Using the "b'mezid" example, that is a word where it could be in Hebrew or in transliteration, or both, but including the basic translation ("intentional") is very helpful even though it is not a complete/Halachically precise translation.
But I can see other words (particularly names of people/places, names of non-kosher birds or animals from the Chumash, etc.) where a translation is counter-productive if the question is "what is this?" and a transliteration really doesn't help much. In such cases, a *reference* (Sefaria link if possible) together with the Hebrew text and English text of the rest of the question would work well.
> 5. In instances where a word cannot be fully translated into English (particularly legal or technical terminology), should we require an in-line translation of the word as well?
I think it depends on the word. "Fully translated" can range from "pretty close" (like "b'mezid" vs. "intentional") to "almost pure guesswork" (some bird or animal names).
> 6. When citing Judaic literature in a non-English language, should we require users to include a translation of the excerpt as well?
Require, no. Often providing a translation in the excerpt would either self-answer the question (so if they could do that, they wouldn't be asking) or bias the answer (due to too many words that have variant meaning). That being said, I think if a reasonable translation is readily available *and having the translation present doesn't significantly affect the intent of the question*, then including a translation is a good idea.
~~An example of that (on Mi Yodeya, not here), where I disagree with the action but decided not to revert it:~~
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/115362/shlish-mi-yodeya/115407#115407
I originally referenced Bamidbar 28:14 (since that is the Pasuk that came to mind). I included the translation. It was changed to reference Bamidbar 15:6-7 *arguably better because it is an earlier reference, so I really have no problem with that* but no translation was included. (I just added the translation now.)

My *opinion*:
> 1. hould we allow users to write questions in non-English languages?
No. The primary language of the site should be English, so each question should be substantially English for the functional question. It may depend upon Hebrew (Aramaic, etc.) text for part of the question, but it should be discoverable and substantially understandable by any English speaker.
> 2. Should we allow users to write questions in specifically Hebrew or other Jewish languages like Judeo-Aramaic, Yiddish, and Ladino?
No, unless they provide it in both English and the alternate language.
> 3. Should we require the question to be written entirely in English where possible?
No. Hebrew (Aramaic, etc.) can significantly enhance a question. In fact, there may be questions (already one example of "b'mezid" vs. "intentional") where *only* a simple translation leaves out key meaning of the question.
> 4. In instances where a word cannot be fully translated into English (particularly legal or technical terminology), should we require the word to be at least transliterated into English, or should it be left in Hebrew script?
No. It really depends on the word. Sometimes a word just really has no simple translation, and transliteration is, by itself, often not that useful. Using the "b'mezid" example, that is a word where it could be in Hebrew or in transliteration, or both, but including the basic translation ("intentional") is very helpful even though it is not a complete/Halachically precise translation.
But I can see other words (particularly names of people/places, names of non-kosher birds or animals from the Chumash, etc.) where a translation is counter-productive if the question is "what is this?" and a transliteration really doesn't help much. In such cases, a *reference* (Sefaria link if possible) together with the Hebrew text and English text of the rest of the question would work well.
> 5. In instances where a word cannot be fully translated into English (particularly legal or technical terminology), should we require an in-line translation of the word as well?
I think it depends on the word. "Fully translated" can range from "pretty close" (like "b'mezid" vs. "intentional") to "almost pure guesswork" (some bird or animal names).
> 6. When citing Judaic literature in a non-English language, should we require users to include a translation of the excerpt as well?
Require, no. Often providing a translation in the excerpt would either self-answer the question (so if they could do that, they wouldn't be asking) or bias the answer (due to too many words that have variant meaning). That being said, I think if a reasonable translation is readily available *and having the translation present doesn't significantly affect the intent of the question*, then including a translation is a good idea.
An example of that (on Mi Yodeya, not here):
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/115362/shlish-mi-yodeya/115407#115407
I originally referenced Bamidbar 28:14 (since that is the Pasuk that came to mind). I included the translation. It was changed to reference Bamidbar 15:6-7 *arguably better because it is an earlier reference and has the key word Shlishi twice, so I really have no problem with that* but no translation was included. (I just added the translation now.)

#1: Initial revision by

manassehkatz‭ · 2020-07-22T19:23:21Z (almost 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

My *opinion*:

> 1. hould we allow users to write questions in non-English languages?

No. The primary language of the site should be English, so each question should be substantially English for the functional question. It may depend upon Hebrew (Aramaic, etc.) text for part of the question, but it should be discoverable and substantially understandable by any English speaker.

> 2. Should we allow users to write questions in specifically Hebrew or other Jewish languages like Judeo-Aramaic, Yiddish, and Ladino?

No, unless they provide it in both English and the alternate language.

> 3. Should we require the question to be written entirely in English where possible?

No. Hebrew (Aramaic, etc.) can significantly enhance a question. In fact, there may be questions (already one example of "b'mezid" vs. "intentional") where *only* a simple translation leaves out key meaning of the question.

> 4. In instances where a word cannot be fully translated into English (particularly legal or technical terminology), should we require the word to be at least transliterated into English, or should it be left in Hebrew script?

No. It really depends on the word. Sometimes a word just really has no simple translation, and transliteration is, by itself, often not that useful. Using the "b'mezid" example, that is a word where it could be in Hebrew or in transliteration, or both, but including the basic translation ("intentional") is very helpful even though it is not a complete/Halachically precise translation.

But I can see other words (particularly names of people/places, names of non-kosher birds or animals from the Chumash, etc.) where a translation is counter-productive if the question is "what is this?" and a transliteration really doesn't help much. In such cases, a *reference* (Sefaria link if possible) together with the Hebrew text and English text of the rest of the question would work well.

> 5. In instances where a word cannot be fully translated into English (particularly legal or technical terminology), should we require an in-line translation of the word as well?

I think it depends on the word. "Fully translated" can range from "pretty close" (like "b'mezid" vs. "intentional") to "almost pure guesswork" (some bird or animal names).

> 6. When citing Judaic literature in a non-English language, should we require users to include a translation of the excerpt as well?

Require, no. Often providing a translation in the excerpt would either self-answer the question (so if they could do that, they wouldn't be asking) or bias the answer (due to too many words that have variant meaning). That being said, I think if a reasonable translation is readily available *and having the translation present doesn't significantly affect the intent of the question*, then including a translation is a good idea.

An example of that (on Mi Yodeya, not here), where I disagree with the action but decided not to revert it:

https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/115362/shlish-mi-yodeya/115407#115407

I originally referenced Bamidbar 28:14 (since that is the Pasuk that came to mind). I included the translation. It was changed to reference Bamidbar 15:6-7 *arguably better because it is an earlier reference, so I really have no problem with that* but no translation was included. (I just added the translation now.)

Communities

Post History