vary only in a few words from one-another but even then,the meaning can be drastically altered. There is after all,a great chasm between "Thou shall not kill" as some have it and "Thou shall not murder" as others translate it.
This IMHO isn't the best example, but it is interesting because it involves two translations for us modern English speakers. There is the Hebrew/LXX Greek to 1611 English, and the translation of 1611 English to modern English.
IMHO Jake's point is important. English has veered drastically over time. However, the drift exists in all languages. The biggest "gotcha" that I run into both in English and Greek are subtle changes in the meanings of words that don't change spelling (or do so trivially).
One example is the 18th century English word "regulated," which means "disciplined" or "trained." This stands in contrast to the modern meaning of "controlled." If a person is not aware of the semantic shift, one can easily come to incorrect conclusions.
This certainly exists in the other languages that haven't drifted as much, but I couldn't speak to the frequency of the shifts. I would guess that it's proportionate.
Could some of the subtleties in the source texts simply be lost in the translation and therefore much of what we think we know is in fact ever open to debate? I fear translation is as much art as science.
Translation
is an art. It's not about dictionaries and grammar. If that were true, computers could do it with precision and accuracy. It's about understanding the original ideas, and preserving them as best as is possible across lingustic and cultural boundaries. This takes a lot of practice, and a good understanding of the cultures.
In one conversation I disputed the notion that "some things simply cannot be translated," the example being "the Red, White, and Blue." I immediately provided the Demotic equivalent, "Blue and White." I didn't translate the words, but the ideas and emotions that the phrase "Red, White, and Blue" evoke.
The mistake the person made was assuming that translating consisted of a dictionary lookup. If that were true, then he would be correct because the sequence of three colours would not evoke the patriotic ideas that it carries in American English. However, understanding the ideas, it is simple to translate because every culture (that I know of) has a concise method of conveying the idea of patriotism and pride in one's country.
In the context of the fighting manuals, I believe that the ARMA method is critical because it allows us to obtain an understanding of the topic that cannot be had any other way. If dictionary lookup was the key to translation, then ivory-tower scholars could produce definitive translations that we can all rely on. There are places where ARMA can say with authority that "Mr. ____ is full of s***" because we can demonstrate it. Mr. ____ was simply pontificating from a purely academic viewpoint without handling a sword.
Could it be that while the Masters of old had more in common tactically that not, that todays scholars are forced to rely on their own reasoning in the absense of battlefield experience
Possibly. I also suspect that a problem is that we may misplace the context of the manuals. Technical writing as we know it didn't exist in the Middle Ages and Rennaisance. The specifics with regard to "to wait or not to wait" can be fuzzy to us because of a mismatch between information that we expect to see and information that exists in the manual.
