[blml] he, he/she, or they for whom the bell tolls

[Peter Eidt]

(A) - what else ? (???)

As we have singular/plural/masculine and feminine in
German as well, I translated this sentence.


From: Robert Geller 
> The Introduction to the 2007 Laws contains the following sentence.
> **************************************************
> Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular
> includes the plural and the masculine includes the feminine, and vice
> versa.
> ****************************************************
> This sentence makes perfect sense as applied to the English
> language version of the laws.
> 
> On the other hand, in the Japanese language there are no "masculine"
> or "feminine" forms used in the 2007 Laws (basically the "...if he
> has...," and so on, which are so common in English, are not used at
> all in ordinary Japanese).  Similarly, the Japanese language doesn't
> have "singular" or "plural" forms either.   That being the case, this
> sentence makes no sense whatsoever as applied to the Japanese edition
> of the 2007 Laws.
> 
> How then should we treat this sentence?
> (A) Omit it from the Japanese laws altogether as it is irrelevant to
> the Japanese language?
> (B) Include a literal translation in the Japanese edition even though
> it makes no sense, because the RA in each NBO should translate
> everything exactly as it stands in the English edition?
> (C) Other (please specify)
> 
> Any opinions?   Also, any reports on how this sentence was handled in
> other countries?