AIBU - Is this proper English?

[alwayslookinginthecupboard]

My DD had a history test the other day and the Source below was given to them and they had to answer questions regarding it. I thought it was quite badly written English ( it had been translated for the test from another language), would anyone agree?

That first paragraph is pretty bad, yes!

Isn’t that the point of some of the interpretation in the question though? That interpreting historical sources from another language adds another layer of complexity into the interpretation?

Yes, clearly not translated by a native English speaker! or translated by one who was fast asleep

http://www.wcedcurriculum.westerncape.gov.za/jdownloads/GET_Task/Social%20Sciences/SS%20Grade%206%20%20Hist%20%20%20Geo/Grade%206%20SS%20FAT%20Term%201%20History%20Final.pdf

The word ingenious doesn't sit right with me, surely it ought to be indigenous?

Norestformrz: I also found that test online. The teacher had obviously downloaded it and not created it, but it doesn't make it any better English.

Mrscog: It doesn't mention that it was translated. It's just when I looked for the source online that I discovered it had been.

My problem is with the second paragraph, second sentence. "It was an ingenious (clever) community on a sandstone hill in the Limpopo valley and in the Middle Ages it was a flourishing (successful) trade with gold and other precious things to merchants (sellers) from distant lands."
My initial response is : A flourishing what? either it was a flourishing community or it had a flourishing trade.

Also the last sentence..." and they trade exotic..." Surely it is traded?

Would an excavation produce? or should it rather discover/ uncover/ etc.

When I expressed concern I was told by two senior teachers that they could see absolutely nothing wrong with the English.

If you look at the first page it shows it was written in South Africa (Western Cape province to be exact)

Norestformrz: What does that have to do with the quality of English?

Lots of historical documents look to be badly written to the modern reader. If historical texts are adapted to be 'correct' you may end up missing the point.

This is history not English.

Does it matter that much? The information is still there to be teased out by the student. History has ragged edges.

"Norestformrz: What does that have to do with the quality of English" because it's written in South African English which differs from British English in lexiogrammar...

The fact that it is written in a different form of English is historically relevant.

As a professional content writer I would be ashamed to put that kind of content out. Although it might be written in a different grammar system it should be relevant to the one of the reader especially if it is for study purposes. I have found a great many adults have little or no knowledge of what constitutes good grammar or spelling. Many also suffer from poor diction too!

I don't think it is that historically significant if we are in South Africa and this was presented as the passage that questions were based upon. It is not presented as a historical ( time wise) source but is actually fairly contemporary (written in 2013). I appreciate that if we were in another country it may have a different relevance but my question was just whether anyone else felt it was clumsy and linguistically lacking.

Sportinguista The point is it was written for another country not the U.K.

Norestformrz: Why is that the point? I am in South Africa and think it is full of linguistic errors. I question that it has much to do with a "South African lexiogrammar" and more to do with the fact that it is a poor translation by someone who is not a mother tongue English speaker and who has translated words literally without regard for the conventions of the English language.

The.... in the first paragraph signifies that some of the text has been skipped. So this is definitely a excerpt of some sort. I would agree that it is either poorly written or a poor translation.

The past tense in South Africa is still "traded" rather than "trade".