No. The sisters haven't produced a translation of the journal, to say nothing of a faithful translation.
Here is the thing. In order to translate competently, you have to go about it one of two ways. Far and the way the best method would be to live in the culture whose language you are seeking to learn. That way you would be picking up the cultural idiom and philosophical nuances as well as the vocabulary and grammar of the language and would avoid many of things that trip up many attempts at translation.
The second way is through exhaustive study. I understand that these days you have such programs as Rosetta Stone. I am not sure how far these programs can take you. Back when I did it, it was mostly done by rehearsal and reading material that became increasingly difficult as your reading skills improved. Our goal was to be able to read classical literature as well as at least rudimentary translation of the biblical languages.
Let me try to illustrate the problem. Most of us have probably read the King James Bible and/or Shakespeare in the idiom of the time. All of the thees and thous and other peculiarities can make it rough going. But we can do it...or so we think. In reality we lose about 20% of the meaning because both vocabulary and grammar have shifted to the point where it is different in our time than it was in 1602. What is really tricky is that we can think that we are getting it. And even more fun would be trying Chaucer which is older yet.
That very problem is compounded many times over when you are dealing with an altogether different language. Now consider the problem that the sisters would face. Not only is the language different, but human culture on Safehold has been evolving away from the original template for a minimum of 750 years. And no Rosetta Stone software for the sisters.
So...do they have a translation? Nope. No way.
Don
