Re: [atlarge-discuss] Translation issues

["Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>]

Good evening, Jeff:

    Would you please translate your responses into English.

Thank you, Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: <espresso@e-scape.net>
Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Translation issues


> Judyth and all stakeholders or other interested parties,
>
> espresso@e-scape.net wrote:
>
> > At 21:37 -0700 2002/08/17, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > >  As I said above your remarks here, these tools can "do much of
> > >the work", but certainly not all.  Hence, as a very useful and
> > >broadly used tools translation facilities are very helpful.  Of
> > >course proof reading would be needed to correct any small errors
> > >or other more verbose ones after such translations have been
> > >done...
> >
> > Verbosity has nothing to do with it, Jeff. The best translation tools
available fall into two categories:
> >
> > 1) computer-assisted translation programs, which work magnificently for
technical documents written with a tightly-constrained vocabulary and a very
plain style (e.g., the Université de Montréal's Météo program which
automatically translates weather-forecast data), failing which human
terminologists and editors have to translate the material into the form the
program understands;
> >
> > 2) translation memory programs, which in effect match words or
expressions in a document against a database of previous translations; the
results of processing a document with a TM depend very much on the extent
and quality of the database, and at best require a lot more than
"proofreading" for "small errors" -- more like a systematic line-by-line
edit of the material which, in my experience, takes almost as much time and
effort as translating the whole thing in the first place.
>
>   Yo are right that this is one such category and that the accuracy of the
> comparison database is if primary interest.  However your conclusion as
> additional personal opinion is not broadly shared.  For instance this
> type of translation software system is what is used by the UN, and works
> very well for them...
>
> > The exceptions would be things like spec sheets for 47 models of the
same type of equipment, formulaic correspondence  containing only
grammatically simple sentences, etc.
>
>   Yadda, yadda, yadda...   This is not only not a good comparison it is
not
> even in the same category either...  Such analogies/comparisions as a
> argument in response for something you obviously seem to be adverse to
> does not lend itself to being a very strong argument on it's merits or
based
> on this argument/comparision just above that you have not so kindly
provided...
>
> >
> >
> > A human translator whose accuracy falls below 98% is likely to cause the
client major problems. A TM-assisted translation which is only 80% accurate
is quite likely to confuse or misinform or irritate the reader over the
other 20% -- hardly a good outcome, and no way to persuade speakers of the
target language that we really understand them.
>
>   I have several years now of using several different types of
software/system
> based translation facilities.  They have been a watershed of a useful tool
> in reducing the human impact of translation of a host of different
documents
> both of the legal and intricate variety and of the less specific or
intricate as well..
>
> >
> >
> > >  I wasn't referring to "Babelfish" as and example.  I would not use
>"Babelfish" for verbose documents or translations...
> >
> > I'm beginning to think you're using "verbose" in a sense other than its
usual one -- that is, for any document with more complex content than a
straightforward business letter.
>
>   Yes the term "Verbose" in the obvious context I am using it is directly
equitable
> to your "more complex content than a straightforward business letter".
And much
> shorter and frankly to the well versed or advanced reader, simpler to
understand
> and use...
>
> > If so, it's true that even the most lucidly expressed, non-legalese
constitution and bylaws would qualify as verbose.
>
>   No, not necessarily.  Some bylaws are quite simple in the structure and
use of
> language and terms.  ICANN's is one such example, BTW.
>
> > However, I believe any translation of such materials needs to be at
least 99% accurate and also read smoothly in the target language; otherwise,
one shouldn't be surprised if native speakers of that language lose interest
in reading them, rather than find themselves inspired to join us.
>
>   I agree as close to 100% as is possible is what should be the goal and
at least
> a 95% accuracy would be minimal...  Hence using a translation tool to do
most
> of that work getting at least 80% without human intervention, is a huge
aid
> or assistance.
>
> >
> >
> > >As a TOOL there are many good, broadly used, and more than basically
> > >adequate translation TOOLS that can be used to do a large, but not
complete
> > >amount of the translation of documents to various languages.
> >
> > I presume the "TOOLS" you mean are things like Trados, DéjaVu, Star
Transit, etc.
>
>   No, those are pure garbage and not worth using...
>
> > -- in short, the translation memory programs which are widely promoted
and sold to businesses (including translation agencies) as a way of slashing
costs. Many of my colleagues do use these things, generally because they
deal with corporate clients producing highly repetitive documents, and
perhaps seeking to cut translation costs by paying only once for each term
used if they do not know a second language well enough to realize that the
same expression in English may have to be translated different ways in
different contexts.
>
>   Bylaws in english is usually easily understood by all native english
language readers
> or speakers.  Hence why in almost every case that I have seen in 23 years
of experience,
> I have not seen more than one version in English, French, Spanish, or
Portuguese.
> Same is true in may experience in Legal contracts many of which are quite
verbose.
> For the purposes of ICANNATLARGE.COM I believe that the same experience
> will be replicated, and hence any dialects in any of those languages as
well
> as host of others will be very unlikely save Chinese...
>
> >
> >
> > From what I've seen produced for these clients with a TM and the
proverbial quick once-over to eliminate the obvious howlers, the results are
sometimes good enough for the purpose (as in the American businessman's
propensity for "good enough documentation" as opposed to "good
documentation"), it's no wonder people in other countries consider
themselves better educated.
>
>   I am sure many form other counties do consider themselves better
educated.  I
> know that I have often met them...  Unfortunately as an american and the
land
> of the most overall advanced technologically as well as business country
ever
> known to man, I usually take such thoughts or expression there of as more
> bluster than substance...  However there are individual acceptions from
> time to time...
>
> > I also hear frequent complaints from fellow-translators that since their
consciences don't allow them to turn in inferior translations, they end up
putting in many extra unpaid hours to turn "good enough" into "good".
>
>   I suppose your concern here is really a argument of what good is as
compared
> to good enough...
>
> >
> >
> > >> >  I can get just about any kind of document translated into Chinese
>(Several dialects), Japanese, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish
>and of course Russian.
> > >>
> > >> That is excellent ... as long as you mean they'll be translated into
something native speakers would recognize as good usage in their own
languages.
> > >
> > >  Yes of course I do mean that such translations would be plainly and
>easily recognizable to native speakers of those languages...  Anything else
>would simply not be worth mentioning or considering obviously...
> >
> > Sorry to nitpick but I think there is a big difference between my
"something native speakers would recognize as good usage" and your "plainly
and easily recognizable". I am, first and foremost, a French-to-English
translator; English is my native language and I've worked hard for many
years to hone my skills so as to produce a given type of material with the
style and vocabulary appropriate to the destined readership. When pressed by
a client in a desperate hurry, I can produce a "recognizable" translation
from English to French; however, if the material is intended for anything
other than internal use, either the client or I will hire a well-educated
native speaker of French to turn the result into *good* French.
>
>   As one that has many relatives in France, and once married to a linguist
that spoke
> 9 languages as well as was a UN translator, the French have a excessive
compulsion
> for various forms of the French language when not spoken by a real
frenchman...
> Although I myself can read a french newspaper without too much trouble, I
would
> in no way call myself bilingual as french as a second language.  Yet I
have
> noticed on Jefsey's France@large Mailing list, now dormant, that much of
the
> french used there by frenchmen/women was far less that what you seem to
> call "Good"...  And that forum was a public forum.  Hence I can therefore
> only reasonable conclude that perhaps you are overreaching a bit here...
>
> >
> >
> > This is not intended as a "flame". I do understand that most of the
people on this list are not translators or editors and are probably not as
concerned with things like good usage as I am. That being said, though, if
we are serious about establishing a worldwide organization and eager to
communicate our message to speakers of other languages, I don't think
providing rough approximations will do.
>
>   I don't thinks so either.  NOR was I suggesting or ever stated such.  I
am only
> suggesting that translation software tools are and aid in reducing the
load on this
> burgeoning organization with proofreading being reduced and turnaround on
> documents as something that is produces a "Good" translation...  Hence
either
> you misunderstood what I have been saying, or?????
>
> >
> >
> > For every successful ad campaign aimed at a non-English-speaking market,
there are at least a dozen *avoidable* failures. If this organization-to-be
is to succeed, I think we need to learn from those failures.
>
>   Many failures of a minor sort are usually avoidable but yet not avoided.
The reasons
> for lack of that avoidance are many and varied of course, but not
particularly damaging
> in the long or even the short run...
>
> > We have amongst us people who speak many different languages at home but
write in intelligible English here.
>
>   Hummm?  I thought you stated or have been arguing that JUST
"intelligible"
> is not good???  Or did I misunderstand you on that???
>
> > I hope they won't be offended if I state the obvious: that few people
who have English as a second language write it flawlessly, and that
sometimes using a single word wrongly can cause no end of misunderstandings
within a group with a common goal, let alone when the group is an aggregate
of people from different cultures with different agendas.
>
>   Yes such minor mistakes in the use of language can cause such problems.
But
> those instances are rare...
>
> >
> >
> > I could easily make myself MISunderstood in German or Spanish but if I
want to be understood, I'd write in my own language and trust a good
English-to-German or English-to-Spanish translator (not a computer program,
since no program extant really understands human language) to get my meaning
across.
>
>   Your contention that "no program extant really understands human
language" is
> a personal opinion that is not broadly shared and therefore is of limited
value...
>
> >
> >
> > Opinionated as ever,
> >
> > Judyth
> >
> > P.S. Since French, German and Spanish are amongst the languages you
cited, I'd be very interested to see the results of pumping this message or
Sotiris's report of the ALAC conference call through your translation
program. Perhaps Jefsey, Hans and Gabriel would have something to say about
the results.
> >
> > ##########################################################
> > Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
> > Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
> > ##########################################################
> > "History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once
> > they have exhausted all other alternatives." (Abba Eban)
> > ##########################################################
> > See the UNESCO OBSERVATORY ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY!
> > http://www.unesco.org/webworld/observatory
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de