Re: [atlarge-discuss] Translation issues

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Ron and all stakeholders or other interested parties,

  Sure Ron.  The way you yourself can do that is to take a remedial
reading course and work  you way up from there.  When you have
completed up through grade 6 reading course, you can than again
re-read what I posted below and understand it just fine!  >;)

Ron Sherwood wrote:

> 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
> >
> >

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