Better English
alan
benefited from the services of a good translator! I am not a
translator, and I do not offer translation services: but what I do
provide is a service to individuals and smaller organisations to
complement translation. It is intended for those who wish their final
English text to be free from the more obvious errors, and to have a
better chance of conveying the meaning that they intended.
If you would like to know more, see http://www.enanglais.co.uk/
Alan Thornton
Toby OCM
"alan" <alan.t...@physics.org> wrote in message
news:bc4ca10f.02031...@posting.google.com...
As a matter of interest, how can you ensure that your clients "have a better
chance of conveying the meaning that they intended" if you cannot read the
original text, or make an educated guess at what the original author was
trying to say by translating bad English back into their mother tongue?
As an example, there was a discussion in this thread recently about the word
'eventual'. If you are not linguistically qualified, how will you know that
when a Dutchman or Spaniard uses 'eventual' in a badly-written English text,
they actually mean 'possible' or 'potential'? And if you don't know, how
can you possibly correct it?
--
Regards,
Toby
----
Enjoy the little things, for one day you may look back and realise they were
the big things
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.333 / Virus Database: 187 - Release Date: 08/03/02
Harlan Messinger
>I often see English text on web sites or in brochures that has not
>benefited from the services of a good translator! I am not a
>translator, and I do not offer translation services: but what I do
>provide is a service to individuals and smaller organisations to
>complement translation. It is intended for those who wish their final
>English text to be free from the more obvious errors, and to have a
>better chance of conveying the meaning that they intended.
English has a couple of words for this: "proofreading" and "editing".
If you had used one or both of them, it might have conveyed more
clearly and directly what it is you do.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
MJG
proofreading is normally part of the translation process.
María
Thomas Adams
> And, as matter of fact, translators offer those services because
> editing and proofreading is normally part of the translation process.
If that's the case why do some agencies employ proofreaders? And why
are certain texts run through two proofreading cycles? Where I work it
is like so: One cycle is for eliminating spelling and grammar mistakes
and to adapt the text to the client's idea of the target language. The
second cycle is for getting the bugs out of the text. More often than
not in software texts the translation is simply incorrect from a
technical perspective.
I would think if translators really did the proofreading nobody would
spend money on proofreaders wouldn't they?
sophie
I think the part that you are missing is that proof-readers/editors of
translations would need to be translators themselves in order to check
the target text against its source, rather than simply checking
grammar/style and ignoring the intended meaning of the original. Which
is kind of important, really.
--
sophie
Muiris Mag Ualghairg
"MJG" <1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ntNk8.62329$hb6.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> And, as matter of fact, translators offer those services because editing
and
> proofreading is normally part of the translation process.
>
but isn't that the problem? If I translate a document and then I proofread
it how likely am I to pick up on my own peculiarities. Every translator
should have an independent proofreader to check over their work. I translate
into and out of Welsh and have another translator check over everything I
translate (I do the same for him). This system certainly ensures that we
maintain professional standards (and sometimes have heated arguments about
the meaning of the original but at least the opens my eyes to different
interpretations of what the original actually means.)
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.338 / Virus Database: 189 - Release Date: 15/03/02
alan
As I stimulated this thread, I thought I might add to it! I recognise
that there are many very high quality, accurate and efficient
translators and translation organisations. But not everyone can afford
them, or chooses to use them. And some translations are carried out
by people whose command of the target language is just not good enough
to avoid errors.
There is a lot to be said for the translator working in harness with a
native speaker, as suggested above. I live and work in Wales, and
recognise the benefit of this for translations into and out of Welsh.
Whether the function I described originally is proof-reading, or
editing, is perhaps semantics - but I believe it is a distinct
activity.
As for how can one know what the author intended, that will in many
cases be obvious; but if not, then you ask the author!
Alan
Evertjan.
> As for how can one know what the author intended, that will in many
> cases be obvious; but if not, then you ask the author!
Two problems:
1
The author could be long dead.
2
The author could be deadly wrong.
Prose:
If most native readers understand quite something else
than the autor intended, wat will the translator do??
Technical texts:
It could be deadly for the reader, if the translator
adheres to the author's opinion.
("Digitalis extracts are compleatly safe to drink")
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Alessandra Muzzi
> As for how can one know what the author intended, that will in many
> cases be obvious; but if not, then you ask the author!
1) It might seem obvious to you, but the translator might have
misinterpreted the original text and the result might make enough sense for
you not to detect the mistake.
1) The author of the original text cannot always be reached.
2) Even if you can reach him/her, how can you communicate with him/her if
you do no speak his/her language?
Bottom line: the reviewer (proofreader/editor) must know both languages
involved: the target language at native-speaker level, the source language
well enough to be able to read and understand it. So must the translator...
FWIW
Alessandra
www.amtrad.it
Alessandra Muzzi
use in those cases where the author himself translates his own text.
There are a lot of instances nowadays on the Internet where someone who has
English as a second language writes the English version of his pages
himself. In these instances there can be no misinterpretations, but surely
the English text betrays the fact that the author was not an English native
speaker. In cases like this, professionals like Alan can help.
I am one of those cases: I wrote the English version of my Web pages, then
submitted them to an English native speaker, who introduced quite a lot of
improvements.
FWIW
Alessandra
"Alessandra Muzzi" <alessandra_ex@amtrad_ex.it> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:a71to1$4p7$1...@pegasus.tiscalinet.it...
MJG
that proofreading and editing is most often done by translators. And I
believe that every translator should at least proofread his or her own
translation. After all, we are humans; we are not infallible. Ideally, as a
form of quality control, the best thing would be to have our translations
proofread and edited by another person after doing our own proofreading .
But, realistically, that is not possible; it's not cost-effective so it's up
to the client to decide whether he or she wants to have the translation
double-checked.
Again, I did not mean that I don't see the need for proofreading and editing
because translators already do that with their own translations. What I
meant is that the people who proofread and edit translations are most often
translators themselves precisely because, as someone has already pointed
out, in many instances, in the editing process, you have to check the
original.
Maria
"Thomas Adams" <Thoma...@web.de> wrote in message
news:a70aql$hiq0f$2...@ID-34.news.dfncis.de...
Toby OCM
> cases be obvious; but if not, then you ask the author!
It will not be obvious if it has been mistranslated but still appears to be
correct English (see my previous comment about 'eventual').
And authors are rarely available to explain - their attitude is: they've
written it, it's the translator's job to translate it. That's what they pay
you for.
I get the impression that the consensus from most of the people in SLT, who
deal with translated documents every day, is that you do need to be able to
understand the source text in order to properly proofread the target text.
--
Regards,
Toby
----
Enjoy the little things, for one day you may look back and realise they were
the big things
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Urban Domeij
Toby OCM wrote:
> "alan" <alan.t...@physics.org> wrote in message
> news:bc4ca10f.02031...@posting.google.com...
> > As for how can one know what the author intended, that will in many
> > cases be obvious; but if not, then you ask the author!
>
> It will not be obvious if it has been mistranslated but still appears to be
> correct English (see my previous comment about 'eventual').
> And authors are rarely available to explain - their attitude is: they've
> written it, it's the translator's job to translate it. That's what they pay
> you for.
>
> I get the impression that the consensus from most of the people in SLT, who
> deal with translated documents every day, is that you do need to be able to
> understand the source text in order to properly proofread the target text.
Been there, done that - I work at a lighting wholesaler, which
sells a German product line, and the "company language" that
is assigned to us is English. So often when I shall translate a
document that is written in English, it is written by someone
who actually mostly speaks German, but has Arabic or some
other language as mother tongue.
It is my technical skill with the products that helps me to
understand some passages that are doubtful - one example,
a coworker used "must not" in English as if it would mean
the same thing as "muss nicht" in German, actually writing
the opposite of what he wanted to say. He wouldn't know
that it was wrong, because he did not know what "must not"
means, and he would confirm that it was what was intended.
There was no grammatical error in the sentense, and it made
perfect sense to anyone who didn't know that it was wrong.
Notwithstanding, I think it is a Good Thing to offer editing
services, not only for translated texts, but for any text that
is intended for publication.
Urban
John Woodgate
<urban....@idecenter.se> wrote (in <3C95F999...@idecenter.se>)
about 'Better English', on Mon, 18 Mar 2002:
>one example,
>a coworker used "must not" in English as if it would mean
>the same thing as "muss nicht" in German, actually writing
>the opposite of what he wanted to say.
I don't quite understand that. 'Muss nicht' is usually equivalent to
'need not', AIUI, which is not really 'opposite' to 'must not'. The
opposite would be 'must'.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
Evertjan.
> I don't quite understand that. 'Muss nicht' is usually equivalent to
> 'need not', AIUI, which is not really 'opposite' to 'must not'. The
> opposite would be 'must'.
Translating the verbs "mussen", "sollen", "brauchen", "duerfen",
(and "moegen") and the English, "need", "must", "have to", "be allowed",
"may" (not 1 to 1) and their negatives is full of pit-falls.
Translating those German verbs in (or from) Dutch ("(be)hoeven", "moeten",
"mogen") is even more dangerous, because they have an even higher "look
alike" value.
"If you can, it is safer to stay clear of a direct translation", I was
tought in school.
(What has this to do with "better English"? We are talking about
translating German. So be it)
Einde O'Callaghan
>
> I read in sci.lang.translation that Urban Domeij
> <urban....@idecenter.se> wrote (in <3C95F999...@idecenter.se>)
> about 'Better English', on Mon, 18 Mar 2002:
> >one example,
> >a coworker used "must not" in English as if it would mean
> >the same thing as "muss nicht" in German, actually writing
> >the opposite of what he wanted to say.
>
> I don't quite understand that. 'Muss nicht' is usually equivalent to
> 'need not', AIUI, which is not really 'opposite' to 'must not'. The
> opposite would be 'must'.
But you do see that "muss nicht" doesn't mean the same "must not". This
can be quite crucial. There's quite a difference between "you're not
obliged to" (muss nicht) and "your obliged not to" (must not).
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
alan
Back to better English.....
I agree that we have drifted away from the original topic. But even
within the earlier contributions to this thread I think that we were
conflating two distinct issues. There is certainly an argument that a
competent professional translator (working alone or with others)
should be able to produce high quality, grammatically correct text
that needs no further editing. I accept that. But not everyone uses
such services. If you look at a sample of the English versions of
pages on the web you will find many simple errors that could have been
corrected by a native English speaker. These pages may have been
translated by the authors, or colleagues, or friends, who had a
reasonable knowledge of English but who were less than fluent.
I still contend that there is room for the service that I offer, and
that you do not need, in most circumstances, to be fluent in both the
source and target languages to make improvements to an English text.
Remember, I am not talking about translating the great works of
literature: I am focussing on web sites, simple brochures and so on.
For example, I do not believe that it is necessary to have access to
the original French text, and be a fluent French speaker, in order to
spot the errors in the English of the sample below and to correct
them. I know what the author means - but someone whose English is
weak might not find the text so easy to follow, and might
misunderstand.
I think that anyone capable of writing correct English would be able
to offer an improved version.
Extract taken from www.tourinfos.com
"Discover the touristy resources of France by choosing an area and a
theme. The different webpages will progressively advise you to the
columns of your interest... "
Alan Thornton
John Woodgate
<einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> wrote (in
<3C967290...@planet-interkom.de>) about 'Better English', on Tue,
19 Mar 2002:
>But you do see that "muss nicht" doesn't mean the same "must not". This
>can be quite crucial. There's quite a difference between "you're not
>obliged to" (muss nicht) and "your obliged not to" (must not).
Of course; it's one of my 'favourite mistakes' in standards work.
Toby OCM
> that you do not need, in most circumstances, to be fluent in both the
> source and target languages to make improvements to an English text.
> Remember, I am not talking about translating the great works of
> literature: I am focussing on web sites, simple brochures and so on.
Despite the caveats, I wish you luck, since anyone striving to fill a
perceived gap in the market should be applauded.. However, experience has
taught me that people are very touchy about being told that the English on
their website is not perfect, so be prepared for some knockbacks if you
contact people with dodgy sites (ands you'll have to, since by definition
they probably don't realise that their English *is* ropy). And remember
that if their English is not awfully good, you will probably have to contact
them in their native tongue.
--
Regards,
Toby
----
Enjoy the little things, for one day you may look back and realise they were
the big things
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.338 / Virus Database: 189 - Release Date: 14/03/02
Urban Domeij
John Woodgate wrote:
> I read in sci.lang.translation that Urban Domeij
> <urban....@idecenter.se> wrote (in <3C95F999...@idecenter.se>)
> about 'Better English', on Mon, 18 Mar 2002:
> >one example,
> >a coworker used "must not" in English as if it would mean
> >the same thing as "muss nicht" in German, actually writing
> >the opposite of what he wanted to say.
>
> I don't quite understand that. 'Muss nicht' is usually equivalent to
> 'need not', AIUI, which is not really 'opposite' to 'must not'. The
> opposite would be 'must'.
> --
Yes, not the exact opposite, but close to the opposite of
what the company wants to convey in the actual context.
The context is a concept that is branded as "2K lighting",
which deals with two components to illuminate an office, one
that gives an ambient light for the room, another that gives
reading light at the desktop. What the author said was that
"the two components must not be two different lamps", and
our concept is exactly that, using two different lamps to
create the two components. His statement was intended
to convey, that there is a possibility to combine the two
components into one single unit, but that is not what he
actually said. The statement, containing a language blunder,
outrules any possibility to use two different units for the
two components. When I showed the text to coworkers
here, they too thought that "must not" would mean "does
not necessarily have to", as "måste inte" in Swedish is
the same as "muss nicht" in German. They disbelieved
me to such a degree, that I wrote it as a question on
this board (slt) in order to have someone else confirm,
that the statement was wrong.
Still, I think that Alan's idea is good - proofreading
and editing might not catch this kind of mistakes, but
it can at least make the text grammatically correct and
easier to understand.
Urban
Jasper Kok
news:bc4ca10f.02031...@posting.google.com...
> Einde O'Callaghan <einde.oc...@planet-interkom.de> wrote in message
news:<3C967290...@planet-interkom.de>...
> > John Woodgate wrote:
These pages may have been
> translated by the authors, or colleagues, or friends, who had a
> reasonable knowledge of English but who were less than fluent.
I won´t get inolved in this entire discussion about improving texts written
by others, but does 'fluent' mean 'perfect' or 'at (near-)native level'? I
always thought that someone is considered to be a fluent foreign language
speaker if s/he speaks without much hesitation, 'looking for words' and so
on and gets the message accross without many problems even if s/he makes
some errors in grammar, pragmatics (linguistic conventions) and the like. If
you interpret 'fluency' in the strict sense you interpret it in, then I
think very few people will ever become flent in any foreign language. IMHO
always some elements of 'foreigner talk' will transpire, like in this very
contribution. Still, I´ve met quite a few people who told me that they
considered me to be fluent in English, probably out of courtesy, then.
Jasper.
Ron Clarey
>by others, but does 'fluent' mean 'perfect'
No one is perfect unless the language is a dead one like Latin.
> I
>always thought that someone is considered to be a fluent foreign language
>speaker if s/he speaks without much hesitation, 'looking for words' and so
>on and gets the message accross without many problems even if s/he makes
>some errors in grammar, pragmatics (linguistic conventions) and the like.
Even native speakers don't achieve perfection. Even I have difficulty
talking and understanding some people.
> If
>you interpret 'fluency' in the strict sense you interpret it in, then I
>think very few people will ever become flent in any foreign language. IMHO
>always some elements of 'foreigner talk' will transpire, like in this very
>contribution. Still, I“ve met quite a few people who told me that they
>considered me to be fluent in English, probably out of courtesy, then.
If you speak English as well as you write in it, then it was not a
compliment but a fact.
Foreigner talk often creeps in to conversations you might say ya instead
of yes. Also many foreigners speak a much higher form of English than
the English do. You tend to pronounce your words very clearly and your
sentence structure is more formal. The English are slovenly speakers
often rewriting the rules on a whim, Try holding a conversation with a
teenager for example. Throw in local dialects and the situation becomes
near impossible.
Changing the subject, do Europeans have the same problem with their own
languages?
--
Ron Clarey
Translaters.net
HTTP://www.translaters.net
Jasper Kok
news:oQFh0LFV...@Eskapa.com...
I´m not quite sure what youmean by 'that problem', but if you mean that most
people are not as careful in their linguistic register as a learner of the
language in question would like them to be, then yes I think that´s a
universal phenomenon. I remember when I had a new French teacher at school
(why do many people have such specific memories of French teachers and not
of teachers in other subjects :)), and she pronounced 'oui' (yes) like
'ouais', which I had heard on holiday in France quite often, but never in
class. And I liked it a lot - it just gives you an idea of what native
speakers would actually say, rather than what they´re supposed to say
according to the textbooks. I also know of an English teacher (whom I´ve
never had as my teacher) who finished many sentences with unstressed 'eh?'
as some sort of tag, be it rhetorical or not. Of course this will get on
your nerves after a while, but still it´s not that often that you get a feel
of colloquialisms in school (not even during my Spanish course at
university, unfortunately...), so I´d say it´s a good thing.
FWIW
Jasper.
Toby OCM
"Jasper Kok" <J....@student.kun.nl> wrote in message
news:a786fk$ksk$1...@wnnews.sci.kun.nl...
> "Ron Clarey" <r...@Eskapa.com> schreef in bericht
> (why do many people have such specific memories of French teachers and not
> of teachers in other subjects :)),
I have a very specific memory of my English teacher at the gymnasium in The
Hague. At the beginning of her first class, she turned to the class and
informed us that the object she held in her hand was called a 'sponge'
(pronounced the way it is written, not as the correct 'spunge'). Four hands
went up, as those of us who had one or more English parents rushed to
correct her.
By the next week, she had decided that the four of us could read our own
books during her class instead ;-)
I also have a memory of my German teacher in England, who would get me to
speak Dutch and then laugh like a drain, because he thought it was the
funniest sound he'd ever heard (and very similar to a cat drowning).
--
Regards,
Toby
----
Enjoy the little things, for one day you may look back and realise they were
the big things
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.338 / Virus Database: 189 - Release Date: 14/03/02
John Woodgate
wrote (in <a77s3s$gro$1...@wnnews.sci.kun.nl>) about 'Better English', on
Tue, 19 Mar 2002:
>does 'fluent' mean 'perfect' or 'at (near-)native level'?
No-one is perfect, even in their native language, except QE II, by
definition, in 'the Queen's English', which is an idiolect, so is
nugatory.
I wonder if there is an official definition of 'fluency'. My view is
that if I can't tell, discounting accent unless it is very strong, that
the person speaking is not an English native speaker, he/she is fluent.
I know that some such people avoid being 'found out' by avoiding
dangerous ventures into idioms or vernacular forms. So be it. I do that
when in USA, Canada or Oz.
sophie
>I read in sci.lang.translation that Jasper Kok <J....@student.kun.nl>
>wrote (in <a77s3s$gro$1...@wnnews.sci.kun.nl>) about 'Better English', on
>Tue, 19 Mar 2002:
>
>>does 'fluent' mean 'perfect' or 'at (near-)native level'?
>
>No-one is perfect, even in their native language, except QE II, by
>definition, in 'the Queen's English', which is an idiolect, so is
>nugatory.
>
>I wonder if there is an official definition of 'fluency'. My view is
>that if I can't tell, discounting accent unless it is very strong, that
>the person speaking is not an English native speaker, he/she is fluent.
Leaving speaking ships out of it, I'd be inclined to say that anyone who
can take part in a relatively complex conversation conducted by native
speakers, following and contributing at pretty much the same level as
they are, is a "fluent" speaker, even if they do make occasional
mistakes in grammar and idiom. Etymologically it simply means flowingly;
it's the facility rather than the accuracy that matters. Accent as you
say is pretty irrelevant.
And then there are the genuinely bilingual...
--
sophie
Gabrielle Allemand-Mostefaï
Toby OCM <to...@yahoo.co.uk> a écrit dans le message :
gTNl8.3563$hS2.27...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> I also have a memory of my German teacher in England, who would get me to
> speak Dutch and then laugh like a drain, because he thought it was the
> funniest sound he'd ever heard (and very similar to a cat drowning).
LOL!!! :-))))
--
Gabrielle
To reply, remove the "dot"