| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | Anyone out there who doesn't use a CAT tool... Thread poster: Annika Neudecker
|
|---|
mediamatrix (X)
Local time: 09:44
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Creativity in technical translations | Aug 18, 2006 |
Teresa Bento wrote:
specially for technical translations where the vocabulary isn't very creative.
The vocabulary of technical translations may not seem very creative - but there is underlying creativity in the choice of terms in any branch of technology, aimed at conveying an increasingly-large number of identifiable concepts/ideas whilst maintaining readability in the language in question and avoiding ambiguity.
It is certainly true that many technical translations are not very creative. Why is this?
Mainly, I think, because translators who don't understand the technology rely on CAT to 'get them through' and they use stilted phrasing and limited vocabulary in the hopes of minimizing errors of meaning. The dullness of their translations comes not from the terminology, but from the inability to use non-technical English (French, etc.) freely in combination with that terminology, owing to poor or non-existent understanding of the ideas being expressed.
A technical translator who understands the subject-matter can be - and often is - as creative as his/her literary counterparts.
Most of my work is highly technical - supposedly ideal material for CAT! It is mostly in a field in which I have engineering qualifications. I do not use CAT of any kind, largely because I prefer to use each translation job as a means of up-dating my knowledge of the technology. That is best achieved if the translation is done 'from scratch' - with no 'interference' from software that doesn't understand 'today's' text.
MediaMatrix
[Edited at 2006-08-18 15:34]
| | | | gianfranco 
Brazil
Local time: 10:44
Member (2001)
English to Italian
+ ...
| Essential for updates in large projects | Aug 18, 2006 |
There are many good reasons for using a CAT tool, and many disavantages too, already described by many.
An important application that has not been mentioned yet is is when some documents, or a very large documentation, is not new but simply an update from an existing previous version, already translated.
Many of my projects are for agencies, who in turn have regular customers, who provide each year not completely new manuals for their products but a large volume of text... See more There are many good reasons for using a CAT tool, and many disavantages too, already described by many.
An important application that has not been mentioned yet is is when some documents, or a very large documentation, is not new but simply an update from an existing previous version, already translated.
Many of my projects are for agencies, who in turn have regular customers, who provide each year not completely new manuals for their products but a large volume of text into which some parts have been removed (as obsolete) or added, or slightly reworded, inserting here and there some paragraphs, or editing a few words.
For example, a 90,000 words manual may have 7,000 words in new chapters, and let's say another 12,000 words in isolated new sentences, edited sentences, etc.
Such update would be extremely expensive and probably inconsistent with the previous version if handled without the proper software.
A CAT tool, in this case, is capable of identifying the new parts, makes possible a faster delivery, a greater consistency between new and existing parts, and a lower cost overall.
The project can also be handled by a single person in 10 working days or less (for the volumes indicated) instead of 2 months.
This kind of jobs go only to professionals capable of handling them with a CAT tool. All right, we are not talking about creative writing, normally these are technical manuals, help systems, or websites to localize, but it is the core business for many of us.
On the other hand, when I have short marketing texts, press releases or similar, even for the same customers, I tend not to use any CAT tools, and I'm not required to do so by the customer. They know it is not very useful.
My motto is "For each job the right technique".
bye
Gianfranco ▲ Collapse
| | | | | An unexpected advantage | Aug 18, 2006 |
Tim Drayton wrote:
I wonder if terminology consistency has not become something of a fetish. In the first place, it is not always important. In a brochure advertising a department store I might write 'We have a wide range of ... " in one place and 'We have a great variety of ...' in another, even though the source language has the same word for 'range/variety'. Using a different equivalent may just fit the flow of the text better and makes no difference.
With my CAT tool, I can call up all the other occasions where the same source text was used (even in long-ago translations) and examine them to see how I expressed the same phrase in the past. I can use this information just as well to vary my expression (which as you point out, can be the right choice for some texts) as to make it consistent.
A good CAT tool doesn't oblige or even pressure the user to blindly slot in the same text every time a given source text is used. Rather it serves as an aid to memory.
| | | | Marc P (X)
Local time: 15:44
German to English
+ ...
| Anyone out there who doesn't use a CAT tool... | Aug 18, 2006 |
Tim Drayton wrote:
But do I think that these advantages justify the expense involved in acquiring a CAT tool? Sorry, no I don't.
OmegaT in fact is free. But then, if a CAT tool is worth using, it's probably worth paying good money for. Ultimately, the decision has to be made by the translator (not the bean-counters).
Marc
| | |
|
|
|
CMJ_Trans (X)
Local time: 15:44
French to English
+ ...
| fully paid-up member of the dinosaurs club... | Aug 18, 2006 |
All the "translation" work I do could be classed as literary and frankly I cannot see the need for a CAT tool.
Some years ago I was a member of a working party on CAT and I saw enough at the time to put me off for life.
For the rare jobs I do that could be classed as technical I use my MEMORY.
I worry about those who are so reliant on IT for their translations - what would happen if the whole thing crashed?
Being dependent on technology is not always a good thing....
| | | | BelkisDV
United States
Local time: 09:44
Spanish to English
+ ...
Yes, I'm one of those who doesn't believe in CAT tools, TRADOS, etc.
If you know the subject, you can be just as productive, if not more on your own.
On another hand...monetarily speaking, very often clients ask for XX program in order to cut costs. Here we sit telling them exactly how to do it, because we have to actually 'teach' the program before it becomes rudimentarily useful. So I've often asked myself why do it?
Regards,
Belkis
| | | | Thor Truelson
United States
Local time: 08:44
Swedish to English
+ ...
| I am trying to begin to... | Aug 18, 2006 |
Hi. I have been translating full-time for several years, and do not use anything. I bought Trados back in 2002, but I couldn't read the manual and figure out how to do it. I was too busy working, and to computer illiterate to figure out exactly how it worked. So, I spent $500 or so, and never once was able to use it. I felt sort of cheated. When I called up Trados and asked them what to do, nobody helped me at all. I figured to hell with it. Now that Trados and SDLX merged, I decided to ... See more Hi. I have been translating full-time for several years, and do not use anything. I bought Trados back in 2002, but I couldn't read the manual and figure out how to do it. I was too busy working, and to computer illiterate to figure out exactly how it worked. So, I spent $500 or so, and never once was able to use it. I felt sort of cheated. When I called up Trados and asked them what to do, nobody helped me at all. I figured to hell with it. Now that Trados and SDLX merged, I decided to give it another go, and upgraded my never-used software to Trados SDL 2006. They offer an online training class, which I could certainly use. I plan on implementing all of this in the next week or so, but I am not really so sure how much this is going to help me. I don't do much technical stuff. The fact that only Word documents can be translated in that format is also somewhat limiting. But nobody has ever required that I use it, and I worked pretty well without it. Not to worry.
Thor ▲ Collapse
| | | | Tina Vonhof (X)
Canada
Local time: 07:44
Dutch to English
+ ...
| Another Luddite | Aug 18, 2006 |
Tim Drayton wrote:
Thanks for asking this question.
I am quite happy working without a CAT tool and sometimes I wonder if I am a latter-day Luddite who is about to find himself forced out of business for refusing to keep up with modern technology. I have recently turned fifty and I also wonder if my way of working has become totally divorced from current accepted practice.
So, when I hear about CAT tools I just shrug my shoulders. On the other hand, if asked whether I still see myself in translation in five years time, I would say there is about a fifty percent chance. Maybe these two attitudes are connected. That's my five cent's worth.
Tim, I couldn't agree more. I am older than you and, apart from the expense, I don't want to go through the hassle of learning a new and difficult program. I have tried SDLX but I find that it hampers my vision. I need to see as much of my document on the screen as possible. Even a paragraph is not enough - I want to see the whole page and be able to easily scroll back and forth through my document. Like you, I usually remember what terminology I have used earlier on and when in doubt I use the "find and replace" feature to double-check. Unlike you, though, I hope to keep translating till the day I die, unless I lose either my vision or my mind.
| | |
|
|
|
| Productivity | Aug 18, 2006 |
Belkis Díaz-Vidaillet wrote:
If you know the subject, you can be just as productive, if not more on your own.
Sorry, but in most cases this is not true: leaving aside things such as updates of previously-translated documentation (as mentioned by Gianfranco).
I used to work in the translation department of a business software company: we found that using a TM tool saved on average at least 17% even in the first version of a new manual (that is, repetitive segments, plus the fuzzy matches created during the first translation of a new manual reduced the amount of text to translate by 17%.
When dealing with version 2 (or higher) of a manual, the savings were more tipically in the 80 to 90% range (this is explained more in detail in Gianfranco's post).
| | | | | Looking at the whole page | Aug 18, 2006 |
Tina Vonhof wrote:
I have tried SDLX but I find that it hampers my vision. I need to see as much of my document on the screen as possible. Even a paragraph is not enough - I want to see the whole page and be able to easily scroll back and forth through my document.
You can do that easily with both trados and Wordfast.
| | | | Hynek Palatin
Czech Republic
Local time: 15:44
Member (2003)
English to Czech
+ ...
| Not only Word | Aug 18, 2006 |
Sorry for being off-topic, but...
Thor Truelson wrote:
The fact that only Word documents can be translated in that format is also somewhat limiting.
It's not true. CAT tools support many different formats.
To get back on topic: For literal translations, CAT tools are probably just unnecessary burden. In other areas, like technical, legal or medical translations, they could significantly increase your productivity to that extent that their price doesn't matter.
| | | | biankonera
Latvia
Local time: 16:44
Italian to Latvian
+ ...
| CAT or no CAT | Aug 18, 2006 |
I read this discussion and it just shows the ever present reality - there are as many opinions as there are translators.
I myself have worked with Trados and Wordfast, but due to the type of my translations CAT tools are not the matter of life and death for me.
In fact after reading this and other discussions regarding CAT I always want to ask this one tiny question - how was translation done before there ever was any CAT tool at all? I know that some would say that ev... See more I read this discussion and it just shows the ever present reality - there are as many opinions as there are translators.
I myself have worked with Trados and Wordfast, but due to the type of my translations CAT tools are not the matter of life and death for me.
In fact after reading this and other discussions regarding CAT I always want to ask this one tiny question - how was translation done before there ever was any CAT tool at all? I know that some would say that even the grass was greener back then but my point here is - sometimes it seems to me we do depend too much on CAT tools. Im not saying CATs are not useful, Im just thinking they are not as essential as some agencies (and creators of these CATs) would like us to think they are. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Hynek Palatin
Czech Republic
Local time: 15:44
Member (2003)
English to Czech
+ ...
| CAT or no CAT | Aug 18, 2006 |
bramasole wrote:
how was translation done before there ever was any CAT tool at all?
The CAT-less way, of course. But you should ask what were the possible volumes, turnaround times and costs (I mean in fields where CAT tools are used today). You might as well ask how was translation done before there were any computers.
| | | | Vito Smolej
Germany
Local time: 15:44
Member (2004)
English to Slovenian
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | "many technical translations are not very creative." | Aug 18, 2006 |
with time technical translators get slowly lobotomized by dumb source texts. Why, Alzheimer is nothing to some of the examples I was exposed to.
"... and for Crissake keep as close as you can to the original ... and above all mind the term base ..."
You might as well ask how was translation done before there were any computers.
Going a few steps back, one may wonder how people communicated before Gutenberg kicked in. And, thinking about Gutenberg and printing , and about Luther translating the bible and printing it and on and on it goes: when, just before pulling in in Heidelberg, my ICE passes those miles of Heidelberger Druck factories, hair on my neck stands up - man, all those behemoths of printing machines leaving the premises ...what a difference, imprint on our race every one of them.
[Edited at 2006-08-18 21:27]
| | | | Gerard de Noord
France
Local time: 15:44
Member (2003)
English to Dutch
+ ...
| Wordfast for translators of literature and marketing texts | Aug 18, 2006 |
Wordfast is also a great tool for translators of literature and marketing texts, when you have the original in front of you in Word. It segments the text – on paragraph level if you choose so. Translating the original by overtyping it is silly. Copying and pasting each new translatable part of the text to overtype it is even sillier. Wordfast segments for free, but I think this thread isn’t about money. Segmenting is good for your eyes, refocusing between paper and screen is bad for your eye... See more Wordfast is also a great tool for translators of literature and marketing texts, when you have the original in front of you in Word. It segments the text – on paragraph level if you choose so. Translating the original by overtyping it is silly. Copying and pasting each new translatable part of the text to overtype it is even sillier. Wordfast segments for free, but I think this thread isn’t about money. Segmenting is good for your eyes, refocusing between paper and screen is bad for your eyes.
What’s wrong with a program that remembers how you have translated a certain sentence or term before? Let’s presume you’re translating Hamlet. Isn’t it great you can look up words like buffet, fawning, Lord Polonius, camel and chameleon in the contexts of your own Shakespeare translations? Shakespeare uses the same term repeatedly and maybe you should use the same translation, and pushing a button at that very moment helps you to make a decision. I argue that a Shakespeare translator with a Shakespeare translation memory is a better Shakespeare translator. A CAT tool might even spot a theme you could have missed.
I won’t mention all the glossary, reference, dictionary, quality control and web functionality Wordfast offers from within Word, although many Wordfast users love Wordfast just for that. CAT tools can really help any translator, even without a translation memory, and as soon as you’re used to Wordfast, you’ll want to build a translation memory, it builds itself.
Regards,
Gerard ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Anyone out there who doesn't use a CAT tool... | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
