| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | Voting just for "quality of writing" is totally unacceptable Thread poster: Roland Nienerza
|
|---|
| you should quote correctly - also in the subject line | Dec 9, 2008 |
[quote]Attila Piróth wrote:
Roland Nienerza wrote:
It has to be absolutely clear, that a bad quality of a source text should, at least to some extent, show through into the target. Otherwise, it would no more be a translation, but a "source text embellishing undertaking".
This is what I wrote. - But you quote in the subject line -
"Bad quality should be carrier through? Not my view"
You, deliberately or undeliberately, omit the important part ***at least to some extent***.
Well, this is bad quoting, and doing this in translation, would make it a bad translation, even if the source text was not bad.
Attila Piróth wrote:
If the source text is unclear/ambiguous, it is part of my professional duty to point it out to the author/outsourcer, and make sure that I can take an informed decision as to which interpretation is correct - so that I don't have to let my readers guess.
Authors have to take care of a lot of things: choice of material, structuring the information, explaining the contents in a clear way, using a proper language. As a translator, I must understand the text fully (and if I don't, I , unlike the readers, have the time to check it with colleagues / with the author), decompose it and recompose it in my target language. Why should I choose solutions that I know are second-best - just because the author, who had a lot of other tasks, could not express himself/herself the best way? I can sometimes add something to the text - in style, in clarity, etc.
No, you can't. -
At best very exceptionally. But not as a standard procedure, or, as Winnie ther Pooh would say, a Crustimoney Proseedcake.
| | | | | a translated literary work should first and foremost be correctly translated | Dec 9, 2008 |
Bin Tiede wrote:
A literary work should be first and foremost appealing to the target audience
That would make it then an edited translation. -
Editing is only necessary where the original is bad, and in that case the publisher would hardly have chosen it for translation, or were the translator has failed already.
It is known that the best writers, given that they delivered an ample oeuvre, had some less good pieces too. - This should be transported or carried over in the translation.
| | | | Attila Piróth 
France
Local time: 04:37
Member
English to Hungarian
+ ...
Roland Nienerza wrote:
This is what I wrote. - But you quote in the subject line -
"Bad quality should be carrier through? Not my view"
You, deliberately or undeliberately, omit the important part ***at least to some extent***.
Well, this is bad quoting, and doing this in translation, would make it a bad translation, even if the source text was not bad.
Roland, please read more carefully what I wrote - and what I did not. I did not say I was quoting any of your sentences in the subject line. "Bad quality should be carrier through" was written by Henry, so if I quoted anyone, it was Henry.
Even if you add "to some extent", I disagree: my view is that the translator should do everything to produce the translation that is most fit for purpose.
No, you can't. -
At best very exceptionally. But not as a standard procedure, or, as Winnie ther Pooh would say, a Crustimoney Proseedcake.
Of course I can - and clients/authors really appreciate that. I speak from experience. I translated several high-profile undergraduate and graduate level textbooks, and the authors very much appreciated any effort to try to improve the text.
Attila
[Módosítva: 2008-12-09 12:08 GMT]
| | | | | I'll vote with Attila Piróth and Umberto Eco | Dec 9, 2008 |
It seems that Attila and I often face the same problems in our technical source texts. Where human safety and product liability are real issues, there is no excuse for following the GIGO approach unless you are producing a translation to be used for litigation purposes or you are dealing with a patent filing. For technical manuals and the like, there is, as I see it, a moral duty to improve the text if one is capable of doing so, while at the same time documenting all deviations from the source ... See more It seems that Attila and I often face the same problems in our technical source texts. Where human safety and product liability are real issues, there is no excuse for following the GIGO approach unless you are producing a translation to be used for litigation purposes or you are dealing with a patent filing. For technical manuals and the like, there is, as I see it, a moral duty to improve the text if one is capable of doing so, while at the same time documenting all deviations from the source text and deficiencies found and how they were dealt with. This is necessary because (1) it may be urgently necessary to improve a source text for reasons of safety or law and (2) we aren't perfect, and our "improvements" could in fact be wrong, so we'd better document them for discussion. I see this as particularly necessary in arms-length relationships with agency intermediates who may not be capable of communicating the problems effectively to end customers if not given adequate source material.
I do think that in an article describing the philosophy of a person or company and including quotations, we must strive for a very high degree of accuracy and be true to the spirit of the original expression in every way, no matter how awful. Robert Mugabe must come across as his true self and Sarah Palin must be as clear in Indonesian or Afrikaans as she is in English.
However, in the literary realm, accuracy is a second-rate currency. Years ago, I ran across a fine little book by Umberto Eco titled "Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation". I found it to be a wonderful exploration of the complex challenges facing a translator of literature, and while I do not work in that area, his positions made a great deal of sense to me. Distilling the spirit of a work to make it accessible to other cultures is quite an art and surely very satisfying, which is probably why so many aspire to the starving artist's task while plodders like me render yet another instance of "Right-click in the window and select the corresponding command from the context menu." ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| good for Umberto - | Dec 9, 2008 |
that you side with him.
Kevin Lossner wrote:
"Right-click in the window and select the corresponding command from the context menu."
What is wrong about that, except maybe for "into" better than "in", in an IT manual?
I may have made a mistake in pronouncing my views about translation in a rather unspecific manner, as applying to "all kinds of source texts".
On the other hand, the objections to my view, which certainly holds for literary translations, as the contests have so far been, come from the angle of technical translations where things can be different.
And it depends also on the kind of arrangements with the client. - I the client wishes an edited, "skopos focused" translation, he has the right to get one.
[Edited at 2008-12-09 12:48 GMT]
| | | | Paul Cohen
Greenland
Local time: 01:37
German to English
+ ...
| It's our job to take certain liberties | Dec 9, 2008 |
I'm very familiar with this debate.
Both accuracy and quality of writing need to be taken into account when judging a translation. I think we can all agree on that, especially in the context of a translating contest.
However, there are clearly various schools of thought concerning the liberties that translators are generally allowed to take.
From an academic standpoint, the translator should act as a perfect mirror and merely reflect the source text. Many ... See more I'm very familiar with this debate.
Both accuracy and quality of writing need to be taken into account when judging a translation. I think we can all agree on that, especially in the context of a translating contest.
However, there are clearly various schools of thought concerning the liberties that translators are generally allowed to take.
From an academic standpoint, the translator should act as a perfect mirror and merely reflect the source text. Many students learn that the art of translating is the art of making yourself as unobtrusive as possible. If there are weaknesses in the original, they are bound to turn up in a translation, so the theory. The author is responsible for such flaws, not the translator. That's a fine approach for the ivory tower, however, it's not how things work in the real world.
Writers and authors are only human, and unless you have the honor of translating great literature, you are likely to encounter all manner of foibles and faults in the source text. Most of the texts that we translate are written by people who are trying to sell something, be it a product, idea or theory. And many of these texts are written, unfortunately, by people who are not professional writers.
In my opinion, it's our job to convey the message, nothing more -- and certainly nothing less. In doing so, we often have to clarify misunderstandings and weed out ambiguities. We also have to embellish, wherever necessary, and in some cases leave things out that would only confuse the reader. We even have to fib a little. I occasionally move whole sentences around and reorganize paragraphs to make the text flow better. Yes, it's often a translator’s job to improve a poorly written text. We are often the last wall of defense before that masterpiece goes to press. If we consciously allow stylistic blunders to slip through, in most cases we will only be doing our readers -- and the authors! -- a grave disservice (and not scoring points with anyone). We shouldn't use a poorly written original text as a lame excuse for a poor translation.
Attila Piróth wrote:
I translated several high-profile undergraduate and graduate level textbooks, and the authors very much appreciated any effort to try to improve the text.
I’ve had similar experiences -- in academia, marketing and journalism.
It all depends on what our clients want. Ultimately, they are the ones who pay our bills -- not the academics. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | but you definitely quoted incorrectly - | Dec 9, 2008 |
Attila Piróth wrote: Roland Nienerza wrote:
This is what I wrote. - But you quote in the subject line -
"Bad quality should be carrier through? Not my view"
You, deliberately or undeliberately, omit the important part ***at least to some extent***.
Well, this is bad quoting, and doing this in translation, would make it a bad translation, even if the source text was not bad.
Roland, please read more carefully what I wrote - and what I did not. I did not say I was quoting any of your sentences in the subject line. "Bad quality should be carrier through" was written by Henry, so if I quoted anyone, it was Henry.
RN - Well, even then you quoted badly.
First, you slid a typo in that had surprised me very much, had it been from Henry, who very rarely has any.
Second, you did not say, to whom you referred.
And third, in Henry's posting, the omission of the very important part "to some extent" was admissible, as it was not a textual quote. But you are quoting from him in a way, that suggests to every reader, that I had said something that I had not.
-
Attila Piróth wrote: Even if you add "to some extent", I disagree: my view is that the translator should do everything to produce the translation that is most fit for purpose.
No, you can't. -
At best very exceptionally. But not as a standard procedure, or, as Winnie ther Pooh would say, a Crustimoney Proseedcake.
Of course I can - and clients/authors really appreciate that. I speak from experience. I translated several high-profile undergraduate and graduate level textbooks, and the authors very much appreciated any effort to try to improve the text. Attila [Módosítva: 2008-12-09 12:08 GMT]
This implies, that these texts were either deficient in themselves or needed editing for the target group.
That could well be a rather typical situation in "non fiction" translation. - It will be atypical for literary translation. - If these contain information not easily accessible to the reader, that information should, in literary translation, be given in an appendix.
[Edited at 2008-12-09 17:46 GMT]
| | | | | surprising horizons - | Dec 9, 2008 |
Paul Cohen wrote:
From an academic standpoint, the translator should act as a perfect mirror and merely reflect the source text. Many students learn that the art of translating is the art of making yourself as unobtrusive as possible. If there are weaknesses in the original, they are bound to turn up in a translation, so the theory. The author is responsible for such flaws, not the translator.
Voilà. Period.
Paul Cohen wrote:
That's a fine approach for the ivory tower, however, it's not how things work in the real world.
We even have to fib a little.
-
Paul Cohen wrote:
I occasionally move whole sentences around and reorganize paragraphs to make the text flow better. Yes, it's often a translator’s job to improve a poorly written text. We are often the last wall of defense before that masterpiece goes to press. If we consciously allow stylistic blunders to slip through, in most cases we will only be doing our readers -- and the authors! -- a grave disservice (and not scoring points with anyone).
-
Paul Cohen wrote:
We shouldn't use a poorly written original text as a lame excuse for a poor translation.
Now. This is not serious, or is it?
A translation that is besides or above the source text is a bad translation.
It all comes down to the essence - that some confound copy writing and editing with translation.
But there could be copy writing contests. - And they would be a completely different category.
Paul Cohen wrote:
It all depends on what our clients want. Ultimately, they are the ones who pay our bills -- not the academics.
Sure, of course. -
As Bertolt Brecht had it - "Erst kommt das Fressen, und dann kommt die Moral."
But the contest is not about business, but about the "Art of Translation" - at least it should be.
The aim is not to bake a nice tasting and well selling cake with no matter which ingredients - but to bake a cake with exactly the ingredients that are in source. If the source has somewhat too much salt, the cake could well taste a bit salty.
[Edited at 2008-12-09 13:27 GMT]
[Edited at 2008-12-09 19:17 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Heinrich Pesch
Finland
Local time: 05:37
Member (2003)
Finnish to German
+ ...
| Quality of writing should come first | Dec 9, 2008 |
at least when rating entries in a translation contest.
At least if I would have had the time to do a full rating of all entries in a language pair I would first have read each and excluded those that are:
1. clearly not by a native translator
2. dull, difficult to understand, somewhat strange
Only in the second stage would I have looked at the source text and compared it to the translations left. I would concentrate on a few points. Only grave mistranslation... See more at least when rating entries in a translation contest.
At least if I would have had the time to do a full rating of all entries in a language pair I would first have read each and excluded those that are:
1. clearly not by a native translator
2. dull, difficult to understand, somewhat strange
Only in the second stage would I have looked at the source text and compared it to the translations left. I would concentrate on a few points. Only grave mistranslations, if they are in conflict with the message of the source text, would force me to put thumbs down to an entry that is otherwise excellent writing.
In translation of literary text I would follow the advice of Paul McCartney:
"...take a dull song and make it better".
Regards
Heinrich ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Heinrich Pesch wrote:
at least when rating entries in a translation contest.
At least if I would have had the time to do a full rating of all entries in a language pair I would first have read each and excluded those that are:
1. clearly not by a native translator
2. dull, difficult to understand, somewhat strange
Only in the second stage would I have looked at the source text and compared it to the translations left. I would concentrate on a few points. Only grave mistranslations, if they are in conflict with the message of the source text, would force me to put thumbs down to an entry that is otherwise excellent writing.
In translation of literary text I would follow the advice of Paul McCartney:
"...take a dull song and make it better".
Regards
Heinrich
Shame on you. ;o)
[Edited at 2008-12-09 15:13 GMT]
| | | | wonita (X)
China
Local time: 22:37
| Bad writing style | Dec 9, 2008 |
Roland Nienerza wrote: Heinrich Pesch wrote:
at least when rating entries in a translation contest.
At least if I would have had the time to do a full rating of all entries in a language pair I would first have read each and excluded those that are:
1. clearly not by a native translator
2. dull, difficult to understand, somewhat strange
Only in the second stage would I have looked at the source text and compared it to the translations left. I would concentrate on a few points. Only grave mistranslations, if they are in conflict with the message of the source text, would force me to put thumbs down to an entry that is otherwise excellent writing.
In translation of literary text I would follow the advice of Paul McCartney:
"...take a dull song and make it better".
Regards
Heinrich Shame on you.
This is bad writing style in both literal and literary sense.
| | | | | Let's return to the topic at hand | Dec 9, 2008 |
Hello all,
I would just like to take a moment to remind everyone of http://www.proz.com/siterules/general/2#2 . The discussion has been interesting so far-- let's keep it on topic and express our opinions courteously. Thanks.
Best regards,
Jared
| | |
|
|
|
wonita (X)
China
Local time: 22:37
| Thank you Jare | Dec 9, 2008 |
Jared wrote: Hello all, I would just like to take a moment to remind everyone of http://www.proz.com/siterules/general/2#2 . The discussion has been interesting so far-- let's keep it on topic and express our opinions courteously. Thanks. Best regards, Jared
I will change immediately, I promise!
| | | | | Why not running the contests in two categories? | Dec 9, 2008 |
It is interesting to see that some misread the title of this thread - which is
"Voting ***just*** for "quality of writing" is totally unacceptable" -
in a way as if I had said that "Voting for "quality of writing" is totally unacceptable".
"Voting ***just*** for "quality of writing" is totally unacceptable" was a response to an express invitation to this extent by the organinzers - and I had given the correct context quotation for it -
"That ... See more It is interesting to see that some misread the title of this thread - which is
"Voting ***just*** for "quality of writing" is totally unacceptable" -
in a way as if I had said that "Voting for "quality of writing" is totally unacceptable".
"Voting ***just*** for "quality of writing" is totally unacceptable" was a response to an express invitation to this extent by the organinzers - and I had given the correct context quotation for it -
"That said, if you prefer not to vote in a pair in which you have participated, please consider evaluating -- and rating -- the "quality of writing" in entries that are written in your native language(s) (regardless of source)."
Having this point clear, it is very informative to observe that obviously many in the industry put "nice writing", more or less at every cost, to a very high, some even to the only priority.
Maybe it would be a good idea to run the contests in two categories, but based on the same source texts -
Category A - Precise and exact translation - for "Art of Translation".
Category B - Freewheeling fantasy writing on a given theme - for "Nice Reading".
[Edited at 2008-12-09 17:00 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | I don't get it | Dec 9, 2008 |
As far as I understand it, it's the average score that counts, not the number of votes. So if 10.000 people vote on quality of writing, and only five people vote on quality of translation, we still get an average for both. And since the determination of the quality of writing should not be mixed up with that of the quality of translation, I don't see how voting for either only one or both could have a negative effect on the average score.
Am I missing something?
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Voting just for "quality of writing" is totally unacceptable | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
