| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] | Voting just for "quality of writing" is totally unacceptable Thread poster: Roland Nienerza
|
|---|
| Imbalanced rating | Dec 11, 2008 |
Hello Roland and all,
(OK, Jared, I'll try to "stick mostly to the point/topic." )
Paul Cohen wrote:
However, there are clearly various schools of thought concerning the liberties that translators are generally allowed to take.
I would say that, judging by what you read in these forums, in the Internet and in life in general, there are various schools of thought for just about anything. Maybe it's part of what is known as "human nature".
But I guess maybe we should try to separate "opinions" (being "opinionated"?) from some basic principles (rules?) that I think we could all at least acknowledge, in spite of the "different schools of thought" (even if one of them is backed by Umberto Eco).
I know, it sounds easier said than done. Still, IMHO ("in my humble opinion"?... oh no, another "opinion"!!) I think (though I don't agree with some of his derived comments/reactions) Roland makes a valid point when saying that one should not be allowed to rate a translation *ONLY* from a "quality of writing" point of view.
It's, as he rightly said, inaccurate and, furthermore, may cause an "imbalanced" rating, even if this is applied only during the "qualification" round.
Definitely the ideal approach, no matter the kind of text we are dealing with (literary, scientific, etc.), should be to rate a translation based on *both* its accuracy and writing quality, even if the original was not well-written (so I also agree with Attila).
That's probably closer to the true "art" of translation: to achieve such a complex balance between accuracy and quality of writing.
I would like to leave here a graphic example of this, which I just happened to catch while watching (again) last night that wonderful 1981 movie about the Russian Communist Revolution, "Reds" (directed by Warren Beatty):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=993HQmTqn8E
Press the pause icon and wait till the videoclip loads completely (till the timeline is completely red) and then forward to minute 4:15 and press the Play icon. You will see this interesting dialogue/scene about the crucial importance of accuracy in translations.
With my best contest solidarity wishes,
Ivette
P.S.: I used bold characters in some cases just to make it easier to spot some of my comments, since my post turned out a bit long...
| | | |
Roland Nienerza wrote:
If you made it not "considerable" but *necessary* or *adequate*, it would be alright for me.
OK - basically I agree with you on that in principle, but I suspect we might get into quite an argument in some cases regarding what is necessary. I used to go through this with my ex, who is an excellent translator but shares some of your views, and the translations that used to cause her to grit her teeth the hardest were the ones which were often considered most true to the spirit and purpose of the original text.
| | | | | If it was that - | Dec 11, 2008 |
Kevin Lossner wrote:
the translations that used to cause her to grit her teeth the hardest were the ones which were often considered most true to the spirit and purpose of the original text.
- considered by whom? - By you, I suppose? -
Well, as Pooh said, if it was that, then we don't mind.
[Edited at 2008-12-11 17:30 GMT]
| | | | | Necessary - before we forget it | Dec 11, 2008 |
Kevin Lossner wrote: Roland Nienerza wrote:
If you made it not "considerable" but *necessary* or *adequate*, it would be alright for me.
OK - basically I agree with you on that in principle, but I suspect we might get into quite an argument in some cases regarding what is necessary.
This is precisely what this discussion is about.
In order to be able to decide, not only what are necessary changes, but which changes are there in the first place, one has to see the source.
| | |
|
|
|
Sara Noss 
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:58
Member (2006)
French to English
+ ...
Hello caro,
Roland Nienerza wrote:
And yet a word about accuracy. - Who says, that accuracy has to be destitute of "quality of writing"?
Accuracy, certainly in literary or other forms of non technical translation, resides in the elegance of precision, the dazzling beauty of rendering the thought or the concept of the source perfectly "one to one" - nothing less, but also nothing more. But that cannot be achieved with bumping, hobbled writing.
See what I mean-s?
Indeed, I see what you mean-s and you put it very eloquently here, too.
Baghs & baras,
Sara
[Edited at 2008-12-12 19:56 GMT]
| | | | | inaccurate /inconsistent winners' translations? | Apr 2, 2009 |
re accuracy of translation:
I have noticed that "since kids" has been translated differently in the languages I understand: as "since I was a kid" in Serbian, Bulgarian and Italian, and "since I have kids" in Croatian and Macedonian, for example.
It's not a stylistic, but difference of basic meaning of a phrase-should at least that be consistent in judging?
| | | | | a good demonstration for the point - | Apr 2, 2009 |
Ljiljana Krstic wrote:
re accuracy of translation:
I have noticed that "since kids" has been translated differently in the languages I understand: as "since I was a kid" in Serbian, Bulgarian and Italian, and "since I have kids" in Croatian and Macedonian, for example.
It's not a stylistic, but difference of basic meaning of a phrase-should at least that
be consistent in judging?
Hello Ljiljana,
the example you quote illustrates well the intention of this topic.
Both translations of the expression "since the kids" - as "since I was a kid" and as "since I have the kids" - could lead to perfectly nice reading, but in the given context the first one was completely wrong and only the second one was right. - I myself made that mistake btw in my combination too, and it will have been one reason why my piece did not make it through the first round.
That versions with the wrong interpretation won in certain combinations is probably due to somewhat less participation in submission and voting in these pairings. - But it also highlights how difficult it often is, to get even these rather small texts perfectly right - and the consequently ensuing, rather unavoidable random aspect of these competitions.
It is precisely the aim of this thread, that voting just on "good reading" or "flows well" should be ruled out, in order to reduce the random picking.
| | | | | Innocent randomness? | Apr 2, 2009 |
Roland, you're so kind (too much?)...
Cristina
| | | | | 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 | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
| | 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 
