| 주제 내 페이지: < [1 2] |
Oxford spelling “not British”? 스레드 게시자: Pavel Slama
|
|---|
| Don't change anything that is not actually wrong is a good proofreading principle | May 16, 2014 |
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
Whatever you say about too much personality in a translator, how much should there be in a proofreader?
That is what I was taught at the start of my career by a highly respected and experienced colleague, and that is what I try to follow. Otherwise you risk making inconsistent changes that alter the style.
As long as it was used consistently, I would not change or comment on ise/ize when proofreading, unless I happened to know that the client had a preference that was not followed.
Sorry if I got carried away by gender neutrality - I had been struggling a little with it in a text with a lot of instances, so 'he/she' did not look good. I hope I'm not fanatical either!
I don't think I would change usage of 'their' as a gender-neutral singular pronoun. (Who put their cheese in the fridge?) Though I would probably try to avoid the issue if possible myself. Maybe my age is showing!
___________________
BTW some English speakers love telling 'foreigners' that their English is 'not native'. What they often mean is that it is not used in their particular region. (I have been told off once or twice for using 'non-native' expressions that I KNOW are perfectly valid, when people think I'm Danish because I use my married name.) If you have done your homework, don't let it worry you!
| | | |
Pavel Slama 
영국
Local time: 15:36
회원(2014)
영어에서 체코어
+ ...
주제 스타터 | Gender neutrality OPC guidance | May 16, 2014 |
@ Christine, but also @George Hopkins
The topic is quite comprehensively discussed in UK Parliament’s drafting guidance ( https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/drafting-bills-for-parliament , pp28–32 ), they list a bewildering array of options including “he, she or it”, albeit branded “cumbersome”.
In a previous edition this was prefaced by a 2007 quote by Jack Straw:
“For many years ... drafting of primary legislation has relied on section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978, under which words referring to the masculine gender include the feminine. ... Many believe that this practice tends to reinforce historic gender stereotypes ... From the beginning of next Session, Government Bills will take a form which achieves gender-neutral drafting so far as it is practicable, at no more than a reasonable cost to brevity or intelligibility.
I am glad to find “they” is also allowed... although this certainly is grammar descriptivism. Not to mention the New Labour spirit.
Of course, to us all this will seem a bit overblown and puny in the context of the other language/s we know.
––
@ Łukasz : Absolutely, although in this case I suspect mere ignorance.
––
Giles Watson wrote:
True, but can't you do that without charging people for it?
But I don’t. In this particular case it was pro bono, and they assured me they’d get a native proofreader. Other times, I stick to a valuable piece of advice an experienced and respected colleague once gave me, that best practice may be only to take technical jobs in my specialism.
[Edited at 2014-05-16 21:19 GMT]
| | | |
Pavel Slama
영국
Local time: 15:36
회원(2014)
영어에서 체코어
+ ...
주제 스타터 | Another bit of cheese | May 16, 2014 |
George Hopkins wrote:
Who put his cheese in the fridge?
Unless a male is clearly referred to, his can be either a he or a she.
I live with my brother and sister. One of them put his cheese in the fridge.
Like so?
| | | |
| Practice, practise ? | May 16, 2014 |
Is the verb "to practise" or "to practice"? I consider "practice" to be a noun and "practise" the corresponding verb. My conclusion from the examples I have seen in the past few years is: the Americans will use the version with "c" for both the noun and the verb (we practice it, we have practiced, I'll do my piano practice tomorrow) and most (but not all) British will use the version with "c" for the noun and "s" for the verb (we practise it, we have practised, I'll do my piano practice tomorrow... See more Is the verb "to practise" or "to practice"? I consider "practice" to be a noun and "practise" the corresponding verb. My conclusion from the examples I have seen in the past few years is: the Americans will use the version with "c" for both the noun and the verb (we practice it, we have practiced, I'll do my piano practice tomorrow) and most (but not all) British will use the version with "c" for the noun and "s" for the verb (we practise it, we have practised, I'll do my piano practice tomorrow).
I remember being taught at school "ce the noun, se the verb" (with ce and se pronounced see ee and ess ee respectively, i.e. the names of the letters).
Searching my even longer-term (and not 100% complete) memory, I think the Americans used to spell everything of that type with "s" (which of course they still do for "defense") and couldn't understand (or just didn't accept) when it was pointed out that it's sometimes "practice" and sometimes "practise" so they decided that everything is "practice".
I don't recall seeing any examples with "licence" and "license" but I expect it's the same as "practice" and "practise".
But I notice a notice, I don't notise it!
Oliver
[Edited at 2014-05-16 21:56 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| "practise"/"practice": either way, you can't please everybody... | May 16, 2014 |
Oliver Walter wrote:
Is the verb "to practise" or "to practice"? I consider "practice" to be a noun and "practise" the corresponding verb.
I think this is an interesting case where it's difficult to please everybody. Unlike the -ise/-ize issue, where there's at least a general awareness that both conventions are used, it seems that UK speakers are not generally aware that "practice" is often used for the verb in the US, and US speakers are unaware that "practise" is how the verb is often spelt in the UK. So if you're writing for an international audience, whichever spelling you use, somebody will think you've "got it wrong".
I've tried using both spellings on my web site, and either way, I get an e-mail at least once a week from a dutiful pedant alerting me to the "mistake"...
| | | |
| advice and advise | May 17, 2014 |
I was taught that licence and license, practice and practise, etc follow advice and advise in the UK and and the US it's just s everywhere (except advice)
| | | |
babylondon wrote:
But I don’t. In this particular case it was pro bono, and they assured me they’d get a native proofreader. Other times, I stick to a valuable piece of advice an experienced and respected colleague once gave me, that best practice may be only to take technical jobs in my specialism.
Somebody has to do it. Native speakers of English generally don't learn Slavic languages as children, and it may take forever to get to C2. Besides, if only minor details of style are at issue, then it begs mention that most native-speaking practising translators probaby aren't any more problem-free than that, whatever the language, not just English. (But do work on your typography.)
[Edited at 2014-05-17 14:42 GMT]
| | | |
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
babylondon wrote:
But I don’t. In this particular case it was pro bono, and they assured me they’d get a native proofreader. Other times, I stick to a valuable piece of advice an experienced and respected colleague once gave me, that best practice may be only to take technical jobs in my specialism.
Somebody has to do it. Native speakers of English generally don't learn Slavic languages as children, and it may take forever to get to C2. Besides, if only minor details of style are at issue, then it begs mention that most native-speaking practising translators probaby aren't any more problem-free than that, whatever the language, not just English. (But do work on your typography.) [Edited at 2014-05-17 14:42 GMT]
I am one of those who don't practise what they preach. I only tranlsate into English. Partly because my Danish is not entirely up to my own professional standards, and largely because ther are plenty of native Danes who can do it. I specialise in the texts where you really need an English native.
I always defend qualified Danes who take on expert translations in law and technology, and really do them well. There are simply not enough English natives who are familiar with the Scandinavian languages either. I have served as the native proofreader and had to admit that I could not have done better myself, certainly where the terminology is concerned.
Danes grow up with English in the background, and hear it on TV and radio every day. They have to read a lot of the literature for their higher educations in English - it is just not all available in Danish. Some write their dissertations and theses in English, because otherwise the rest of the world can't read them.
While this is normal in Denmark, most English students would be outraged if asked to write their theses in say German or French. Think about it!
Scandinavian English varies from excellent to awful, but most is at the higher end of the scale. I spend a lot of time tidying up, style-manual in hand, when I proofread for them. If they are aiming at publication in a particular journal, then you do have to observe the house rules.
But there is no single Académie Anglaise or Académie Américaine and we all have to find our own style and respect other people's.
| | | |
| 주제 내 페이지: < [1 2] |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
