| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | Off topic: Misuse of "revert" Thread poster: Philip Lees
|
|---|
Balasubramaniam L. 
India
Local time: 21:56
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Very truly spoken | Jul 9, 2013 |
Michael Wetzel wrote:
"Revert" as used here isn't international English, it's pidgin. It is not just incorrect; it would be incomprehensible to most speakers of English (native or not) if the context were not as clear as it is in this case.
The only reason that the issue is important to me is because enVB (very bad English) is threatening to become acceptable to more and more markets. That is a real problem for translators, because it makes MT, amateur translators, translators with an inadequate knowledge of their target language (regardless of whether they are native or non-native speakers), etc. competitive. It also eliminates a central aspect of the unique selling point of good translators. The acceptability of enVB is a dangerous trend - and not just for into-English translators. I assume that everyone translating out of English is familiar with the horrors of enVB source texts.
I have no problem with non-native translators, and if I needed a translation from Hindi>English, L. would certainly be the first translator that I would ask to send me an offer.
That said, most non-native translators do not have a sufficient active grasp of their target language - but hey, most translators have neither a sufficient passive grasp of their source languages nor a sufficient grasp of their subject matter nor of the craft of translating ... and a good portion of native translators can't write properly in their native language anyway.
[Edited at 2013-07-09 10:47 GMT]
Wow, Michael, you got quite a bit off your chest, but you spoke truly.
The reason why I flay the dead horse of non-native speakers of English being competent users of English so often in these forums is that there is an overemphasis in this site and in the minds of many English translators that only natives are competent to translate into English, which needs to be corrected. As you have rightly pointed out, this is a fallacy, and being a non-native of English does not automatically imply that you are a bad user of English, and also that many natives of English have poor writing ability in English.
At the same time you are very correct when you say that most non-native users of English have only rudimentary knowledge of English which is not sufficient for translation purpose. The trick is to know the difference between these two extreme levels of competency and incompetency in English that one can find among non-native users of English.
It is equally important to be aware that all native speakers of English do not have levels of proficiency in their native language that would be considered sufficient for translation purposes. It is crucial to be aware of this, too, and those who harp on only natives doing English translation don't exhibit sufficient understanding of this, for a non-native English translator highly proficient in English would any day produce a better translation in English than a native English translator with average writing skills in English.
In your short post you have accurately presented the sane ground on this issue for which you deserve the highest accolades.
| | | | | Overemphasis? | Jul 9, 2013 |
I don't know how you can overemphasise the importance of writing correct English as opposed to non-standard variants.
| | | | OG Pete
United States
Russian to English
+ ...
| Most People are Desensitized to enVB | Jul 9, 2013 |
Michael Wetzel wrote:
The only reason that the issue is important to me is because enVB (very bad English) is threatening to become acceptable to more and more markets. That is a real problem for translators, because it makes MT, amateur translators, translators with an inadequate knowledge of their target language (regardless of whether they are native or non-native speakers), etc. competitive. It also eliminates a central aspect of the unique selling point of good translators. The acceptability of enVB is a dangerous trend - and not just for into-English translators. I assume that everyone translating out of English is familiar with the horrors of enVB source texts.
[Edited at 2013-07-09 10:47 GMT]
I think that "enVB" is already considered acceptable in most social and professional contexts and that "natives" are by and large desensitized to it. Nobody really cares and I'm fine with that.
What I am interested in is whether or not this is the case with other languages. For example, is "bad" French, Spanish or say Chinese socially and professionally acceptable?
| | | | Kay Denney
France
Local time: 18:26
French to English
Ty Kendall wrote: Texte Style wrote: What's wrong with using good English to explain why something is not good English "Both are not Standard English"??? Whatever happened to "neither"? Has it been standardised out to achieve a Brave New Standard English Newspeak? Oh Texte, how un-PC of you. It was written by Singaporeans. And we mustn't criticize other "Englishes" (oh how I cringe when I say that word). It's our own fault don't you know...for having colonialism, slavery, an evil empire and a death star... (oh wait). 
Well I was going to simply plead guilty then I thought of putting "Neither of them are standard through the Singaporean spell check in Word. It corrected "are" to "is", but let me get away with "neither". So there!
I remember a while back when I was working as a PM in an agency, we were asked to translate some IT stuff for some Indian guys. We were told to translate it into "Indian English" so we duly asked a translator in Bombay (just to be clear: it was before it became Mumbai) who told us there was no such thing as Indian English. So she just did it in British English as usual...
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 21:56
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | The overemphasis | Jul 9, 2013 |
Spencer Allman wrote:
I don't know how you can overemphasise the importance of writing correct English as opposed to non-standard variants.
The overemphasis I was referring to wasn't on writing correct English (which certainly requires overemphasis), but on the wide-spread assumption in this site (which actually is nothing but a presumption) that only native speakers of English can write correct English.
Probably this is a spin floated by the English Industry of UK to keep jobs within the island, but it has no professional or linguistic basis to it, and is ultimately detrimental both to the quality of translation as well the translation industry on the whole.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 21:56
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | This is what happens when the native-only logic is carried too far | Jul 9, 2013 |
Texte Style wrote:
I remember a while back when I was working as a PM in an agency, we were asked to translate some IT stuff for some Indian guys. We were told to translate it into "Indian English" so we duly asked a translator in Bombay (just to be clear: it was before it became Mumbai) who told us there was no such thing as Indian English. So she just did it in British English as usual...
This is a direct fall-out of the native-only paradigm being carried to absurd lengths. Here is how the argument goes -
Since English is not spoken in India (which of course it is, but let us accept this for the sake of argument), no one in India can be a native speaker of English. Then how do we explain the paradox of such prevalence of English in India? And here comes the quick-fix solution - We can't grant that the English spoken in India is correct English, yet we face the peculiar situation that it is indeed spoken there. Let us wriggle out of this riddle, by granting that the English spoken there is a pidgin version, not to be confused with the standard UK English, and to keep things straight, let us call it Indian English!
The fact however is, the English used by the formally educated Indians is no different in elegance or grammatical correctness from standard UK or American English (except in minor matters like spellings), or any standard version of English, and if you are shown samples of English from the Times of India, or the Guardian or the New York Times without telling you where they are from, you won't be able to tell them apart.
But that of course does not mean that each of the one billion plus Indians speaks impeccable English, India is a too complex a country for generalizations like that. You will have to be more discerning and have the nuance to recognize genuine talent from mediocre or substandard stuff.
The point is we need to recognize that English is now an international language very widely used across the globe and it is parochial to stick to old beliefs that the native speakers (meaning UK dwellers) have a monopoly on this language. We need to recognize realities and take advantage of talent in English that exists in abundance outside the native-speakers of English.
| | | | Suzan Hamer
Netherlands
Local time: 18:26
English
+ ...
| Editing Indian English.... | Jul 9, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Texte Style wrote:
I remember a while back when I was working as a PM in an agency, we were asked to translate some IT stuff for some Indian guys. We were told to translate it into "Indian English" so we duly asked a translator in Bombay (just to be clear: it was before it became Mumbai) who told us there was no such thing as Indian English. So she just did it in British English as usual...
This is a direct fall-out of the native-only paradigm being carried to absurd lengths. Here is how the argument goes - Since English is not spoken in India (which of course it is, but let us accept this for the sake of argument), no one in India can be a native speaker of English. Then how do we explain the paradox of such prevalence of English in India? And here comes the quick-fix solution - We can't grant that the English spoken in India is correct English, yet we face the peculiar situation that it is indeed spoken there. Let us wriggle out of this riddle, by granting that the English spoken there is a pidgin version, not to be confused with the standard UK English, and to keep things straight, let us call it Indian English! The fact however is, the English used by the formally educated Indians is no different in elegance or grammatical correctness from standard UK or American English (except in minor matters like spellings), or any standard version of English, and if you are shown samples of English from the Times of India, or the Guardian or the New York Times without telling you where they are from, you won't be able to tell them apart.
This is from a previous thread about "revert":(http://www.proz.com/forum/money_matters/244427-just_received_a_jaw_dropping_offer.html )
"English is no longer a foreign language in India. It is a medium of education in schools as well as a medium of communication across all offices – government and private. There is an emerging breed of writers of the English language from within India. Indian English, simply put, is the English spoken in India. The vocabulary and sentence structure of Indian English may vary from the regular, and the local expression may inadvertently slip into the text for want of a more befitting description.
While the thought, central idea and lucidity of Indian English may all be in place, there may remain some nuances in the written version which only an editing process can fine tune."
The writer goes on to describe common errors or differences, if you prefer, found in English as it is written in India, such as sentence construction, verb-tense confusion, preposition pitfalls, and spelling errors: "There is no denying that the English spoken in India sounds different from what is spoken in other English speaking countries. Even within India, accents vary so much so that while someone may pronounce ‘zip’ as ‘jip’, others may pronounce it as ‘sip’ and these errors will permeate into writing as well. So ‘fool’ in place of ‘full’ can cause quite a stir."
http://www.chillibreeze.com/articles_various/how-to-edit-indian-english-811.asp
[Edited to fix link]
[Edited at 2013-07-09 16:49 GMT]
[Edited at 2013-07-09 16:49 GMT]
[Edited at 2013-07-09 16:56 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:26
Hebrew to English
| Foiled! Darn it! | Jul 9, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Probably this is a spin floated by the English Industry of UK to keep jobs within the island
You've uncovered our dastardly plot!
Now if you'll excuse me I have to go and feed Mr Bigglesworth.
| | |
|
|
|
I guess that what I wanted to say is that I don't consider translating into a foreign language any worse than translating a foreign subject matter.
No one is a native speaker of contract law or medical reports or art history. If someone hasn't read a ridiculous amount of material in a given field (aside from having a solid grasp of the subject of the given text), he or she can't catch up by using a dictionary, Google, common sense, and good intentions.
In an imperfect world, g... See more I guess that what I wanted to say is that I don't consider translating into a foreign language any worse than translating a foreign subject matter.
No one is a native speaker of contract law or medical reports or art history. If someone hasn't read a ridiculous amount of material in a given field (aside from having a solid grasp of the subject of the given text), he or she can't catch up by using a dictionary, Google, common sense, and good intentions.
In an imperfect world, given the choice between a German with a legal background and working experience in England in the legal field and an English native with a degree in translation (or, more likely, in German), I would certainly go with the non-native if I needed my terms & conditions translated.
That is what I think gets lost in all the hubbub of native-speaker translation agency advertising.
That said, I don't translate into my second language: Why in God's name would I do that when I can make better money (and do better work) translating into English? ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 21:56
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | @Suzan Hamer | Jul 10, 2013 |
You missed the whole point I was making.
In a place like India which is mind-boggling in its diversity, it is possible to prove anything and also its reverse.
While by no stretch of imagination is India as a whole an English-speaking country, English is widely used here. Among the users of English are many for whom it is a second language which they have learned probably as an adult in a non-structured, informal way, by being exposed to it during the course of their wor... See more You missed the whole point I was making.
In a place like India which is mind-boggling in its diversity, it is possible to prove anything and also its reverse.
While by no stretch of imagination is India as a whole an English-speaking country, English is widely used here. Among the users of English are many for whom it is a second language which they have learned probably as an adult in a non-structured, informal way, by being exposed to it during the course of their work or their life. It is these users of who make the kind of errors that you mention, that are peculiar to Indian users of English.
Alongside these, there are also Indians who have been formally and systematically educated in English, and who also in some cases speak it as their main language. Their proficiency in English is not of the kind or level of the first type of English users mentioned. In many cases these people know no other language, Indian or otherwise, as well as English, and there is no question in their case of their native language interfering with their English. That is, they very much think in English, and not translate into English every sentence first mentally constructed in an Indian language. In fact, it is the other way round, and this is a common gripe among puritans of Indian languages, that these Westernized or Anglicized Indians are mangling their languages, by thinking in English and then translating into their native languages, with disastrous and often hilarious results.
These second type of English users may be minuscule in numbers by Indian standards, but they nevertheless form a very large number of people who are employed in the very large English industry in India and in other services - English is used extensively in India in business as well as administration.
When a translation agency or anyone needing translation services deals with an Indian, they particularly need to be aware of these Indian realities. In India you also get people who write very bad English and also those who write excellent English and tarring both with the same brush is exhibiting ignorance of an appalling nature. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Kay Denney
France
Local time: 18:26
French to English
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Texte Style wrote:
I remember a while back when I was working as a PM in an agency, we were asked to translate some IT stuff for some Indian guys. We were told to translate it into "Indian English" so we duly asked a translator in Bombay (just to be clear: it was before it became Mumbai) who told us there was no such thing as Indian English. So she just did it in British English as usual...
This is a direct fall-out of the native-only paradigm being carried to absurd lengths. Here is how the argument goes - Since English is not spoken in India (which of course it is, but let us accept this for the sake of argument), no one in India can be a native speaker of English. Then how do we explain the paradox of such prevalence of English in India? And here comes the quick-fix solution - We can't grant that the English spoken in India is correct English, yet we face the peculiar situation that it is indeed spoken there. Let us wriggle out of this riddle, by granting that the English spoken there is a pidgin version, not to be confused with the standard UK English, and to keep things straight, let us call it Indian English! The fact however is, the English used by the formally educated Indians is no different in elegance or grammatical correctness from standard UK or American English (except in minor matters like spellings), or any standard version of English, and if you are shown samples of English from the Times of India, or the Guardian or the New York Times without telling you where they are from, you won't be able to tell them apart. But that of course does not mean that each of the one billion plus Indians speaks impeccable English, India is a too complex a country for generalizations like that. You will have to be more discerning and have the nuance to recognize genuine talent from mediocre or substandard stuff. The point is we need to recognize that English is now an international language very widely used across the globe and it is parochial to stick to old beliefs that the native speakers (meaning UK dwellers) have a monopoly on this language. We need to recognize realities and take advantage of talent in English that exists in abundance outside the native-speakers of English.
I only wanted to make you laugh!
| | | | Philip Lees
Greece
Local time: 19:26
Greek to English
TOPIC STARTER | Following up | Jul 11, 2013 |
After my initial reply to this outfit I didn't expect to hear from them again. However, to my surprise, they "reverted back" to me today, thanking me for my "positive response" and asking for my CV.
Just in case any of you are interested in the job in question, here are the main features:
- Medical texts, each about 70 words, 5-15 per day.
- Estimated daily volume, 8 files, each needing about half an hour's work.
- Editing software: Excel.
... See more After my initial reply to this outfit I didn't expect to hear from them again. However, to my surprise, they "reverted back" to me today, thanking me for my "positive response" and asking for my CV.
Just in case any of you are interested in the job in question, here are the main features:
- Medical texts, each about 70 words, 5-15 per day.
- Estimated daily volume, 8 files, each needing about half an hour's work.
- Editing software: Excel.
- Working hours: Monday to Saturday in IST time (8 PM to 5.30 AM).
- Rate: USD 0.03 per target word.
- Deadline: 4-6 hours after allocation.
Don't all shout at once. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:26
Hebrew to English
| I bet people did revert.... | Jul 11, 2013 |
Philip Lees wrote:
Rate: USD 0.03 per target word....
Don't all shout at once.
Sadly, I bet they have had quite a few reversions, even at those rates.
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:26
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Philip Lees wrote:
I just got an e-mail about a possible job that included the line:
Request you to revert ASAP.
It occurred to me that I've seen this solecism quite a few times recently. Is it a cross-language error perhaps, or is it gradually acquiring the status of accepted usage (horrors!), and if so, why?
I was curious about how widespread this has become, so I was moved to post this.
It's probably yet another Americanism, like "likely" instead of "probably", "momentarily" instead of "in a moment", and "deprecated" for "depreciated".
You don't have to use these terms if you find them ugly or wrong. I deprecate all of them.
"To revert" means to go back to things the way they were before.
I shall now revert.
[Edited at 2013-07-11 17:25 GMT]
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:26
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
.....these days most migrants to the US are from non-English speaking countries
That's getting dangerously close to a Bushism: "most migrants to the US come from other countries".
| | | | | 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 » Misuse of "revert" | 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 » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
