Translation Commentator is a weblog by Rosene Zaros that has been running for some time, mainly with comments on the translation industry in the USA.

A recurrent topic is the commodification of translation (it does appear that this term is more common than commoditization, both on UK and edu sites). To quote Bernie Bierman’s email given in her latest entry:

Translation (and) the translation process, is (are) not about words…big words, little words, short words, long words, whole words or particles of words. It is equally not about numbers or names or formulas or equations. Translation is about writing and communication. Indeed, before the so-called “wizards” of technology came long in the late 1990’s or early 2000’s, translation was viewed by many as one branch of the communications arts. Indeed, from any clear point of view, whether objective or subjective, translation is about writing and communication. It is not about word-matching, as some if not many of today’s technologically-obsessed translators, CAT workers and CAT operators believe.

Two issues frequently discussed by translators:

1. How shall I charge?
by source text
by target text
by word
by line
by page
What is a word?
What is a page?
What is a line?

NB German words are on average longer than English words
German words in legal texts are on average longer than German words in general texts

I have an Excel file someone gave me to adjust between styles of charging. There’s also a website somewhere that helps. I’ll add it if I remember it.

I can’t get very excited about this, and I think whichever method you use, you have to fix a rate that gives you enough per hour at the end of the day.

2. The use of CAT tools
in particular translation memory
in particular the way translation agencies/companies use TM programs to reduce payment to translators
the idea that using TM saves time

Again, I find TM excellent for quality control, and it doesn’t save me time.

There was an exciting exchange on Jill Sommer’s blog, Musings from an overworked translator, on this topic last November, Trados ad = tempest in a teapot. (That’s US for storm in a teacup – I thought they had done away with the tea).
This in turn went back to a discussion on ProZ. A Trados ad quoted a translator who translated over 34,000 words in 10 hours rather than 17 days, with a fairly empty TM. It sounds to me like a repetitive text.

An example of the Franconian ‘weiches P’, I assume.

Not welcome at Country Corner, Fürth.

LATER NOTE: I thought this Frankenberger was a local hoodlum, but the penny has just dropped – it refers to Sebastian Frankenberger, who initiated the Bavarian referendum as a result of which Bavaria now has the strictest anti-smoking regulations in Germany.

I am pleased to announce that Victor Dewsbery has a new weblog, Language Mystery. Let’s wish it a long and active future.

At Victor’s website there are a number of resources, such as translations of the titles of German statutes, a glossary of Christian terms, German public institutions, advice on not trusting dictionaries, and a lot more.

Advertisements for carp restaurants in local advertising paper (click to enlarge):

Anyone who is learning about how to translate German statutes into English might be interested to compare the two online translations of the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz.

1. Goethe Institut (formerly Inter Nationes translations)

2. BFDI (Der Bundesbeauftragte für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit)

Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (original German)

In no. 1, I was struck by:

a) The use of Article instead of section for §

b) The difficulty of navigating to sections 5, 43 and 44

c) Section 43 (2) ‘fails to appoint a commissioner for data protection’ – I would only use this for the Federal Commissioner – here, prefer ‘data protection officer’ (No. 2 has ‘data protection official’)

d) Translation of rechtzeitig as on time instead of in (good) time (No. 2 has ‘within the prescribed time limit’)

e) Mystifying translation of section 43 (7): contrary to Article 29 para. 3 sentence 2 does not ensure the acceptance of recordings,
(No. 2: in violation of Section 29 (3) second sentence fails to ensure the inclusion of identifiers)

Incidentally, if one looks at no. 1’s translation of section 29, the terms used do not match.

In no. 2, I liked

a) data subject for Betroffene(r)
(No. 1 had affected party – I was going to use person affected, although I see I had already got data subject in my database)

b) Bußgeldvorschriften and Strafvorschriften, as headings, translated as Administrative offences and Criminal offences
(No. 1 had Administrative Fine Provisions and Penalty Provisions)

c) Translation of section 43 (5):
entgegen § 29 Abs. 2 Satz 3 oder 4 die dort bezeichneten Gründe oder die Art und Weise ihrer glaubhaften Darlegung nicht aufzeichnet
in violation of section 29 (2) third or fourth sentence fails to record the evidence described there or the means of presenting it in a credible way
(No. 1: contrary to Article 29 para. 2 sentence 3 or 4 does not record the reasons named there or does not record the way in which they are credibly presented)

There is more. I would love to know who did the BFDI translation.

Jessica Antosik at the Übersetzerportal reports (in German) on a petition sent by young translators and interpreters to the Petitions Committee (Petitionsausschuss) of the German Bundestag. The Committee is a place people can complain to or petition, with a sort of ombudsman function.

The request was to protect the words Übersetzer, Dolmetscher and Sprachmittler. This would mean that the only people who could call themselves the equivalent of translator or interpreter would have to have some sort of training or pass some sort of exam.

This petition was developed on a social network called Xing, where there is more to read, and members can see more than I can. A representative of the BDÜ is there quoted as saying that if the petition had been granted, the effect would not have been as desired (more work for the petitioners?).

The Committee turned down the petition, inter alia because there is a trend towards encouraging occupations rather than restricting them.

The BDÜ wanted something like this for many years, but as far as I know doesn’t any longer. It amazes me that anyone would want this. I have not yet found that passing or failing a particular exam made anyone a good or bad translator. Do these people look at the many unqualified and incompetent translators and overlook the qualified and incompetent ones? whatever that means, since a translation may work without being brilliant. And presumably non-translators could still translate for money, so you could say ‘I had this translated not by a translator, but by a teacher’. (I have passed the Bavarian and Hesse translators’ exams and the Hesse interpreters’ exam, although I think I learnt more from teaching and online forums than anything else)

Wir, die gezeichneten Übersetzer und Dolmetscher der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, fordern den Schutz der oben genannten Berufsbezeichnung und deren weiterführenden Fachbezeichnungen. Als Qualifikation zur Ausübung der Berufe fordern wir ein abgeschlossenes (Fach-)Hochschulstudium oder eine abgeschlossene Ausbildung an einer anerkannten Ausbildungsstätte. Quereinsteiger sollen fortan ihre Sprach-, Fach- und Sachkompetenz durch entsprechende Nachweise oder eine qualifizierende Prüfung vor einer anerkannten Stelle (z. B. IHK oder staatliches Prüfungsamt) belegen. Sollte eine Person weder eine abgeschlossene Ausbildung noch eine qualifizierende Prüfung vorlegen können, darf sie nicht unter den Berufsbezeichnungen Übersetzer, Dolmetscher oder Sprachmittler tätig werden.

From the grounds:

Übersetzen und Dolmetschen ist mehr als die reine Übertragung in eine andere Sprache. Es erfordert sowohl linguistisches Wissen, stilistisches Feingefühl als auch die richtige und korrekt angewandte Technik des Übersetzen und Dolmetschens. Diese Kenntnisse erwirbt man nur durch eine qualifizierte mehrjährige Ausbildung.

Sorry, but show me someone straight from a university translation diploma course who has linguistic knowledge, stylistic sensitivity (in their mother tongue) and the right and properly applied techniques of translating and interpreting – it takes years of practice.

They also object to translators and interpreters working at very low rates, which they think is more common among unqualified people. But I think our economic system permits it. Personally, I would rather work as a cleaner than translate for peanuts – if only I were fitter, then I might even do some cleaning here.