| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | Should “native language” claims be verified? Thread poster: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
Ty Kendall 
United Kingdom
Local time: 06:28
Hebrew to English
| Gimme another axe, I've worn this one down to a stub | Aug 6, 2012 |
....when "people"....
1) Continually fail to understand the premise of this thread
2) Continually try to derail the thread with viral posting
3) Willfully or unwillfully (I'm not sure which is scarier) misunderstand posts (the language)
4) Continually talk about insane irrelevant tripe i.e. migration patterns.
5) Co-opt and twist someone's words to support their own flailing argument
6) Continually and continuously repeat the same flawed statements
Back to the grindstone......
| | | | | PLEASE START your own thread/trolling | Aug 6, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The thing is, and surely you know it, outsourcers as well as the site filters translators using nativity is one of the yardsticks.
...
The solution is, not to persist with the nativity criterion at all, and to allow anyone who thinks himself capable enough for a job to bid for it, and leave it to the outsourcer to decide.
Dear Balasubramaniam,
I made a similar point - once. You have made your point several times, and that is more than is called for. You are not discussing the same topic as we are - the fact that people LIE ON THIS SITE and that something should be done to stop them from doing this and destroying the reputation of this site and those associated with it.
If you want to discuss whether nativeness should be claimed or whether it should be sought or whether it should be offered, you are free to do so - on a forum thread set up to discuss that topic - NOT THIS ONE.
Your efforts to argue points that no one else here agrees with and no one else here intends to discuss here (not to mention what appear to be your attempts to twist people's words) make you appear to be a troll. If you are not familiar with this word in this context, I invite you to research it immediately.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
This is what we should be arguing about - the language that one has mastered for professional purposes.
It is your competence in this language that really matters.
Native language is an entirely separate and irrelevant issue.
1) It is your competence that matters - when competence is being discussed. That is not actually the topic here. If you believe we "should be arguing" about something else, START A SEPARATE THREAD for it.
2) Native language IS an entirely separate issue - which is why, if you would like to discuss its role, its value, etc., you should do so in a SEPARATE THREAD. THIS THREAD is about putting an end to site-sponsored fraud.
3) Native language IS NOT irrelevant because outsourcers don't believe it is irrelevant. When they believe it is irrelevant or less irrelevant, they make this known. When outsourcers make it known that they are specifically seeking native speakers, they should not have to sift through liars purposefully attempting to deceive them.
Again, as others before me, I implore you either to STAY ON TOPIC or START YOUR OWN THREAD.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 10:58
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Clarification | Aug 6, 2012 |
If you keep the topic of this thread in mind you will see that all my posts are relevant. The topic is this:
Should "native language" claims be verified?
And I am arguing it is irrelevant, because it is insufficient.
My argument is, the site should not be asking about native languages at all, it neither helps outsourcers, nor members of the site in general (though it may confer some unfair professional advantage on some members).
Outsourcers sh... See more If you keep the topic of this thread in mind you will see that all my posts are relevant. The topic is this:
Should "native language" claims be verified?
And I am arguing it is irrelevant, because it is insufficient.
My argument is, the site should not be asking about native languages at all, it neither helps outsourcers, nor members of the site in general (though it may confer some unfair professional advantage on some members).
Outsourcers should be educated into considering a host of factors while selecting translators for a job - proficiency in source and target languages, experience, education, specialization, etc.
Not that outsourcers are not aware of this, they already have mechanisms for picking out talent but increasing their awareness about the host of factors to consider can always help.
This is one purposes of my posts - creating awareness about the shortcomings of relying too much on the native yardstick.
Many translators have an ambiguous situation visavis the question of native language - many such cases have come up in this thread itself. So their answers to this yes or no type of question can also be variable. There is no scope for providing a more detailed answer to this question, which in many cases is necessary. Someone had suggested a mouseover type of solution, which I think is a good suggestion.
But a yes no type of question where translators are forced to make a Hobson's choice will only induce evasive answers, not because of translators are untruthful, but because the situation does not lend itself to a yes no answer but is far more nuanced.
Discussing the nitty gritty of a mechanism of verification of native language comes at a later stage after settling this point - the point of relevance of veriying the claims to nativity.
So that is really putting the cart before the horse and jumping the gun. We have still not come to an agreement on whether nativity is even relevant to translation business. ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 06:28
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | @ Balasubramian | Aug 6, 2012 |
This is one purposes of my posts - creating awareness about the shortcomings of relying too much on the native yardstick.
Off you go, there’s your own thread: “The validity of native language as a yardstick for quality translation”. I'm sure you can come up with your own title.
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 06:28
Hebrew to English
| Poor horse, just let it RIP | Aug 6, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
We have still not come to an agreement on whether nativity is even relevant to translation business.
YES, we have!
AGAIN, it doesn't matter so much whether WE think it is relevant or not. Linguists and academics acknowledge it is relevant in linguistic matters (I think we can agree translation is a linguistic matter), and MOST IMPORTANTLY:
BOTH
1) Outsourcers
2) Proz.com
ALSO think it's relevant.
Please, stop flogging a dead horse already! This particular horse isn't just dead, it's that dead and gone it's putrid and crawling with maggots.
[Edited at 2012-08-06 09:03 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 13:28
Chinese to English
| Thank you to B.L. for his clear opinion | Aug 6, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Should "native language" claims be verified?
And I am arguing it is irrelevant, because it is insufficient.
My argument is, the site should not be asking about native languages at all
I'm not being sarky here, for once. B.L., that is a valid view, and obviously some people agree with you - Lilian, for example. And those of us who don't agree with you should bear in mind your opinion.
However, you need to understand that the vast majority of people don't agree. Your opinion has been noted, and we are bearing it in mind. But those of us who do think that native languages are relevant are now discussing how they should be handled on this site.
Your view is clear to us. You have nothing further to contribute to our conversation, because you don't think native languages should be discussed on the site at all. Any further comments from you will just be trolling.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 10:58
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Why do people lie? | Aug 6, 2012 |
Janet Rubin wrote:
LIE ON THIS SITE and that something should be done to stop them from doing this and destroying the reputation of this site and those associated with it.
Janet, if you have really read my posts, this is one of the earliest issues I had addressed. Why do people lie so much on this site?
And I had answered that, if so many people are forced to lie, we need to look at the causes that force them to do so, not jump into the conclusion that they are bad or wicked.
The issue as I see it is, asking translators to declare a native language itself is the problem. Translators often have two or more native languages, in the sense defined in this thread itself - that is exposure at an early age to the languages and continued use and perfection of the languages.
So you could easily confuse them when you ask them to declare one native language, as if that is the normal situation for translators. As the current option provides no leeway for explaining their situation, and in any case, no one is interested in any such explanation, it a much simpler or hassle-free solution to declare one or the other language as the native language. And this could appear as falsehood to certain quarters, but is perfectly explainable when looked at from the point of view of the translator.
The problem is further compounded when outsourcers as well as the site use the nativity yardstick for job bidding purposes and for the translator directories.
I am trying to highlight this issue in my posts. It might be a minority opinion, but I think it is very relevant to the issue under discussion.
You can continue discussing your fixes to the problem, but have the decency also to allow space for contrarian views.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 06:28
Hebrew to English
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
You can continue discussing your fixes to the problem, but have the decency also to allow space for contrarian views.
"Contrarian views" is one thing, derailing a discussion because you personally disagree with its premise is another.
The thing is even the OP has stated that your sojourns in various directions are not relevant and has invited you to start your own thread if you want to grind that axe....
We aren't talking about "why" people lie, we all know why....and nobody here will agree to doing away with a native language criterion. You're entitled to your opinion but you're flogging a dead horse now....you aren't going to sway anyone to your opinion.
Time to be constructive, not obstructive.
[Edited at 2012-08-06 09:27 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| People don't twist, or misunderstand the subject of this thread | Aug 6, 2012 |
I am not taking about myself here, so please kindly do not start with things from my posts. -- I have some other people in mind who are almost not allowed to express their opinions, if their opinions differ from the ones proposing some tests and things like that to measure something that has at least five definitions, but I am sure many more. Native language is not anything defined without a high degree of ambiguity, so it cannot be measured in any way. It is also sometimes the source of discrim... See more I am not taking about myself here, so please kindly do not start with things from my posts. -- I have some other people in mind who are almost not allowed to express their opinions, if their opinions differ from the ones proposing some tests and things like that to measure something that has at least five definitions, but I am sure many more. Native language is not anything defined without a high degree of ambiguity, so it cannot be measured in any way. It is also sometimes the source of discrimination as indicated by many linguists, one of them a famous Brazilian linguist, and many others, but their works are not quoted here. The term native language understood as L1 comes from the times when people were more tribal -- lived within their communities, married within their groups, and even when they migrated they kept their first language, as the main, or even the only language they spoke. This is not the reality of the 21st, century, and the term has long lost its original meaning, especially for translation or any other professional purposes. It might be very important for identity reasons, which no one is to measure but the individuals themselves, and perhaps some linguistic studies related to language acquisition, or other socio-linguistic studies. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 10:58
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | No one is arguing that | Aug 6, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
The reason someone who is fluent in English doesn't get to quote on jobs here at Proz.com specifically for "native English speakers" or is not listed as English native speaker in the directory, even though they are "fluent", is that that "fluency" in a language is not the same as "being a native speaker."
B
[Edited at 2012-08-06 08:58 GMT]
No one is arguing that all those who are proficient in a language are also native in that language. You are insinuating that meaning yourself.
All that is being said is that those who are proficient in a language should not be excluded from taking on jobs that they can competently do to the satisfaction of every quality condition of the outsourcer, merely on the excuse that s/he is not native in that language.
To say English is an international language and anybody who is fluent in it should be allowed to claim it as their "native language" or should be allowed to quote on native English speaker jobs and be listed in the directory is unacceptable (at least to most people here I'm sure). It opens the door to complete abuse and is a slap in the face of any native English speaker.
It may be a slap on the face of the native, but it is also snatching a job from a non-native competitor.
I leave it to you to decide which is the lesser evil.
[2012-08-06 09:42 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | | You are losing more ground than you are gaining | Aug 6, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Janet Rubin wrote:
LIE ON THIS SITE and that something should be done to stop them from doing this and destroying the reputation of this site and those associated with it.
Janet, if you have really read my posts, this is one of the earliest issues I had addressed. Why do people lie so much on this site?
Balasubramaniam, even now, as I write this, I have to force myself to even scan through the rest of your post. My eyes are blurring with lack of interest.
Why is that so, you may ask?
Because it is OFF-TOPIC.
THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT WHY PEOPLE LIE.
That was suitably addressed for the tangent it is - some 40-50 pages back - also by myself, if I may point that out AGAIN. It is a closed issue. People here are done discussing it.
Does that register with you?
PLEASE START YOUR OWN THREAD.
End of discussion
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 06:28
Hebrew to English
| Horses for courses | Aug 6, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
All that is being said is that those who are proficient in a language should not be excluded from taking on jobs that they can competently do to the satisfaction of every quality condition of the outsourcer, merely on the excuse that s/he is not native in that language.
Yes they should if that's what the outsourcer WANTS. The outsourcer has the right to exclude anyone they want: non-native speakers, non-US citizens...etc etc....this point has been covered....!
but it is also snatching a job from a non-native competitor. I leave it to you to decide which is the lesser evil.
No it isn't. It simply isn't their market. And it's neither good nor evil, it's simple market forces.
[Edited at 2012-08-06 09:50 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Actually, someone did argue that | Aug 6, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
No one is arguing that all those who are proficient in a language are also native in that language.
As far as I can tell, Lilian did just that, and some of your arguments seem to be very close to some of hers.
If you want to argue that those "proficient" with a language are justified in translating into that language, that is a perfectly valid discussion to enter into - just NOT IN THIS THREAD.
Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 10:58
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | I am not casting personal aspersions on anybody | Aug 6, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
"Protagonists of 'nativity' might have an axe to grind (that's the second time you are saying this on page 92)." If you have really read through all our comments over 92 pages, you must surely realize that this is untrue.
What axe do I have to grind?
None!
B
[Edited at 2012-08-06 09:40 GMT]
Please note, I am not casting personal aspersions on anybody. These are general statements not aimed at any one, and please answer them in that tone.
| | | |
Ty Kendall wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
We have still not come to an agreement on whether nativity is even relevant to translation business. YES, we have! AGAIN, it doesn't matter so much whether WE think it is relevant or not. Linguists and academics acknowledge it is relevant in linguistic matters (I think we can agree translation is a linguistic matter), and MOST IMPORTANTLY: BOTH 1) Outsourcers 2) Proz.com ALSO think it's relevant.
And why do they think it's relevant?
Because it is an indication of expected quality of output.
But it doesn't guarantee it (as discussed) and, as also discussed (indeed seen on this thread), some non-natives are also capable of the same quality of output.
So you have a situation where you wish to accurately ascribe an attribute (nativeness) to individuals for the purpose of indicating their likely performance level, and you plan to decide on ascribing that attribute by measuring the same kind of performance which is the sole point of ascribing the attribute in the first place. Slightly circular logic, no?
Stick to measuring performance (competence of output) and be done with it.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should “native language” claims be verified? | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | 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 
