| Páginas no tópico: < [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? Tópico cartaz: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
| Most of what Psicutrinas wrote in his recent post is one of the very few | Jul 29, 2012 |
reasonable and professional things written in this thread. Some hope shining at last through the Middle Ages.
I think people should also take tests in the source language, just for fairness -- to translate from it, of course, not the other way around, if there are ever any tests to be administered, which I personally doubt.
Source language is very important too -- if you don't understand the text, it does not matter how many idioms you use in your target language, or even if ... See more reasonable and professional things written in this thread. Some hope shining at last through the Middle Ages.
I think people should also take tests in the source language, just for fairness -- to translate from it, of course, not the other way around, if there are ever any tests to be administered, which I personally doubt.
Source language is very important too -- if you don't understand the text, it does not matter how many idioms you use in your target language, or even if you sound almost Shakespearian. (which might not be such a great thing after all -- how many contemporary English speakers understand Shakespeare?)
[Edited at 2012-07-29 09:52 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-07-29 09:58 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Oh, and for the paying members at this very moment... | Jul 29, 2012 |
I have an idea: let´s give them (us) say 1 month time to set the real native language (taking into account that one could be sick, on vacation, etc.). After this period, verification should begin. If one fails to pass, one loses the paid membership with no refund. We would all have been notified of this before the 1-month-period begins, so it would be good for all to state the truth.
And, of course, it should not be possible at all to change the native language afterwards. You can... See more I have an idea: let´s give them (us) say 1 month time to set the real native language (taking into account that one could be sick, on vacation, etc.). After this period, verification should begin. If one fails to pass, one loses the paid membership with no refund. We would all have been notified of this before the 1-month-period begins, so it would be good for all to state the truth.
And, of course, it should not be possible at all to change the native language afterwards. You cannot change or acquire a native language the way you can change the colour of your hair... ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L. 
Índia
Local time: 03:49
Membro (2006)
inglês para híndi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Most native speakers won't either... | Jul 29, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
Even the best non-native speakers will usually not acquire all the grammatical and other subtleties of a non-native language.
Most native speakers too won't acquire all the grammatical and other subtleties of their language either. So that is not saying much.
Languages are vast edifices spread over time frames much longer than human life spans. We deal with only snapshot versions of our languages, the languages as they exist during the period that coincides with our life spans.
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Espanha
Local time: 23:19
Membro (2007)
inglês
+ ...
| Nani's proposals were two-fold, I believe | Jul 29, 2012 |
psicutrinius wrote:
There are also paying members who are deceivers/liars.
The investment required to become a paying member is not what would deter them (and there are some certified Pros who lie/deceive).
Nani was suggesting that
(a) quoting on jobs be restricted to paying members, and
(b) that claims being made by those paying members be verified by others.
Personally, I would like to second Nani's proposal. We all know that there are non-paying members who are totally sincere, honest and can back up their every claim; and there are paying members who aren't and can't. But it would be a step towards a more credible platform for professional translators. As Nani says, many who currently do not pay may be encouraged to subscribe to the site. "Why should I bother renewing my membership?" has been a common question lately.
I've said before somewhere that I believe we should have categories of "professional translator" and "language user" (or something along those lines), rather than everyone registering with "freelancer" as the default. There's room for us all on ProZ, but let's differentiate between paying, verified members who can be contacted for translations and who can apply for jobs, and non-paying registered site users who can play an active part in KudoZ and the forums but will not be included in the directory or be permitted to quote for jobs.
However, that may be going a bit off topic here as it goes a lot further than verifying native language claims. Still, we're clearly not going to be able to verify ALL ProZ.com" close to 600,000 registered users.
Sheila
| | |
|
|
|
| You are right, Sheila, thanks! | Jul 29, 2012 |
Sheila Wilson wrote:
Nani was suggesting that
(a) quoting on jobs be restricted to paying members, and
(b) that claims being made by those paying members be verified by others.
Yes, that´s exactly what I meant (well, for "a" being: 'quoting on jobs and appearing on the directory search be restricted to paying members').
Thank you very much for putting my thoughts so clearly. 
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
Índia
Local time: 03:49
Membro (2006)
inglês para híndi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
Michael Beijer wrote:
How about we just drop this whole issue and instead focus on improving the ProZ.com Certified PRO Network? That way, if you want to prove you are who/what you say you are, you can get the little red badge or whatever it is and stick that next to your name. Clients requiring certainty could then just filter on translators that are members of the ProZ.com Certified PRO Network.
Michael
[Edited at 2012-07-23 17:09 GMT]
I find the current discussion entirely pointless, too.
| | | | psicutrinius
Espanha
Local time: 00:19
Membro (2008)
espanhol para inglês
+ ...
| @Balasubramanian | Jul 29, 2012 |
Here we are.
Since this is pointless to you, why not keeping away from it?
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
Índia
Local time: 03:49
Membro (2006)
inglês para híndi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | It is quite simple, really - just a case of protecting the turf | Jul 29, 2012 |
JKalina wrote:
I’m really interested to hear why the proponents of verification are so bothered by all this. I can’t see an incompetent fraudster’s false claim affecting you or any other articulate, qualified and experienced native speakers job-wise. So, what’s the problem? Is it an emotional issue? Do you feel violated in some way? (I do apologize for the dramatic turn of phrase: language and identity are burning issues in my country, but in a very different sense – they’re both being questioned.)
As I see it, it is simply a case of protecting the turf. The "native" brigade does not want to give credence to the capability of "non-natives" to turn out as good a translation in their target languages as they themselves, because this gives them the clear advantage of reducing the number of claimants to the pie.
In support of their false position, they put forward a whole spectrum of hocus-pocus arguments that have no basis in linguistics or science, and have no practical relevance to the business of translation.
You would have noticed their going to great lengths to short-circuit suggestions for talking about quality of translation instead of the non-issue of "nativity", insisting rather obdurately that nativity can be a stand-in for quality.
They go to Machiavellian levels of co-opting those non-native translators who demonstrate native-level competence in their language by conferring on them honorary nativity (the case of Samuel), instead of conceding on the basis of these examples that the whole nativity edifice is just a pack of cards.
And when their bluff is called by people like Bin, on the relavance of the question of nativity to a large part of the translation business where no native level skills are required - just capturing the meaning correctly is all that is required, they enter into levels of unprecedented sophistry.
Fortunately, a few are realizing the futility of their position and are returning to the quality argument, (Charlie, for example, in his recent posts). But the majority are loathe to give up the special and unfair advantage that the badge of nativity confers upon them over their competition, without a bitter fight.
[2012-07-29 15:32 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 06:19
chinês para inglês
| Cut off the non-payers, and the site folds | Jul 29, 2012 |
Sheila Wilson wrote:
There's room for us all on ProZ, but let's differentiate between paying, verified members who can be contacted for translations and who can apply for jobs, and non-paying registered site users who can play an active part in KudoZ and the forums but will not be included in the directory or be permitted to quote for jobs.
Or has to change character radically. At the moment Proz benefits from effects of scale. You can find anyone one here, so it's a useful place to look. If you stop non-members from applying for jobs entirely, then those scale benefits will all be lost, and both clients and users will desert the site in droves.
Incidentally, this *option* already exists - clients can restrict job postings to verified/paying members, and they sometimes do. But not all the time, which tells us something.
Still, we're clearly not going to be able to verify ALL ProZ.com" close to 600,000 registered users.
This is a real problem, hence the big argument over verification for all vs. verification for second languages only. But if you phase verification in over time, it needn't be such a big problem. Either impose verification on new members only, or say we'll get everyone verified over 5 years, then set up systems to automate the process, and you only need get involved when problems arise.
Hmm. That's still 10,000 a month, isn't it? OK, maybe a rethink needed. In that case, verification could be restricted to new members only. I know there'll be a problem with the rump, but it's better than nothing.
| | | | Michele Fauble
Estados Unidos
Local time: 15:19
Membro (2006)
norueguês para inglês
+ ...
| Turf, turf and nothing but turf | Jul 29, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
As I see it, ...
The problem is, as you see it is wrong. But you seem to be so convinced that "turf" is what it is about that nothing that has been said, or anything that could be said, will ever convince you otherwise.
| | | | psicutrinius
Espanha
Local time: 00:19
Membro (2008)
espanhol para inglês
+ ...
There should be a filter here - subscribers to the thread should be able to filter posters who are trolling, off-topic, politicking, procrastinating, stonewalling, etc?.
No big deal, anyway: It is a matter of any contributor filtering out some other "contributors".
| | | | | Everybody who has learned English for three years knows that | Jul 29, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
Native speakers of English know that the following sentence can have two meanings:
"Who do you want to kiss?"
They also know that in speech 'want to' is often reduced to 'wanna'.
"Who do you wanna kiss?"
Native English speakers know whether this reduction of 'want to' to 'wanna' can be used for both of the meanings of the sentence, and if not, which meaning allows the reduction.
Even the best non-native speakers will usually not acquire all the grammatical and other subtleties of a non-native language.
This is basic English -- nothing to do with native, non-native. "Wanna" is just pure slang. Are you using it yourself in your formal translations? It is strongly suggested to be avoided, if you want to sound at least somewhat educated.
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 06:19
chinês para inglês
| At the risk of feeding... | Jul 29, 2012 |
@Michele
I wouldn't give up that rhetorical piece of ground quite so easily. I'm proud of protecting my turf from incompetent translators. It's called "maintaining the reputation of the industry". And what is this anti-market bull whereby it's somehow bad for me to want to win clients by forcing my competitors to play on a level playing field?
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
Índia
Local time: 03:49
Membro (2006)
inglês para híndi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | And don't forget the mentor's programme of proz.com... | Jul 29, 2012 |
There is also a mentor’s programme underway in proz.com. I think one solution could be to employ it for coaching translators (the errant ones) into finding their proper niche in the translation industry by providing them with advice on how to work their strengths properly to find meaningful work, instead of declaring wrong pairs as their native languages.
The approach so far has been to tar them with the brush of dishonesty and the prevailing sentiment towards them has been of inv... See more There is also a mentor’s programme underway in proz.com. I think one solution could be to employ it for coaching translators (the errant ones) into finding their proper niche in the translation industry by providing them with advice on how to work their strengths properly to find meaningful work, instead of declaring wrong pairs as their native languages.
The approach so far has been to tar them with the brush of dishonesty and the prevailing sentiment towards them has been of inveterate hatred – which can only be understood in terms of direct vested interests coming under threat. But purportedly, that is not the case, and the declared interest of many in this thread is to help outsourcers easily find able translators. So, if the experienced translators help their less fortunate brethern to reach the same levels of competence as they themselves using the mentor’s programme effectively, the outsourcers will be immensely benefitted and the same purposes will be achieved.
This will restore camaraderie and friendliness in the site which have been greatly damaged by this thread and help build a community of mutually helping noble translators – decidedly one of the primary objectives of proz.com.
It will also put to rest finally the oft raised argument about translators protecting their turf under the guise of nativity and establish unambiguously the good intentions of all concerned!
Surely, this would be a more constructive approach to the problem under discussion than the current suggestions of turning proz.com into an Orwellian police state.
And the added advantage is, this can be done without the expenditure of a single cent on the part of proz.com which in itself should be considered a major attraction of this approach.
[2012-07-29 15:33 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | I absolutely agree with Balasubramaniam | Jul 29, 2012 |
Only a positive approach may work. Turning this site into a police territory may turn Apocalyptic.
At least now, I am 99% convinced that all of the accusations are untrue, because I have experienced it on my own skin. It is all based on someone's imagination, in 99% of cases. People don't write on forums the way they professionally write, or in the language their dissertations have been written. Some would even be inclined to use texting language, if only that were allowed.
... See more Only a positive approach may work. Turning this site into a police territory may turn Apocalyptic.
At least now, I am 99% convinced that all of the accusations are untrue, because I have experienced it on my own skin. It is all based on someone's imagination, in 99% of cases. People don't write on forums the way they professionally write, or in the language their dissertations have been written. Some would even be inclined to use texting language, if only that were allowed.
[Edited at 2012-07-29 17:16 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Páginas no tópico: < [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? | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | 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 
