Читать далее на Velior

Читать далее на Velior

In this video, I look at the only bug fix introduced in OmegaT version 3.0.8_1, which makes it possible to use the Remove Tags option with Microsoft Office files safely. This is a pretty difficult subject, and I highly recommend that you also read the blog post below as you watch the video:

About this option

Before looking at the actual bug and its fix, let’s spend a few minutes discussing the Remove tags option itself. It allows you to make OmegaT hide absolutely all tags, resulting in exceptionally clean segments. Remember that ou can also hide just leading and trailing tags by enabling the Remove leading and trailing tags option. Sometimes this might be sufficient in itself, and you will not need the heavy artillery. Remove tags makes it easier to work on the translation, but you end up losing all formatting while doing so. For example, if you hide bold tags, your translated file will not include bold formatting, and you will need to restore it yourself.

I think this is a serious drawback for production use, because making such changes to translated files is impractical. After you do so, you can no longer update your translations by simply changing them in OmegaT and re-creating the translated files. You are now tied to the translated files that you changed manually. If you need to make global changes afterwards, you will need to do them directly in the translated files and then also do them in OmegaT to keep your TM updated, which is suboptimal compared to making changes in OmegaT and then re-creating the translated files.

In my opinion, this drawback limits use of the Remove tags option to just those files that do not have any formatting at all. You might wonder why we would want to use the Remove tags option on files that have no formatting to begin with. Remember that apart from formatting tags, Microsoft Office files have superfluous tags, often referred to as the “tag soup.” Hiding superfluous tags with this option is an alternative to removing them with CodeZapper, sometimes even a superior one, because CodeZapper may fail to remove some tags, whereas this option will definitely hide everything.

About bug fix

Until recently, enabling the Remove Tags option sometimes resulted in almost empty translated Word files. The reason is that this option makes OmegaT push all tags to the end of segments when it generates translated files. This happens in the background, and users are not aware of it. All tags lose their function as a result.

However, this process could go wrong, resulting in empty translated files. This was caused by another bug in OmegaT: anything placed before leading tags or after trailing tags is omitted in translated files. I will not go into detail about that bug now; what is important to us here is to understand that with Remove tags enabled, OmegaT was pushing all the tags to the end of segments. All the text ended up before leading tags and, as a result of the above bug, was omitted in the translated files.

Although the main bug—omission of text placed before leading and trailing tags—still exists, the Remove tags option has been fixed. The solution is simple: whenever the Remove tags option is checked, OmegaT automatically enables the Remove leading and trailing tags option, behind the scenes. By removing leading and trailing tags, OmegaT does not push leading tags to the end of segments anymore, and therefore, does not place any text before leading tags when generating translated files. And no text before leading tags means no text will be omitted in translated files.

For a detailed explanation of the option that controls hiding just the first and the last tags in segments, check out the video called “Remove Leading and Trailing Tags Option in OmegaT.”

Читать далее на Velior

Когда-то исправленная ошибка может появиться вновь, если переводчик использует устаревшую память переводов. Она устаревает, когда изменения вносят не в нее, а непосредственно в перевод. Обычно это делает либо переводчик, либо проверяющий переведенные файлы заказчик. Давайте рассмотрим эти два варианта подробнее.

Изменения, внесенные заказчиком

Обычно заказчики проверяют окончательные версии перевода, не используя память, и затем отправляют измененные файлы переводчику на перепроверку. И вот на этом этапе переводчик решает, обновлять ли ему память переводов, если заказчик не просил его об этом. Переводчик должен перепроверить внесенные заказчиком правки и отразить их в памяти переводов. В результате и память, используемая в последующих проектах, будет актуальной, и переводчик получит ценный опыт.

Изменения, внесенные переводчиками

Тот факт, что переводчик использует память переводов в своей работе, еще не гарантия того, что он не станет вносить правки непосредственно в переведенные файлы. Он может решить, что проще вычитать и исправить только переведенные файлы. А могут быть и технические причины не обновлять памяти переводов. Тем не менее, несмотря на то что переводчик может решить не обновлять память переводов в том или ином случае, в целом обновление памяти параллельно с обновлением файлов должно стать привычкой. Это облегчит работу над последующими проектами для того же заказчика.

Разумно будет сначала обновить память, а уже потом создать на ее основе новые переведенные файлы, содержащие необходимые изменения. Другой подход будет непродуктивным, и вот почему. Во-первых, вы потратите время на то, чтобы продублировать правки в памяти переводов. Во-вторых, разделив файлы и память, вы лишите себя тех преимуществ, которые дает программа автоматизированного перевода (CAT — computer-aided translation). Например, если в дальнейшем потребуется внести глобальные правки, вам придется делать это тоже непосредственно в переведенных файлах, тогда как в CAT-программе это можно было бы сделать гораздо эффективнее.

Вы даже можете решить, что вообще не нужно что-то менять в переведенных файлах и что, например, в случае проблем с форматированием проще будет поменять исходные файлы, а затем создать из них переведенные заново.

Что случится, если не обновлять память переводов?

В худшем случае заказчик укажет вам на то, что вы снова допустили те же ошибки, которые он исправил в прошлый раз. Повторяя одни и те же ошибки, вы дадите понять заказчику, что не прислушиваетесь к его мнению и не ставите качество во главу угла.

Другим негативным последствием будет пустая трата времени — как вашего, так и заказчика. Заказчик сочтет, что вы не цените его время, раз вынуждаете его снова вносить те же правки — зачастую вызванные вашей же ошибкой! А еще вы будете терять время, пытаясь вспомнить, что же вы исправляли в прошлый раз.

А еще, не обновляя память переводов в соответствии с правками заказчика, вы теряете возможность повысить качество услуг, оказываемых вами этому заказчику, и в полной мере получить тот опыт, который могли бы.

В заключение

Я не нашел ни одной веской причины не обновлять память переводов в соответствии с последними изменениями, неважно, были ли они сделаны переводчиком или заказчиком. Поддержание памяти в актуальном состоянии не только помогает предотвратить недовольство заказчика из-за повторяющихся ошибок, но и повышает эффективность работы переводчика.

Узнайте больше, о том, почему память переводов не используют так, как надо.

Читать далее на Velior

«Например» и «в частности»

Обычно перед этими словами запятая ставится. Однако определить, нужна ли запятая после них, бывает довольно трудно, так как постановка запятой зависит от контекста. Пример:

Как видите, запятая после «например» нужна, если это слово стоит особняком и его можно выпустить без ущерба для смысла предложения. Однако, если слово «например» связано по смыслу со стоящими после него словами, то оно является частью целой конструкции (оборота) и правила пунктуации применяются ко всей конструкции. И тогда его нельзя просто взять и выпустить. То же справедливо и для «в частности»:

Два придаточных предложения, относящихся к одному и тому же слову в главном

Рассмотрим такой пример:

В этом примере может показаться нелогичным, что запятая между двумя придаточными предложениями не нужна. Но постановка запятой здесь определяется тем, что оба придаточных относятся к одному и тому же слову в главном («почувствовал»). И запятая в этом случае не нужна.

Однако не всегда можно легко определить, относятся ли оба придаточных предложения к одному и тому же слову в главном или нет. И тогда нужно полагаться на здравый смысл и контекст. Пример:

Кстати, между двумя вопросами, объединенными в одно предложение, запятая тоже не нужна. Пример:

Сложные союзы

Правила пунктуации, касающиеся сложных союзов, таких как «прежде чем», «несмотря на то что», «перед тем как», кажутся нелогичными, поскольку, когда части этих союзов употребляются в качестве отдельных слов, запятая между ними ставится. Вот пример, где «несмотря на» — это самостоятельная часть речи (предлог):

А вот когда «несмотря на» является частью союза, лишняя запятая не нужна. В одном союзе ставится только одна запятая. Пример:

Хотя правило постановки только одной запятой в союзе «несмотря на то что» действует всегда, в других составных союзах запятых может быть и больше. Пример:

Благодарим за чтение нашего блога. Если вам понравилась эта статья, то дайте нам знать об этом, поделившись ей в соцсетях.

Читать далее на Velior

“Например” and “в частности”

These two constructs normally require a comma before them. However, choosing whether to put a comma after them is not as straightforward, because it is a matter of context. Example:

As shown in these examples, “например” requires a comma after it when it is a standalone word that can be easily omitted without breaking the sentence apart. However, when “например” has a connection to the following words, it is part of a larger construct (оборот) and is subject to punctuation within this entire construct. In this case, you cannot omit it without breaking the sentence apart. The same is true for “в частности”:

Two clauses referring to the same word in the other clause

Look at this example:

In the example above, the lack of a comma between the two subordinate clauses may seem counterintuitive. But what matters here is that both clauses refer to the same word in the main clause (“почувствовал”). Because they depend on the same word, the comma is unnecessary.

It is not always easy to tell whether both clauses depend on the same word, though. You need to use common sense and context. Example:

By the way, two clauses in questions are subject to a similar punctuation rule: no comma is required between them. Example:

Compound conjunctions

Conjunctions, such as “прежде чем,” “несмотря на то что,” “перед тем как,” are counterintuitive in terms of punctuation, because the parts they include do require a comma when they occur as standalone words. Here is an example of standalone “несмотря на”:

However, when part of a conjunction, the same “несмотря на” does not require an additional comma after it. Only one comma per entire conjunction is required. Example:

Whereas “несмотря на то что” does not allow any exceptions to the above rule, some other compound conjunctions may allow an extra comma. Example:

Thank you for reading. If you liked this post, please tell us so by sharing it on social media.

Читать далее на Velior

In this article, I’ll review three translator apps that are most popular and free.

I’ll also give practical advice about machine translation (MT) pitfalls you want to avoid.

Contestant #1: Yandex Translate

Yandex is a Russian company similar to Google, providing services such as online search, maps, context ads, a cloud drive, and so on, mainly focused on Russian-speaking users.

With the Russian language at the core of its business, Yandex is presumably in a good position to provide machine translations from and into Russian, potentially even better than Google.

Translation is available as an online Russian translation service. You can also install an app called Yandex.Translate to use both as an online or offline translator.

Contestant #2: Google Translate

Given the global reach of Google, it’s probably the number one translation app.

Relying on Google’s massive computing resources and AI advancements, it has the power to provide good translations in a flash of a second.

Available both as an online translation service and a smartphone app, Google Translate.

Contestant #3: Reverso

Going beyond translation, Reverso offers tools for learning new words and understanding language nuances by providing examples of real-world usage of words.

But hypothetically, it should be less powerful than Yandex or Google, because it has just a fraction of their computing power.

Available both as an online translation service and a smartphone app, Reverso Translation Dictionary.

To give you an idea of what kind of quality you should expect from these Russian translator apps, I challenged them with several translations of various difficulty.

Sentence #1: “Free machine translation services have become better in the last five years”

Let’s evaluate translations for accuracy and readability on a scale from 1 to 10.

Yandex’s output

Accuracy: 10/10. Yandex handled the easiest sentence in the test test extremely well. Hey, I’m not even sure every human translator can do this well, judging by the average quality of translations I see.

Readability: 10/10.

Google’s output

Accuracy: 9/10. Google did well, too. Surprisingly, though, it omitted “machine,” which makes the translation ambiguous. “Free translator services” might mean both machine and human translators, whereas the original talks just about the former.

Readability: 9/10. Google’s rendering of “services” is slightly worse than the Yandex’s.

Note also that Google shows you a transliterated version of the text, which might also come in handy when you need transliteration.

Reverso’s output

Accuracy: 5/10. Reverso mistranslated the ambiguous word “free” as “свободные” (as in “free market”).

Readability: 5/10. “В последних пяти годах” doesn’t sound right. Coupled with the mistranslation, this has a major impact on readability.

What’s unique about Reverso is fuzzy matching your query with its translation memories. You get a list of “original plus translation” pairs that include parts of your query.

In this example, Reverso was able to match 3 to 4 words with TM entries. These suggestions give you ideas for improving the translation as well as help you learn languages, which is Reverso’s mission.

Sentence #2: “The System is considered a life-sustaining medical device and must be tracked per foreign regulatory agency regulations”

Yandex’s output

Yandex showed weird behavior. The entire sentence produced this gibberish:

It makes no sense whatsoever.

I played with this sentence a little bit and found that removing the word “regulations” results in a much better translation. It appears that Yandex Translate may withhold from using advanced MT technology such as neural networks, limiting the output to crude translations.

This is the better version I got:

Accuracy: 5/10. Pretty accurate overall. But a major mistranslation unfolded out of thin air: “life-sustaining” is translated as “vital,” shifting the focus from patients’ lives to the life of the device itself.

Readability: 9/10. The translation reads quite well and appears credible, disguising the mistranslation—a problem that plagues translators! A sentence might make perfect sense to you, while the original actually meant something completely different!

Google’s output

Accuracy: 8/10. Google is hands down better in terms of accuracy (well, anyone would be, with such a blooper from Yandex). But it omitted a word again! Now, “foreign” is missing.

Readability: 9/10. I only frowned at the wording “система… должна отслеживаться,” just as with the Yandex’s translation.

Reverso’s output

Accuracy: 3/10. It feels like Reverso didn’t even try this time. “Life-sustaining” is translated as a standalone noun incoherent with the rest of the text. “Foreign regulatory agency regulations” is rendered as “foreign regulations of a regulatory agency.”

Readability: 1/10. As if the accuracy issues weren’t enough, Reverso throws in a couple of grammar bloopers: “Считается… медицинское устройство” and “прослежено… за правила.”

Sentence #3: “Stimulator module can be turned off by setting the frequency of the selected stimulation channel with the lowest number to zero”

Now, let’s play with more specialized examples. For starters, I’ve picked this rather simple sentence with a little technical twist.

Yandex’s output

Accuracy: 5/10. Yandex messed up the last portion of the sentence, making it appear as if the lowest number is zero.

Readability: 8/10. Aside from this blunder, the translation reads well.

Google’s output

Accuracy: 10/10. Bravo! Again, Google did just as well as a professional Russian translator would.

Readability: 9/10. I’d only pick on “установив частоту… до нуля.” “на ноль” would sound better.

Reverso’s output

Accuracy: 5/10. “Stimulator” is left untranslated. Otherwise, the translation is more or less comprehensible. Still, you can already see that Reverso starts to lag behind the other two contestants.

Readability: 3/10. “Урегулирования частоты… к нолю” and “низким номером” don’t sound right.

Sentence #4: “25 subjects were exposed to the study drug as a single agent; 12 subjects received the drug as part of a combination or cross-over regimen; 13 subjects received blinded-therapy”

TechEmergence published a chart from Google that promises MT quality close to human translation. Let’s see how true this promise is for English to Russian translation. This sentence is packed with medical terms to put additional pressure on MT.

Yandex’s output

Accuracy: 10/10. No objections.

Readability: 8/10. “подвергались воздействию” and “слепую терапию” could use some improvement.

Google’s output

Accuracy: 9/10. The translation of “cross-over regimen” is questionable. It’s simply too literal to make sense.

Readability: 7/10. “в качестве одного агента” and ”часть комбинации” sound robotic. “Subjects” are translated inconsistently, making the reader raise their brow.

Reverso’s output

Accuracy: 1/10. Reverso failed miserably with this one: from translating “subject” as “topic” to rendering “blinded-therapy” as “with you blind therapy.”

Readability: 1/10. The translation feels like a classic MT blooper. Translators used to generate this type of translations just to make fun of MT back in the day.

Sentence #5: “With simultaneous bilateral knee surgery, release leg tourniquets ten minutes apart to lessen any lung insult that may occur”

This is a specialized sentence requiring deeper thought. It’s an example of critical communications explained by Preciso that professional translators are paid to translate.

Yandex’s output

As I worked on testing this sentence, I reviewed the result that Yandex had given me. But when I ran this sentence through Yandex again a few days later, it gave me gibberish instead of the first version:

It’s the second time when Yandex produces a translation that doesn’t make any sense. I’ll use the first version anyway:

[su_quote]При одновременной двусторонней операции на колене отпустите турникеты ног на десять минут друг от друга, чтобы уменьшить любое оскорбление легких, которое может произойти.[/su_quote]

Accuracy: 3/10. Yandex got all the three main challenges wrong.

“Bilateral knee surgery” is translated word-for-word, whereas the correct translation is “surgery on both knees.”

“Release leg tourniquets ten minutes apart” is completely mistranslated: “move the tourniquets away from each other for ten minutes,” whereas what’s meant is “releasing the tourniquet from one leg and taking 10 minutes before releasing the tourniquet from the other leg.”

“Finally”, “lung insult” is translated as “treating lungs with disrespect.”

Readability: 8/10. The sentence reads well, but it’s totally wrong. I’d rather have it backwards.

Google’s output

Accuracy: 3/10. Google didn’t go beyond word-for-word translation either, letting the ambiguous portions of text backfire.

Readability: 8/10. The same result as with the Yandex’s translation.

Reverso’s output

Accuracy: 1/10. Another useless translation from Reverso. It did no better than the other two contestants in terms of meaning.

Readability: 1/10. But from the style perspective, things are even worse. Take the unnecessary comma or clashing perfective and imperfective verbs (“выпустите… чтобы уменьшать”).

Sentence #6: “We all have an impact and a role in connecting people to work in ways that enrich their lives”

Now, let’s have the contestants tackle a more creative piece of text. This is the most difficult type of translation for machine translators, because they have a hard time going beyond the face value of words. According to thoughts on machine translation by Creative Words, marketing content should always be left to the inspiration of a translator.

Yandex’s output

Accuracy: 6/10. The main challenge here is the ambiguous part: “connecting people to work.” On the surface, it might be understood as “bringing people to work together,” whereas the author meant “assigning people to jobs.” Yandex went for the word-for-word translation, but in a “soft” way—you can still get a general idea of the author’s message—it’s something about helping people work.

Readability: 7/10. The translation reads well overall. The only major blooper is “свою жизнь.” It means “our lives ” instead of “their lives”. Another incoherence is a wrong preposition in “влияние… в объединении.”

Google’s output

Accuracy: 9/10. Google did better than Yandex, translating the “connecting people to work” part correctly.

Readability: 8/10. Unlike Yandex, Google got the “their lives” part correct. And the grammar incoherence (“влияние… в подключении” ) is still present.

Reverso’s output

Accuracy: 2/10. Not only did Reverso fail to handle the challenging piece correctly, but it produced a more vague sentence overall, too.

Readability: 2/10. Reverso exacerbated the grammar incoherence seen in the previous two translations: “воздействие… в соединении,” making it sound 100% robotic. Another stylistic blooper is “работать путями, которые обогащают.”

Sentence #7: an error in the source text

Finally, let’s see how these services tackle a sentence with an error. English texts can be imperfect, which is something a human Russian translator can spot easily. But what about machines?

I started by testing a simple sentence, “This medication is for tropical administration only.” “Tropical” should be “topical” here.

Both Yandex and Google corrected the error on the fly, i.e, without even asking me for help. Impressive! Turns out the intelligence behind these services is already able to spots tricky misspellings.

Our underdog, Reverso, failed to correct the error.

Let’s crank it up another notch and test an error less obvious to a machine translator:

“Lift the left side of the crate and only after it is in the air, lift the left side.”

Yandex’s output

Accuracy: 3/10. Not only did Yandex fail to correct the “left and left” error, but it also made a major mistranslation, assuming “it is in the air” refers to the entire crate. It appears that after you lift the left side, you need to wait until the entire crate is in the air. Which makes no sense.

Readability: 10/10. As we’ve seen before, Yandex is very good at producing readable translations for simple sentences.

Google’s output

Accuracy: 6/10. Although Google didn’t question the “left and left” error either, it understood that “it is in the air” refers to just the side, but not the entire crate, outperforming Yandex.

Readability: 10/10. Well done, Google.

Reverso’s output

Accuracy: 1/10. Another blooper from Reverso. “Lift” is mistranslated. “It” is incoherent with “crate.”

Readability: 1/10.Unnecessary comma. Different forms of the Russian verb for “lift,” whereas they should be identical.

Performance comparison

Now, let’s compare performance between these three English to Russian language translator apps.

To calculate the final score, I used the formula below, assigning the importance factors of “2” to accuracy (more important) and “1” to readability.

((accuracy 1 + … + accuracy 7) × 2 + (readability 1 + … + readability 7) × 1) / 7

Yandex and Google came in very close. They got the same score for readability, but Google outperformed the competitor in the accuracy department.

That makes Google my go-to English to Russian translation app.

I also feel that Google Translate is the best app in terms of usability.

Be alert, however, to its aggressive interpretation of the original text that led to omitting important words in two sentences out of seven.

Both Google and Yandex might also display different translations in the app and in the browser. With two of the examples, Yandex provided a second version that was worse than the one I had got a few days before.

Our runner-up, Yandex, might display incomprehensible translations. But if you adjust the source text a little bit, the translation may get better. It appears that Yandex may a times display a raw version of a translation first, without letting the more powerful AI technology to step in.

With a score that’s three times less than the leader has, Reverso trailed well behind. Its quality of translation is below average. However, one good reason to still use this app to translate from English into Russian is usage examples it conveniently provides.

Note about human translation services

We’ve seen that MT works well for simple sentences and has a hard time with specialized terms, creative text, and non-standard situations like errors in the original.

So, if you need something translated on the fly in order to understand the gist or communicate in an informal situation, reverting to Google for translation is your best option. The overall value it provides for these scenarios might be higher compared to professional translators: whereas quality is comparable, Google is immediately available, lightning-fast, and free.

Yes, an experienced translator might produce a better translation, but it’ll take time and money. The reason I made might “bold” is that finding a translator who’s able to produce high quality consistently is difficult.

However, for content that’s not carved out for free English to Russian online translators, you need professional translation services as Semantix points out. Here’s why:

1. Even one word translated inaccurately can change the entire meaning of a sentence. Machine translation is prone to such errors, because it can’t figure out nuances. It’s particular stumbling point is ambiguity. Imagine you need to translate a medical report for your child urgently—you just don’t want to take risks.
2. Another reason to choose professional services over a translation app is readability. These apps have a hard time with creative texts, producing translations that may make sense, but sound so robotic that they can never help you meet the goals you pursue with this kind of texts. I’d never trust an app in the readability department for purposes such as marketing or securing new business.
3. Also, if your text is in a format that an app can’t handle, such as a scanned PDF, you can engage a professional translator who will not only translate the actual text, but also re-create the original formatting.
4. Remember that you have an option of having a translation produced by Google revised by a Russian-speaking proofreader to ensure its quality meets your expectations.

[vc_row][vc_column width=»1/1″][sc_calltoaction title=»» subtitle=»Contact us for a free consultation about English to Russian translation» button=»1″ button_link=»url:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.velior.ru%2Fcontact-us|title:Yes,%20I%20want%20a%20free%20advice||»][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Читать далее на Velior

Editing is an essential part of the translation process, just as in any other process involving copywriting. It may take many different forms—from a marketing manager quickly scanning the translation to a professional team of editors scrupulously revising it.

Regardless of the form, there’s one thing to keep in mind at all times: making changes without having the original translator approve them is not a good idea.

This article explains how you can improve the editing part of your translation process by implementing this best practice.

Who makes changes

Before discussing the actual process of communicating feedback to translators after editing, let’s take a look at the two types of editors who may edit translations:

• Translation agency’s editor. If editing is an integral part of the translation process at an agency (and it should be), each translation is revised by a second linguist (the translator being the first).
• Client’s editor, typically an in-house employee. Almost any translation benefits from such editing, because an editor who has hands-on experience with the product or service can add value by making translations more specific and accurate.

When I refer to “you” in this article, I mean the person or organization that edited, or arranged the editing of, the translation—the translation agency or the end client.

Four reasons to have the edits checked by the translator

Quality

Editors are subject to human error just like translators, so even though they generally add value, they can also create problems ranging from typos to critical mistranslations.

For instance, when an editor makes changes to part of a sentence, it may become incongruent with the rest of this piece of text. The editor normally fixes the remaining part as well, but when he makes a lot of such edits, the chances are he’ll miss something.

Another example is an error made in the original that the translator recognized and corrected in the translation, but the editor didn’t realize this and assumed it was actually an error in the translation. This happens even if the editor has a better understanding of the subject area in general, because a typical editor doesn’t read and understand the text as thoroughly as the translator.

These examples are illustrated below using two English to Russian translations:

Because the editor may gradually become blind to his own errors as he goes through the translation, putting his edits before a second pair of eyes is important.

Learning

A savvy translator uses feedback as a tool for professional development. She remembers the errors and doesn’t repeat them. Feedback that comes complete with the editor’s comments is especially instructive.

Maintaining the sense of ownership

Although the client ultimately owns the translation in legal terms, the translator owns it as well—as a creative product. Making changes silently, i.e, without any translator’s involvement, defeats the sense of ownership that she has about this translation, resulting in lower commitment in future work.

Building relationships

Communicating and discussing changes contributes to stronger relationships between translators and clients. By showing that we’re all pursuing the shared goal of achieving high quality, such feedback builds the spirit of collaboration.

Moreover, because most translators get little or no feedback from clients, they crave it. Satisfying this craving can make your translator appreciate your business even more.

Who should review changes

Just as it makes sense to have the original translator check the translation after DTP, it’s best to engage the original translator for reviewing the editor’s changes. She’s in the best position to check these changes, because she understands this translation very well and can spot even subtle issues.

However, time constraints can be a roadblock to this approach. Not all translators will be available to review feedback immediately.

If your schedule is too tight to wait for the translator’s response, you need to turn to your next best option. This could be another translator or at least a person who has a knack for this kind of work, for example someone in your company who’s passionate about copywriting.

Dealing with defensiveness upfront

Before you share such feedback, it’s important to set the right tone by explaining what’s expected of the translator:

Ask for input

You’re communicating the changes not to criticize him, but to solicit his input on the changes and make sure the editor did not introduce errors.

Unless you make it crystal clear that being honest is safe, the translator is likely to go into the defensive mode, either because of the “not invented here” mentality or the fear that agreeing to the changes will mean acknowledging that the original work was flawed.

Since the goal of this whole process is to add value rather than fight over who’s a better translator, misunderstandings can defeat the purpose.

So make sure to tell the translator that his performance evaluation won’t depend on whether he accepts the changes or not.

Prevent unnecessary arguments

If you’re confident about the quality of the changes made by the editor, instruct the translator to accept all changes except any obvious errors. This instruction will prevent the translator from contesting the “gray areas”—that is, preferential changes.

Saying so is especially important when the editor knows the subject area better. (However, if this is the case, I’d have asked the editor to do the translation in the first place!)

Feedback format

Two formats for communicating feedback are:

Originally, I thought that the first option was better (check out this article about communicating translation feedback from 2011). Now, I recommend the second option, mainly because delays are often unacceptable.

From the technical standpoint, there are various ways to communicate feedback:

Comments in CAT tools (no changes made yet)

The editor uses the comment feature available in Computer-Aided Translation (CAT) tools to add comments or notes to segments.

It’s best for the editor to put the entire suggested translation into the comment together with the comment itself, so that the translator can quickly copy and paste the changed translation. This saves time and makes it easier for the editor to check the changes later.

Here’s an example of a comment made by the editor in the CAT tool OmegaT:

When the editor finishes revision, he sends the entire project with the comments to the translator. The translator opens the project, goes through the changes, and implements them. Finally, she returns the updated project to the editor.

Sometimes, it’s preferable to send a list of comments rather than the actual project. For example, OmegaT can export comments into an HTML file using an export script.

Another option for the editor is to use the Microsoft Word comment feature.

Changes (already made)

If the editor chooses to make the changes right away as I recommend, you have two basic options:

If your CAT tool enables tracking changes as SDL Trados Studio does, you can simply send the translated file or the entire project, because the translator can see the changes easily. Ideally, with the editor’s comments.

The second option is to use a tool such as ChangeTracker to create a nice-looking comparison of changes to send to the translator. The editor can also add comments to this file.

Communication methods

Review process

The main goal for the translator is to add value by checking the editor’s edits and providing input as necessary. This happens in the form of comments that the translator adds to the editor’s changes or comments.

I won’t go into this process in detail here, but instead refer you to an article titled “How to Review Client Edits.”

Another benefit of this process is that by looking at the translation from this slightly new perspective, the translator may also discover nuances that both he and the editor had missed.

Dealing with constraints

You want to avoid making this process too formal

Otherwise, the translator will become defensive, recognizing the risk to his reputation (“Will they trust me with another job if I agree that I made errors in this one?”) and feeling resentful about someone tampering with his work. Create an environment that encourages cooperation rather than bitterness and sarcasm.

Time constraints

Build a relationship with the translator so that he always finds time for checking the changes even if he’s busy with other projects.

Payment

There is normally no reason for the translator to charge for this review, because at least some corrections usually result from errors.

Most translators don’t have a problem checking them free-of-charge, just as a construction contractor would be willing to fix faults that you find in their work.

However, in extreme cases such as most changes being preferential, you can hardly get away without paying.

In conclusion

Although editing is intended to improve quality and editors are highly qualified, they still make errors as all people do, so their work benefits from review by a second pair of eyes.

If arranged correctly, this process adds value both for this translation and any future ones.

If you’re looking for a vendor with a translation process that includes both editing and reviewing the edits, then we might be a good match.

[vc_row][vc_column width=»1/1″][sc_calltoaction title=»» subtitle=»Contact us for a free quote today» button=»1″ button_link=»url:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.velior.ru%2Fcontact-us|title:Do%20it%20now||»][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Читать далее на Velior

Why does one text cost more to translate than another? One reason is difficulty. Standard texts are easier to translate than specialized or marketing ones. Read this article to understand why. Let’s begin with a few examples.

Examples of standard texts

• E-mail about implementation of a new HR application in an organization
• Summons
• Medical information for patients
• Blog article about global climate change

Examples of specialized texts

• GUI of a new HR application in an organization
• Articles of incorporation of a company
• Patent for a medical device
• Scientific article explaining the chemistry behind global warming
• Analytical procedure for testing efficacy of a drug

Examples of creative (mostly marketing) texts

• Website about an Ibiza hotel
• Brochure about a construction company’s services
• Video game review
• Article on a general subject that has a very creative style

Note that a text can be specialized and creative at the same time—an explosive combination.

Specialized texts call for specialized knowledge.

Whereas standard texts can be translated by almost any translator, special knowledge is critical when translating specialized texts. Because standard texts are easy to understand, linguists have little problem translating them. The little things that are unclear can be researched fairly quickly. Translators can also use generic translations and make educated guesses, since these “last resort” measures work fine with standard texts more often than not.

However, when it comes to specialized texts, a translator without specialized knowledge sometimes fails to understand as much as 50% of the original text. He cannot make up for his lack of knowledge by research, because it will take too much time, and even once the research is done, the translation will not be the same quality as one done by a translator who has this kind of special knowledge.

This knowledge is usually gained in two ways. The first is for a translator to deliberately specialize in a specific subject area. By working continually on translations in this area, he gains knowledge and experience quickly. The second way is to have an education in a specific subject area. When an engineer by education decides to become a professional translator, his specialized knowledge makes a difference in how well he can translate in his subject area.

Creative texts call for excellent writing skills.

Translators can produce well-crafted creative translations only as long as they have excellent copywriting skills, and these are generally hard to come by. Moreover, because translators are trained to make accurate translations, they tend to translate word for word. While such literal style is usually okay and even the norm with technical texts, this approach is disastrous with creative texts that call for a style that is anything but accurate. To produce engaging copy, a translator has to read the original text and then reimagine it using idioms and other structures natural to the target language. As a result, the translated text sounds as if it were written in the target language, not translated. This might seem to you like an integral part of a translator’s job, but the truth is that many translators struggle in this area and are thus not suitable for working on marketing content.

Translating marketing and otherwise creative content is brutally hard, because marketing texts tend to lack substance, i.e, the context that translators rely upon to understand the original. This causes translators’ productivity to drop significantly, down to as low as one page a day, whereas the average is 10 pages a day for technical texts. To illustrate, a short marketing message, such as a slogan, can take hours to translate, resulting in rock-bottom productivity.

Less competition means higher translation rates.

For the reasons stated above, there is a lot less competition for specialized and marketing texts than for standard ones. Translators capable of handling these more challenging tasks charge higher rates.

More time to translate

Even though translators have specialized knowledge, it still takes them longer to translate specialized and marketing texts, because they have to do extensive research or creative thinking. For example, a translator might be able to translate 5,000 words of a standard text in two days, but just 3,000 words of a specialized or marketing text in the same time span. A higher rate reflects this additional effort.

More difficult to manage

Well-run translation agencies realize it is difficult to manage specialized and marketing projects. Because skilled translators are in high demand and are always busy, assembling the right team is much more time-consuming than with a standard text. Such projects also tend to generate more queries from translators than usual, which also makes project management more intensive. The extra effort associated with the management tasks contributes to a higher price.

Needless to say, you don’t need to worry about these nuances if you buy translations from an agency like ours that has a deep understanding of how to connect the right linguists with the right texts. Contact us today to discuss your needs.

Читать далее на Velior

Ищете переводчика с русского на английский? Из этой статьи вы узнаете, как и почему желательно привлечь к переводу носителя языка.

Почему именно носитель языка?

Именно носители языка, выучившие его как родной, лучше всего переводят на него. Те, кто выучил его как иностранный, в общей массе владеют им хуже.

Следуя этой логике, перевод с русского на английский должен выполняться переводчиком — носителем английского языка (а не русского). Но проблема в том, что в этой языковой паре существует избыточное предложение со стороны переводчиков, которые, будучи носителями русского языка, готовы переводить на английский по низким ценам (и плохо). Из-за этого поиск настоящего профессионала превращается в охоту за иголкой в стоге сена. Проблема усугубляется тем, что некоторым клиентам иногда удается купить качественный перевод с английского на русский по низкой цене, из чего они делают ошибочный вывод, что перевод с русского на английский тоже должен стоить дешево. При этом они не понимают, что динамика стоимости в этой языковой паре совершенно другая.

В результате рынок переводов с русского языка на английский делится как минимум на три категории, между которыми существуют огромные различия в цене и качестве.

Три категории качества

1. К первой категории относятся носители английского языка, являющиеся профессиональными переводчиками. Они переводят на родной язык, обладают профессиональным образованием и высокой квалификацией, что позволяет им выполнять работу на высшем уровне.
2. Вторую категорию представляют неносители английского языка, также являющиеся профессиональными переводчиками. Они выполняют средние по качеству переводы: обычно это не перевод, а дословная замена русских слов английскими. Для носителя языка он выглядит, мягко говоря, странным. Подобные дословные переводы называют «рунглишом». Приведем пример:
   

   Русский	Рунглиш	Английский
   Мы уделяем особое внимание нашим услугам в области устного перевода.	We pay particular attention to our services in the area of oral translation.	Our particular focus is interpretation services.

3. Третья категория переводчиков — это неносители английского языка, занимающиеся переводами не профессионально, а от случая к случаю — переводчики-любители. Мало того, что они переводят дословно, так еще и обильно приправляют свой продукт смысловыми, грамматическими, пунктуационными и орфографическими ошибками. Имея лишь элементарные знания английского языка, они часто не знают даже простейших правил, таких как различие в написании слов между британским и американским английским (например, «colour» и «color»).

Стоимость

Как трактовать эти категории? Самое главное — более-менее четко представлять, какое качество вы ожидаете, прежде чем заказывать перевод. И выбирать исполнителя с учетом этих ожиданий, а не только исходя из бюджета:

1. Если перевод важен для вас, то на нем не стоит экономить так же, как, например, не нужно экономить на медицинских или юридических услугах. Перевод особо важных материалов, для которых нужно максимальное качество, должен осуществляться только профессиональным переводчиком — носителем английского языка. Например, нет смысла экономить на переводе маркетинговых материалов, потому что плохо переведенные «продающие» тексты ничего не продадут да еще и заставят усомниться в вашей компетентности. Вот пример удачного перевода маркетингового материала с русского на английский: Bitrix24.
2. Для менее важных материалов, таких как документы, представляемые в государственные органы исключительно для выполнения юридических требований, или внутренние материалы компании, может быть достаточно профессионального переводчика, не являющегося носителем английского языка. Если вы уверены, что среднее качество вас устроит, то подобная экономия будет вполне уместна.
3. Наконец, заказывать перевод с русского на английский у переводчиков-любителей — последнее дело. Низкая цена обычно оборачивается потерей времени и денег, а иногда и репутационным ущербом. То есть экономия в таких случаях обычно мнимая. Представьте, что у вас сломался бачок унитаза и вы в целях экономии не стали вызывать сантехника. В итоге вы убили целый день на ремонт, который у профессионала занял бы один час. Да, формально вы при этом сэкономили деньги, которые бы заплатили ему, но фактически вы недополучили прибыль (упущенная прибыль), потому что могли бы заработать за этот день больше.

Как добиться того, чтобы над переводом с русского на английский работал именно носитель языка?

Для того чтобы ваш перевод был выполнен носителем языка, вы можете предпринять следующее:

1. При разговоре с менеджером бюро переводов попросите, чтобы перевод выполнил именно носитель языка. Конечно, это не гарантирует, что так и будет, но ваши шансы заметно увеличиваются.
2. Перед заказом перевода запросите у бюро примеры ранее выполненных работ, для того чтобы оценить их качество.
3. Попробуйте найти переводчика, который является носителем языка, напрямую.

Возможно, самый оптимальный способ — привлечь к переводу с русского на английский такую компанию, как наша, которая знакома со всеми нюансами этого процесса и реально заинтересована в том, чтобы перевод соответствовал вашим ожиданиям. Запросите у нас стоимость перевода, и мы порекомендуем вам оптимальный уровень качества.

Читать далее на Velior