Foul mood...
Dec. 2nd, 2007 07:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpProbably because I have a 6,000-word document, of which two-thirds has been "pre-translated" by TRADOS. My job, in addition to translating the new bits, is to make sure the pretranslated ordure segments that TRADOS inserted are correct.
Not surprisingly, most of them need editing. And even when they are correct, they still exhibit problems (an easy example of is the mixing of "m/s" and "m/sec" throughout the pretranslated text).
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Editing translations is generally harder than writing the original translation.
Simplifying tremendously, all the translator has to do is read, grok, and write.
The editor, on the other hand, must read, grok, compare the grok to what has been written, decide what (if anything) needs changing, and then change it.
If a translation is well-written, the editor can work faster than the translator (though in my experience never so fast as to attain parity of remuneration).
If a document contains "pretranslated" text, the editor's work is hindered by literally an order of magnitude (in the mathematical sense of the term), though his or her rate of pay remains unchanged.
And what really hurts is the fact that most agencies don't understand this. They don't differentiate "editing a translation" and "editing pretranslated text."
Right now, though, I am less stressed by the rotten pay than by the sheer volume of work. So I better get to it.
Cheers...
UPDATE: One small advantage of seeing pretranslated bits is seeing how one's declared competitors handle various situations. The associated disadvantage is seeing just how bad a translation can be and still be considered usable by your client.
Not surprisingly, most of them need editing. And even when they are correct, they still exhibit problems (an easy example of is the mixing of "m/s" and "m/sec" throughout the pretranslated text).
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Editing translations is generally harder than writing the original translation.
Simplifying tremendously, all the translator has to do is read, grok, and write.
The editor, on the other hand, must read, grok, compare the grok to what has been written, decide what (if anything) needs changing, and then change it.
If a translation is well-written, the editor can work faster than the translator (though in my experience never so fast as to attain parity of remuneration).
If a document contains "pretranslated" text, the editor's work is hindered by literally an order of magnitude (in the mathematical sense of the term), though his or her rate of pay remains unchanged.
And what really hurts is the fact that most agencies don't understand this. They don't differentiate "editing a translation" and "editing pretranslated text."
Right now, though, I am less stressed by the rotten pay than by the sheer volume of work. So I better get to it.
Cheers...
UPDATE: One small advantage of seeing pretranslated bits is seeing how one's declared competitors handle various situations. The associated disadvantage is seeing just how bad a translation can be and still be considered usable by your client.
