Passive aggression, or...?

[alexpgp]

The assignment I got upset about on Friday went and got me upset again tonight, as I was finishing it, but thank goodness the work is done. This post just may be catharsis.

I feel as if advantage has been taken of me a second time, and the question foremost in my mind is: Should I say nothing and just refuse future work from this project manager, or should I make an issue of it?

You see, when I invoiced a recent job with this project manager, I was suddenly told that certain jobs - including the one I had completed - were paid on a source word count basis, and that I should resubmit my invoice.

I won't dispute that, had I undercharged the client and been told to amend my invoice, you never would have seen this post. As it turns out, however, the source rate yields a smaller payday because Russian word count is, generally speaking, between 15% and 25% smaller than the English word count for a given slug of Russian text. When I mentioned that I had not received any such notification, the issue was quickly resolved in my favor, though I was asked to keep this policy in mind for future jobs.

Anyway, the job that arrived Friday arrived with a flawed source count (the source document is a PDF, which raises its own questions), and obviously, the count was low. But that's not what annoys me the most. What really irks me is that most of the assignment involved contract language, which tends to weigh in toward the high end of the expansion scale.

Will you tolerate a short digression? Here's an example:

Russian source:
Таможенный брокер обязуется способствовать в рамках законодательства Российской Федераций сокращению сроков таможенного оформления декларируемого товара Заказчика.

English translation, sort of:
The-(Customs Broker) obligates-self to-facilitate, within the-framework of-(Russian Federation) law, reduced-time-for customs clearance for-the-Customer's declared goods.

The hyphens cause the English words to roughly "chunk" to the corresponding Russian words (which doesn't always work, by the way, but my digression digresses...). The difference in word count between the source and target is -1 (the English is actually one word shorter, but again, I wander further afield...).

Getting rid of the hyphens and changing the wording slightly obtains my translation:

The Customs Broker agrees to facilitate reduced customs clearance time for the Customer's declared goods within the framework of Russian Federation law.

That's 22 words instead of 16, a nearly 40% expansion in this case. And this happens a lot in contracts.

So between the undercount and the expansion factor the end result is that I've put in a lot of effort, gotten the job done, and again feel as if I've been taken for a ride.

And in the course of tapping out this post, I've decided I'm just going to send in the job with no comment, along with my invoice, and just not accept any more work from this project manager. Life is just too short, and I should have probably put out this fire back on Friday.

Lesson learned.

Cheers...

P.S. BTW, here's Google's translation of the same source text:

Customs Broker undertakes to contribute to the law of Russia shorten the duration of the declared customs clearance of goods of the Customer.

The competition has a way to go, thank goodness.

Comments

[edith-jones.livejournal.com]

So the Google translation was 23 words - almost a compromise.

Your post interested me. I'd never thought about how a freelance translator would get paid. Certainly I'd never think that it would be on source language word count. It's lucky you're not translating out of Latin - you'd go broke! I think your decision not to accept any more work from this project manager is the wise one, for what that's worth - he doesn't sound like he plays fair.

What's the usual method of paying a written translator?
Allie.

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

As compromising as the Google translation might be, it's only a "gist" (particularly ruined by "undertakes to contribute to the law of Russia"), and not usable in almost any imaginable context.

Back when I started in this racket, payment was calculated by source count, which took the layout editor's technique of figuring out how many typewritten words would fit into a column inch and turned it on its ear: you'd measure the area of text on the page and do the appropriate arithmetic to get a guesstimate of the source count.

In the US, payment on target word count has gained huge acceptance because, I suspect, it was something that could be done easily and everyone could agree on the result. All other things being equal, this method also fairly considered differences in text.

On the con side, target payment makes life hell for agencies if they don't consider differences in text. (Quoting to the end client on the basis of source count is much easier.)

Also on the con side, some translators fall into the bad habit of not tightening their translations, e.g., using "price of the contract" instead of "contract price." One fellow I knew would never translate the 3-word Russian phrase for "happy birthday" just like that; he's render it as "felicitations on the occasion of the day of your birth," which is easily recognizable as padding. I don't even know if he still works in the industry.

Charging by source count is feasible, just not at the same rate as for target count.

In Europe, I understand that prices are quoted in various ways, often "per 55-character line" or "per 1000 characters (including spaces and tabs)."

In my own circle of clients, I am finding a subtle, yet growing pressure to move over to source payment or to quote a "not to exceed" price for target-based invoicing.

Probably TMI, but there it is.

Cheers...