| 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: 23:48
Hebrew to English
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
Ty, in your profile you state: "I was born and raised in England, although I like to spend as much time as possible in Israel."
What makes you believe that your English nativeness is worth more/better/more real than hers being native in German?
I didn't believe anything (nor say or imply any such thing), although I'm secure in the knowledge that English is my one and only native language. You are the one who insinuated that her Turkish may have been stronger than her German ("she had a Turkish background, and her Family was/and always had been talking Turkish to her") and I never stated categorically otherwise (you'll notice I said: "it seems her native language was..." and "I suspect", there's also a "probably" and "may have" thrown in there, I couldnt have hedged more if I tried!). So I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I judged my nativeness in comparison to hers. Nevermind.
What I am questioning is the value of being native on its own. Sure, when "comparing like for like" as you call it, being native is an advantage.
I'd say the value is the same as any other criterion on its own - of limited value when isolated. Just like specialisation, education etc. Not really enough on its own.
So, how many "native" variants exist for English?
This has already been brought up, I'm still not sure what it has to do with the discussion though. Many languages have multiple variants. With English, only a couple dominate the translation market(s), arguably UK & US.
| | | |
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
What I am questioning is the value of being native on its own.
[Edited at 2012-09-03 20:21 GMT]
... as are all the other would-be opponents... but that's completely twisting the argument - no-one claims it has value on its own. It's simply another fact among many other relevant facts, as you well point out.
All those arguing against the idea of native language on this thread should consider this fact:
The EU is surely one of the largest (if not THE largest...), most organized and savvy outsourcers of translation work in the world. The sheer volumes, staffing and expertise involved mean that its approach to translation outsourcing is de facto the industry standard.
And what question do you find on the translator profile forms if you ever get involved in EU translation tenders?
"Please state your mother tongue"
And I can assure you that the EU can and will investigate and disqualify you if they have any reasonable doubts that your mother tongue claim does not match your nationality, background, references etc.
The EU translation services are far from naive. They employ top linguists, and their selection systems have been developed for decades. They think this question is important and relevant. And they have good reason for doing so.
As regards your quibble about varieties of English - now that is irrelevant, because it is entirely up to the outsourcer to state their own requirements. If they require Nigerian English, fine, let them specify that, and let only Nigerian English speakers apply. And the same for all the other brands. Strangely, though, I have yet to see this happen. All I ever see mentioned is UK or US, and once or twice AUS. Go figure.
| | | | | lying about "nativeness" is dishonest and unprofessional | Sep 4, 2012 |
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
I don't understand this discussion at all. If we (as a LSP) are looking for a translator, it is our job to verify that the translator meets our spec for this job. Using native translators is just one aspect we "might" take into consideration. There are so many factors and it is relatively easy to check these factors, where is the problem? The concept of nativeness is too vague, to base any robust decision on it.
I boldfaced some of your comments in the quotes, Siegfried.
Hi.
You say the concept of native language is too vague to base a decision on it - to give the text to a native speaker? That doesn't make sense.
I do understand what you mean - you are arguing that you can't just give a translation for the US market to a British translator.
But you do give it to a native ENGLISH speaker, not a GERMAN native speaker - do I understand you correctly? (As long as one criterion was "native English speaker".)
Are you saying the native language concept is vague because there are many versions of English?
But they are all versions of English.
In that sense, all versions of German are German.
If you need something localized for Austria, you're not going to employ a French native speaker if one of your criteria for choosing the translator was indeed giving it to a GERMAN native speaker. Right?
As soon as you say the native language concept is vague, detractors here will jump for joy and claim native language per se is not an important factor in the translation business.
I am sure you agree it actually is.
If you ask me (I grew up in a German speaking family in Austria and lived in Austria for 25 years and then studied and worked in the US for 10 years before I became a translator) what my native language is, I can easily tell you that it's German, there's nothing vague about it.
You say nativeness has nothing to do with honesty??
That sounds like you can't determine it or it makes no sense to consider someone's nativeness? Or are you implying nobody is able to lie about his/her native language?????
But lying about it is indeed the reason this thread was started. It's not about people from New Zealand who claim their native language is ENGLISH and not NEW ZEALAND ENGLISH, it's about people who claim their native language is ENGLISH when in fact their native language is a NON-ENGLISH language.
Well, what the PNS here at Proz.com should tell you is that a person is truly a native speaker of for example ENGLISH (or German or any other native language they claim).
It's a credential put on profile pages and it's supposed to be the truth.
That's why we argue for verification of and honesty about "nativeness" in any language.
Again, this thread was started because of non-natives who claim to be natives (some can be found right here in this thread).
So, we asked: should native language claims be verified?
What is your answer? No, I don't care / it's not important to me if someone lies about it / no because it can't be verified .... / No, it's not an important factor at all for my decision to give a job to a translator?????
What is your native language? Are you sure about it?
Would you want to be listed with a group of "translators" who claim the same native language but are clearly non-natives? Do you think it's not a big deal if people are permitted to claim native languages on Proz.com without having to ever prove it?
It might all not matter to you but it matters to many of us and as long as PNS credentials are given out, they should reflect the truth. And unverified native speakers should not be able to take advantage of "native speaker" listings here forever (they have been able to just do that for more than 12 years).
And regarding your information concerning a native German speaker who couldn't do the job:
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
A few years ago we employed a German translator (German diploma from Cologne university, born and raised in Germany), it did not work, she had a Turkish background, and her Family was/and always had been talking Turkish to her. When talking to her (she is very intelligent) you would not realize any difference, but when she was translating marketing material, the difference became obvious.
What I want to express here, is my opinion, that being native does not mean that you can handle a certain job.
As a result the buyer of the translation service has to check that the translator he hires is up to the job, and being native is only one factor.
Yes, being a native speaker does not necessarily mean you can handle marketing material. But it is probably a very important, maybe even the first factor you take into account before checking for other credentials such as experience in translating marketing material.
Especially with marketing material, I would not want to employ a non-native speaker. Or are you implying that the native language credential holds no value and one should simply ignore it!
The NS credential does hold no value if it is untrue.
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
I see no reason in verifying the nativeness of a translator, being native in one language seems to be an advantage, translators claiming to be native in various languages often (IMO) oversee the fact that they have deficencies in both languages and personally I consider people claiming to be native in more than 2 languages not qualified for any job we might have to offer.
I don't believe it. I'm sure you want to verify nativeness if you decide you need a native speaker.
But what bothers us (the native translators who are honest about their native and non-native languages) is that on this portal you can falsely claim two native languages and get away with it - there is no verification procedure in place.
Never mind what your criteria for choosing a translator are.
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
The value of selecting a native translator with no or minimal knowledge about the subject over a non native translator with good non native language skills and with expertise in the subject escapes me. Nativeness is only one factor, and it is the job of the buyer to define the requirements and to verify that the translator meets these requirements.
Please see it from a translator's point of view:
The value of having a profile on Proz.com with a "native language credential" escapes me when anyone can claim any two languages as native languages without ever having to prove it. And if it doesn't matter to agencies, why even bother? I do believe it matters to agencies or any other client.
And when you say "there is no value in selecting a native speaker with no or minimal knowledge about the subject over a non-native translator with good non-native language skills and expertise in the subject" that's not what your choice should be in the first place.
The choice should be between a "true" native speaker with knowledge in the subject area and a "true" non-native speaker with knowledge in the subject area.
It certainly shouldn't be between a non-native speaker who falsely claims the language as his/her native language and also falsely claims experience in the subject area and an honest non-native speaker with experience in the subject area.
You can argue all day long about the value of honest native and honest non-native speakers for translation services but you can't seriously accept that false claims or non-verification of native language claims should be permitted without any consequences on this site.
What does that do to all our image and how does that strengthen the value of having a profile on Proz.com?
My thoughts.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-04 23:08 GMT]
| | | | | We don't need more rules | Sep 4, 2012 |
I understand quite well what people are trying with this thread, but my point of view is from an agency's angle.
I did state that the concept of nativeness is to vague. Let me try to explain why this is my opinion.
I am a native German, meaning my family roots in Germany go back to the year 1519, both of my parents are Germans and I was born and raised in Germany and spent most of my time in Germany. Nobody would or could argue that I am not a a native German. Does thi... See more I understand quite well what people are trying with this thread, but my point of view is from an agency's angle.
I did state that the concept of nativeness is to vague. Let me try to explain why this is my opinion.
I am a native German, meaning my family roots in Germany go back to the year 1519, both of my parents are Germans and I was born and raised in Germany and spent most of my time in Germany. Nobody would or could argue that I am not a a native German. Does this qualify me to translate texts for Switzerland, Austria or Belgium? In my opinion no, it does not. And neither does it qualify any Indian translator who is native in English to translate a text into UK or US or Australian English. We do a lot o localization into French for Switzerland or German for Switzerland or Belgium. The fact that somebody claims the he/she is native German or French is of relatively little value for these jobs as it might just be the wrong locale.
This is what I mean with "too vague". It is the same as a translator claiming "I am using a CAT tool", when I need a translator using Trados 2007. No I don't want a translator using Trados 2009 or MemoQ, I want a translator who uses Trados 2007. No, I don't wan't a translator who can handle TTX files or can produce bilingual Word files, I want a translator who uses Trados 2007.
The infomation "native English" may be valid and true for many people, I have seen contributions from translators who in my opinion have any right to claim that they are native English speakers, yet their type/locale of English was completely useless for most other English locales.
My 2nd point is that people claiming to be native in more than one language often have deficiencies in both of their languages, and are not even aware of it. Yes I do support the concept that some people are non-natives in any language, i.e. they don't have a native language. They can still be successful and good translators.
I am also convinced that in most cases the native language suffers if a translator already lives/lived > 5 years in an environment where his/her native language is not spoken.
Therefore, being honest would mean for example, that a translator states: "I am born and raised in Germany, worked in Germany and lived and worked for 5 years in Switzerland. This and my experience of 15 years of translating texts into German for Belgium gives me the confidence to translate texts in certain topics into German/Germany, German for Switzerland and German for Belgium, and no, I do not translate into German for Austria."
Also, I do not support the idea that all excellent non native translators are exceptions to the rule as it was claimed here. Many, and there are many of them, are just better in their foreign language than many so called natives.
I have no idea how the proficiency to translate into a certain language can me measured and expressed, but being "native" is definitely not informative enough and adding another administrative layer to Proz to verify nativeness would not solve anything.
I recommend that translators give as much detailed information as possible on what they can do and where their limits are. The more information a translator provides in his quote/CV/résumé, the more likely it becomes that the customer chooses the "right" translator for a certain job. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:48
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Standard English | Sep 4, 2012 |
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
So, how many "native" variants exist for English?
UK
US
Australian
Indian
Canada
Jamaica
Singapore
Nigeria
Liberia
New Zealand
????
Siegfried, we're talking about translation here and I'd hazard a guess that in the vast majority of cases what is required is standard English. I'm reminded of a section in the "Translation getting it right - A guide to buying translations" booklet:
"In 1999, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development ordered a
“creole” translation of an 8-page brochure. The text was erroneously translated
into a Jamaican-style patois that started “Yuh as a rezedent ave di rights ahn
di rispansabilities to elp mek yuh HUD-asisted owzing ah behta owme fi yuh
ahn yuh fambily”. “Total garbage, of no use to anyone in the Caribbean,”
said a Jamaican embassy spokesman in Washington. All Jamaican government
documents are printed in standard English. “We find this extremely offensive,”
he added."
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:48
Hebrew to English
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
I did state that the concept of nativeness is to vague. Let me try to explain why this is my opinion.
I am a native German, meaning my family roots in Germany go back to the year 1519, both of my parents are Germans and I was born and raised in Germany and spent most of my time in Germany. Nobody would or could argue that I am not a a native German. Does this qualify me to translate texts for Switzerland, Austria or Belgium? In my opinion no, it does not. And neither does it qualify any Indian translator who is native in English to translate a text into UK or US or Australian English. We do a lot o localization into French for Switzerland or German for Switzerland or Belgium. The fact that somebody claims the he/she is native German or French is of relatively little value for these jobs as it might just be the wrong locale.
This is what I mean with "too vague".
I think you're looking at it all wrong. It's not native language that is too vague, it's that you're talking about two different things and trying to apply "native language" as an umbrella over them both in exactly the same way:
You are talking about:
1) Translation
2) Localization
a) For the purposes of translation, it is usually enough (i.e. not vague) to say "I am a native 'x' speaker" as most translators of language 'x' have access to the standardized version and to the mainstream/dominant varieties.
b) For the purposes of localization, it is not enough to say "I am a native 'x' speaker", you have to be more specific and state what variety of language 'x' you speak.
This doesn't mean that "native language" is too vague, it just means it's not a "catch-all" term (it's possible to say: "UK English is my native language[variant]" and it's the addition of the "UK" which adds information not replacing the 'native language' tag and pretty much anything you would want to replace it with will be equally open to interpretation)..if you wanted to be picky you could go on to say that even the above is 'vague'...what dialect of UK English do you speak? Will an agency want to investigate my idiolect? It gets silly the more specific you try to be. It's simply neither practical nor desirable to get too specific.
What we are arguing is that there's little vagueness involved when you claim to be a native English speaker and yet the dialect you speak is actually 'native' to Amsterdam, Hamburg, Paris, Warsaw, Moscow etc.
[Edited at 2012-09-04 08:07 GMT]
| | | | | Can you define standard English/German/French? | Sep 4, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Siegfried, we're talking about translation here and I'd hazard a guess that in the vast majority of cases what is required is standard English. I'm reminded of a section in the "Translation getting it right - A guide to buying translations" booklet:
"In 1999, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development ordered a
“creole” translation of an 8-page brochure. The text was erroneously translated
into a Jamaican-style patois that started “Yuh as a rezedent ave di rights ahn
di rispansabilities to elp mek yuh HUD-asisted owzing ah behta owme fi yuh
ahn yuh fambily”. “Total garbage, of no use to anyone in the Caribbean,”
said a Jamaican embassy spokesman in Washington. All Jamaican government
documents are printed in standard English. “We find this extremely offensive,”
he added."
What is standard English? Are you saying that Jamaican's being native in English are using the same English as the British? What about India or Singapore or Honkong? Is this also standard English?
How do you define standard English? I am really curious.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:48
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Standard English | Sep 4, 2012 |
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
What is standard English? Are you saying that Jamaican's being native in English are using the same English as the British? What about India or Singapore or Honkong? Is this also standard English?
How do you define standard English? I am really curious.
No I am not saying that. Of course not. We are not talking about the spoken version of the language, which of course comes in a vast and colourful array of variants. I think even Wikipedia would help you with this one, but to keep it simple, "standard English" is what the press would use and what translations are generally written in.
| | |
|
|
|
| marketing material | Sep 4, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Yes, being a native speaker does not necessarily mean you can handle marketing material. But it is probably a very important, maybe even the first factor you take into account before checking for other credentials such as experience in translating marketing material.
Especially with marketing material, I would not want to employ a non-native speaker. Or are you implying that the native language credential holds no value and one should simply ignore it!
Sorry, but I just can’t buy this. And I have to voice my disagreement especially given that you are from the US. So you mean all immigrants who are majoring in English rhetorics, journalism, marketing, or related disciplines like communication design have chosen the wrong major simply because they happen to have the wrong native language? Ridiculous.
[Edited at 2012-09-04 08:57 GMT]
| | | | | There's no such thing as "standard" IMO | Sep 4, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
What is standard English? Are you saying that Jamaican's being native in English are using the same English as the British? What about India or Singapore or Honkong? Is this also standard English?
How do you define standard English? I am really curious. No I am not saying that. Of course not. We are not talking about the spoken version of the language, which of course comes in a vast and colourful array of variants. I think even Wikipedia would help you with this one, but to keep it simple, "standard English" is what the press would use and what translations are generally written in.
Interesting but not enough - what the press in the US uses is not the same English than what the press in the UK uses.
Reading through the thread, I agree - native language is a factor. But I also hear what Siegfried means and I also agree. Native, yes. But native in what? I'm native in France French, that definitely does not qualify me to translate for Quebec or Belgium or Switzerland. So what is standard French (or English, or German, or...) ?
There's no such thing as a standard when it comes to languages which are spoken in various countries and places and therefore have their own variants. There's no such thing as standard French. For the French, France French is standard. For Canadians, Quebec French is standard. For the Swiss, Swiss French is standard. For Algeria, Algerian French is standard. And so forth and so on.
In the translation business, the "standard" language should be the language variant the client needs. If the client is Swiss and needs a document translated for the Swiss market, then the job should be done in Swiss French, not in Quebec French. Period. Which means I can't do it. Which means I have to find a Swiss French native translator. There's really no such thing as standard.
What might be useful for the purposes of the discussions is to allow users to enter the variant their are native in in their profiles. Of course honesty has a role to play here - when I receive an offer for English> Canadian French, I reply that I don't speak Canadian French, sorry.
We have for example an American client with offices in France and the French office often gives us texts to translate into English for internal uses. It is obvious that we need to have those translated into American English, because that is the "standard" for that client.
Then of course the question of verifying remains open, but I am not going into that debate. I just wanted to give my two cents on Lisa's post about "standard English", which IMO does not exist (unless you count Globish, but whether anyone can be native in Globish and the definition of Globish are another matter).
Cheers,
Anne
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:48
Hebrew to English
| Standardisation | Sep 4, 2012 |
....doesn't stop existing just because a language goes global (in fact, standardisation becomes more important the more people speak the language).
There's still such a thing as "standard" UK English, "standard" US English etc. Otherwise we'd all be writing in our own dialects and it would get a little messy, wouldn't it?
[Edited at 2012-09-04 09:10 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:48
Hebrew to English
| Not that much difference really | Sep 4, 2012 |
Anne Diamantidis wrote:
Interesting but not enough - what the press in the US uses is not the same English than what the press in the UK uses.
No, but it's extremely close. Whilst the spoken differences between Glaswegian and Louisiana English might be vast, the written differences between standard UK and US English are rather slim in comparison.
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:48
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Translation and localisation | Sep 4, 2012 |
You are confusing the two.
| | | |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
You are confusing the two.
I'm not even talking about translation and localization. I'm refering to your comment that "standard English" is what the press uses. Which press?
French press uses France French. Quebec press uses Quebec French.
French press does not use Quebec French. Quebec French press does not use France French.
Which one is "world standard" for French?
[Edited at 2012-09-04 09:41 GMT]
| | | | Kirsten Bodart
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:48
Dutch to English
+ ...
| Having been insiders for quite a few years | Sep 4, 2012 |
septima wrote: Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
What I am questioning is the value of being native on its own.
[Edited at 2012-09-03 20:21 GMT] ... as are all the other would-be opponents... but that's completely twisting the argument - no-one claims it has value on its own. It's simply another fact among many other relevant facts, as you well point out. All those arguing against the idea of native language on this thread should consider this fact: The EU is surely one of the largest (if not THE largest...), most organized and savvy outsourcers of translation work in the world. The sheer volumes, staffing and expertise involved mean that its approach to translation outsourcing is de facto the industry standard. And what question do you find on the translator profile forms if you ever get involved in EU translation tenders? "Please state your mother tongue" And I can assure you that the EU can and will investigate and disqualify you if they have any reasonable doubts that your mother tongue claim does not match your nationality, background, references etc. The EU translation services are far from naive. They employ top linguists, and their selection systems have been developed for decades. They think this question is important and relevant. And they have good reason for doing so. As regards your quibble about varieties of English - now that is irrelevant, because it is entirely up to the outsourcer to state their own requirements. If they require Nigerian English, fine, let them specify that, and let only Nigerian English speakers apply. And the same for all the other brands. Strangely, though, I have yet to see this happen. All I ever see mentioned is UK or US, and once or twice AUS. Go figure.
I can tell you for a fact that is not true, what you have written there.
I know at least of one person who is Polish, has spent no real extensive periods in England, although her English is accentless, and she makes translations into Polish and English. Has been doing that for years. It is true they prefer native translators, so they will always ask what your MT is,, but as long as you can deliver a good text, they don't really care.
It is most of the EU tender companies that set criteria. Translators for the EU, as far as I know (the last time I looked) do not need translation degrees, nor necessarily any degrees whatsoever, they need experience, as do interpreters (and even then...). They need to prove themselves. Only lawyer-linguists need to have a degree in law. That's it. Seems logical.
Native language is so important, that they have interpreters interpret from English into their mother tongue and not the opposite, which is apparently the standard for conference interpreting (you understand the fine things in your MT better than in another language).
The industry standard is so good and the quality of the tender translations (we also know for a fact) that complaints are rife. The German parliament sends back translations because they can't understand them. We have seen the list of companies and they are just the ones that offer the lowest prices.
Translators in the EU itself (not through tender companies) get a quota of about 2,500 words a day. Some care (my husband has taught people who work into the night), some don't and want to go home, i.e. have their quota done by 5 o'clock. Mistakes and weird EU language are perpetuated because of the programme with the big T.
So indeed, the industry standard would be that, as long as you produce a text that is acceptable (but foremost affordable it seems), that you can pass.
Not that I agree, but I refuse to believe that non-natives cannot obtain a standard that's equivalent to their native colleagues.
And before anyone starts to complain about my English here, my posts are not proofread by my husband, so I can't vouch for their Englishness.
| | | | | 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? | 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 » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
