| 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)
|
|---|
Phil Hand 
China
Local time: 11:15
Chinese to English
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
If that is the rationale for this debate...
It's one of them
...then you should not be talking about native language at all...
We weren't. We mentioned it as the locus of where some of this went on. But our discussion was focused on...
...tightening up the membership enrollment process...
By verification or sign-up questionnaire or challenge, etc.
You and Lilian are the ones who desired the big debate on nativeness. The rest of us have been asking you to shut up about it for 100 pages now.
But perhaps I'm finally getting through. You seem to admit that such a thing as
unprofessional behaviour
does in fact exist. Well done. That's your first step on the road to recovery.
(edited for typo)
[Edited at 2012-09-07 05:13 GMT]
| | | | Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 20:15
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Phil Hand wrote:
Native language is native language. Any takers?
Definitely. What else?
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 08:45
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Back to TPI, which is welcome... | Sep 7, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
I think Siegfried is making a much more coherent, experience-based version of the point that has been repeated ad infinitum by, er, less coherent contributors: the "native speaker" criterion is of use, but that use can be limited and domain-specific.
I completely agree with that. I would love to see "native" become part of a more nuanced set of translator selection tools - and we know that good agencies already do this.
I am glad that you are finally coming around to my idea of the Translator Proficiency Index (TPI).
Native language is useful only in the context of translator competency. So we should be discussing translator competency/proficiency and ways to measure it.
[2012-09-07 05:19 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 08:45
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | How is this related to this discussion? | Sep 7, 2012 |
Nicole Schnell wrote:
With prior permission from the agency client I once hired a translator from this site for some legal text EN>GER as a part of a huge website translation. The translator claimed to be a specialist in this field and of course claimed to be a native speaker of German on her profile page. I was able to allow comfortable 3 days for 3k words, and I offered the rate that I was paid without taking a cut. I was just happy as a clam at high tide to get help. Until the job was delivered. The result was a joke, and I sent it back to be reworked.
The proper thing for you to have done in this case would have been to put the agency and this translator in touch with each other. The onus of verification would then have come on the agency, and they would have been in a better position to verify the translator - they would have the experience and the resources.
This is merely a case of a bad translator, and has nothing to do with the current debate. You can even have a native language translator messing up a job like this. Sloppy work is not entirely the prerogative of a non-native.
This is also a case of a translator erroneously presuming that s/he has the wherewithal or the expertise to verify other translators. And this is precisely the reason why peer review of translators is such a bad idea. We are not trained to evaluate translators (least of all our own competitors - remember the grinding axe?), we are trained to translate. A lot of problems arise when we presume that we can do things that are cut out for other people, just because they look easy to us.
[2012-09-07 06:56 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | |
|
|
|
Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 20:15
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The proper thing for you to have done in this case would have been to put the agency and this translator in touch with each other. The onus of verification would then have come on the agency, and they would have been in a better position to verify the translator - they would have the experience and the resources.
This is merely a case of a bad translator, and has nothing to do with the current debate. You can even have a native language translator messing up a job like this. Sloppy work is not entirely the prerogative of a non-native.
"Merely a case of a bad translator" because a native speaker of Dutch happens to live in Germany and therefor declares German his/her native language?
Also: "The proper thing for me to do", etc. You mean, the person would have not lied to the Japanese agency but only to me because I am a stupid American? What are you trying to say?
| | | | Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 20:15
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | @Balasubramaniam L.: Addendum | Sep 7, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The proper thing for you to have done in this case would have been to put the agency and this translator in touch with each other. The onus of verification would then have come on the agency, and they would have been in a better position to verify the translator - they would have the experience and the resources.
My company happens to be twice as old as the aforementioned Japanese agency. Please refrain from insulting posters.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 08:45
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | I am only trying to say this... | Sep 7, 2012 |
Nicole Schnell wrote:
"The proper thing for me to do", etc. You mean, the person would have not lied to the Japanese agency but only to me because I am a stupid American? What are you trying to say?
Agencies take translator hiring very seriously for in the end it is they who have to face the music, which could even be legal entanglement. I read somewhere that as much as 20% of an agency's profit can be eaten up on average by the consequences of bad hires.
So agencies take great pains to verify translators before handing them a job. They have the resources available to them to be thorough about this. Some of the methods they use are:
- scrutiny of profile and cv.
- credentials and educational qualifications.
- experience.
- specialization.
- forum posts, websites, etc. of the candidate.
- translation test.
- talking to references.
- looking at WWA if any.
These can indicate red flags quite early in the process. But a translator who is clearly more interested in washing his/her hands off the whole thing, may not be so thorough, and easily can get taken in.
That is all I was trying to say. And it has nothing at all to do with this discussion.
[2012-09-07 07:22 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 08:45
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | I think we have broken important common ground and should build upon it | Sep 7, 2012 |
With some adroit nudging from Siegfried with his agency perspective, we are finally touching upon some common ground.
Phil has already conceded that it is translator competency that is really worth measuring and verifying and native language has a place only in the context of translator competency. Charlie B. has already been saying this way back in this thread. This is also the gist of the idea I had presented in my post on Translator Proficiency Index, and what I have been saying ... See more With some adroit nudging from Siegfried with his agency perspective, we are finally touching upon some common ground.
Phil has already conceded that it is translator competency that is really worth measuring and verifying and native language has a place only in the context of translator competency. Charlie B. has already been saying this way back in this thread. This is also the gist of the idea I had presented in my post on Translator Proficiency Index, and what I have been saying all along.
I think we should now steer this discussion in the direction of measuring and verifying translator competency and stop talking about native language verification. We will be able to achieve something concrete for this site if we can do that. We seem to have satisfactorily answered the “Why” question that I had posed in one of my earlier post.
[2012-09-07 08:36 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 20:15
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | Dear Balasubramaniam L. | Sep 7, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Agency take translator hiring very seriously for in the end it is they who have to face the music, which could even be legal entanglement. I read somewhere that as much as 20% of an agency's profit can be eaten up on average by the consequences of a bad hire.
So agencies take great pains to verify translators before handing them a job. They have the resources available to them to be thorough about this. Some of the methods they use are:
- scrutiny of profile and cv.
- credentials and educational qualifications.
- experience.
- specialization.
- forum posts, websites, etc. of the candidate.
- translation test.
- talking to references.
- looking at WWA if any.
These can indicate red flags quite early in the process. But a translator who is clearly more interested in washing his/her hands off the whole thing, may not be so thorough, and easily gets taken in.
That is all I was trying to say. And it has nothing at all to do with this discussion.
All those wonderful and extremely crucial criteria are worth half a cat's behind if they are made up, fake, forged or merely based on some distorted self-perception.
Best regards,
Schnell Creative Group, Inc.
Portland, OR
USA
Celebrating our 11th Anniversary in 2012
This thread is about mere honesty, due diligence, professionalism and business ethics. Most definitely not about self-declared standards and vanities.
| | | |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
I think we should now steer this discussion in the direction of measuring and verifying translator competency and stop talking about native language verification.
"We" want to talk about it. If you don´t, then don´t do it. If you want to talk about something else than "native language verification", please open your own thead and give this one (and all of us) a break. Thank you.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 11:15
Chinese to English
| Do you sometimes look in the mirror and say: you are not Balasubramaniam | Sep 7, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
This is merely a case of a bad translator, and has nothing to do with the current debate.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
So we should be discussing translator competency/proficiency and ways to measure it.
Life must be surreal in your world, where you can say two completely opposing things within just a few minutes.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Phil has already conceded that it is translator competency that is really worth measuring and verifying and native language has a place only in the context of translator competency.
No, your reading comprehension skills desert you again. I said, *using the criterion* of native language has a place in the context of translator competence. ("I would love to see "native" become part of a more nuanced set of translator selection tools.")
First it must be correctly asserted/validated in and of itself. Then it can be incorporated into a nuanced approach to translator selection.
I've also said:
It is not and can never be Proz's job to say how good we are.
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/227485-should_“native_language”_claims_be_verified-page95.html#1994036
I take online discussion seriously. I've come back to you several times, because I believe it is worth challenging my own views on a regular basis. But what you're writing is worthless. It's nonsensical. It's self-contradictory.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 04:15
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Wrong, I'm afraid | Sep 7, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
There are three levels of members: non-paying, professional/corporate, and certified...
...I don't think such unprofessional behaviour is much of a concern in the higher levels of membership like professional/corporate and certified.
I can point you towards umpteen cases of Certified Pros who are being dishonest about their native language, which makes it all the more worrying. It is pretty clear to me that a number of them have sought the P badge because professional associations or other translation websites simply wouldn’t let them get away with the misrepresentation. It also goes to show that the site's current plan to improve the system by focusing on an elite group able to differentiate itself from the rest is completely misguided. I’ve already given you an example of misrepresentation (I might also add that this person in a Certified Pro), http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/227485-should_“native_language”_claims_be_verified-page96.html#1994174 so I’m not sure why you keep insisting that these claims are being made innocently. That particular individual was either rejected by the IoL for their second native language or didn’t dare apply because he/she knew the claim would be verified. No chance of that here.
Edited to try and fix broken link.
[Edited at 2012-09-07 08:05 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 08:45
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Clairvoyance? | Sep 7, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
But what you're writing is worthless. It's nonsensical. It's self-contradictory.
For a person who has self-declared that he has not been reading my posts, how are you able to judge all that? Clairvoyance?
PS: Also note the wrong English usage by a self-declared native English translator in "you're writing is worthless...".
Should we strike Phil off the list of native English translators, as he has been caught lying about his competency in English in the above case?
What category of errors would this fall in - Errors made by native English translators, which should not be counted as errors for the purpose of native language verification?
[2012-09-07 09:06 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 08:45
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | As I said, there is no dishonesty here | Sep 7, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
I can point you towards umpteen cases of Certified Pros who are being dishonest about their native language...
As I have said, until proz.com defines in so many words as to what it considers a native language, there is no dishonesty in what anyone declares as a native language. Proz.com leaves the definition of native language to each individual member, and as per his own definition, native language claims are perfectly legitimate.
You should actually be campaigning for proz.com to define native language and only after that can you talk about verification of native language.
This in a nutshell is what I have been arguing about. Remember the three questions I had posed - What, Why and How?
The "what" question relates to this issue of defining native language.
| | | | psicutrinius
Spain
Local time: 05:15
Member (2008)
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Let's move on... | Sep 7, 2012 |
Nani Delgado wrote:
"We" want to talk about it. If you don´t, then don´t do it. If you want to talk about something else than "native language verification", please open your own thead and give this one (and all of us) a break. Thank you.
Since this thread has been thoroughly derailed (through misleading statements, navel-gazing, off-topic posts et. al.)... so thoroughly, in fact, that even though there is very worthwhile grain among the chaff, it has become impossible to sort it out, may I suggest that those who think along Nani's words above migrate lock, stock and barrel to the alternative thread, where at least any excursions from the subject "ways to verify native language" are off topic and therefore can be brought to the moderators' attention to have them deleted?.
That would at least allow us to move forward, while leaving this thread to keep hopelessly drifting away as it is doing since long ago (in terms of numbers of posts, if not time itself) and, hopefully, closing in a medium term?
[Edited at 2012-09-07 09:29 GMT]
| | | | | 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? | 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 » |
| | 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 
