| 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)
|
|---|
| Non existent problem | Oct 2, 2012 |
I have never seen anybody claiming to be native German who wasn't.
Yes, seems to be a native (proprietary) English problem.
| | | | inkweaver 
Germany
Local time: 13:49
French to German
+ ...
| The fact that you haven't seen it | Oct 2, 2012 |
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It does, and there are people claiming German as one of their native languages here on Proz.com when it is pretty obvious that they aren't native German speakers.
BTW: I'm not talking about variants of German here.
[Edited at 2012-10-02 15:16 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:49
Hebrew to English
| This just isn't the case | Oct 2, 2012 |
Anne Diamantidis wrote: Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
2) That no one is in fact trying to pass themselves off as being French?
As far as I know no. So here you go: you replied to our own question (and mine): yes, it does seem in fact that this issue *primarly* concerns English natives. [Edited at 2012-10-02 14:05 GMT]
No, it *primarily* concerns the English Language. There's a difference. Many contributors to this thread who are equally as passionate about the issue are not native English speakers, some of them are rather regular contributors (some of them, I have just noticed, have commented above).
I think you are conflating the issue being *primarily* about the English Language with the issue being *primarily* a chargrin of native English speakers.
A cursory glance at this thread (and a look at its contributors) proves this isn't the case.
You are also still labouring under the misconception that this is about variants. It isn't.
It's heartwarming to be informed that the French are so accepting of non-France French (although it looks like you might have been fibbing there, at the very least: others disagree), but I can guarantee the French might take exception with hoardes of South Africans, English, Germans, Bulgarians, Polish, Russians etc etc. claiming French as their native language when it [blatently] isn't.
| | | | | Speaking for myself | Oct 2, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
I can guarantee the French might take exception with hoardes of South Africans, English, Germans, Bulgarians, Polish, Russians etc etc. claiming French as their native language when it [blatently] isn't.
OK, that's the issue, I get it.
Then, speaking for myself: I really could not care less if a Bulgarian claims being a French native. Sincerely. He/She'll get the job into French, it's going to be a disaster and he/she'll loose the client and hurt his/her own reputation. And with luck, I'll even get that client who's going to be so grateful for a quality work that they'll remain a faithful client of mine for years because they got "traumatized" by a liar and would be too afraid of leaving a translator they're happy with to take risks of being exposed to liars again.
In all, the translator claiming to be a French native did not hurt anyone except himself and the client who A. should hav done a better job checking out the provider and B. will have learnt the lesson (hopefully).
Same goes for people claiming to be specialists in medicine for example, when they clearly are not - at some point, their clients will keep running away and the only harm those translators do is to themselves and their reputation.
Oh and for the record : I haven't been fibbing but if other people don't believe me when I say that I respect other variants of French, well that's too bad but it's their problem
I'm sorry that our profession is so dictated by paranoia that when one actually meets people who have a mimimal sense of respect and values - which is the case of the majority of us - one can't even acknowledge it and immediately goes on war path - sarcasm and claws and teeth out. It's sad. But then again, not my problem. If you want to be paranoid and see the wrong in everything, feel free to. If there are French people who behave like arrogant jerks, it's their bad and I'm sorry for them but that does not mean we all are arrogant jerks.
[Edited at 2012-10-02 22:20 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| what native language implies | Oct 2, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
... we have here another type of lying. A bilingual person who is actually a native of one language not declaring both (or all) his languages as his native languages and opting for one of the languages for his native language, may be because the market is larger in that direction.
I am sure that if you are truly a native speaker of any language and are advertising here for translation services from or into that language, you will most likely want to mention that. It implies something....
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
... Should we insist that every one compulsorily declare all their native languages, just for the sake of truthfulness, and for providing outsourcers with a more complete bio-profile?
[2012-10-01 16:46 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
You don't have to force anybody to declare their native languages. It's really common sense to do that here. Who's not going to say they are a native speaker when they are?
Lisa Simpson wrote:
Do you really think that if I had a native command of PT I wouldn't GLADLY add it to my profile and rack up a total of SIX language pairs on my profile? No, I didn't think so.
There you go.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Lisa, that post was just to show that there could be lying and lying. One type of lying is when people say something that is not exactly true. Another type of lying is when people withhold something that is true.
There is only one type of lying. Saying an untruth. Not listing your native language is certainly not considered lying here.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
If a translator has lived 25 years in a place from childhood and does not declare the language of that place as (one of) his native language(s), then he is hiding an important information about his native language, and that qualifies as lying.
No, it qualifies as "not thinking right". Which professional translator would do such a thing?
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
According to some of the definitions of native language used here, a native language is absorbed in an unconscious way by children when they find themselves in a particular linguistic environment. They can’t help but do this, it is an involuntary, subconscious process. And according to this viewpoint, to which I think you too subscribe, native language has nothing to do with proficiency, as Bernhard has repeatedly stressed. He has cited his own case and said that he does not consider himself native in English even though he is quite proficient in it.
I have never stated that "native language has nothing to do with proficiency."
I said that native language verification is different from verifying (degrees of) "proficiency" in translating or writing in a language.
We don't want to verify "highest or lowest proficiency" - for translators. Let me know if you want me to collect my quotes.
For the purpose of the PNL credential, native language does have everything to do with proficiency. It implies "highest proficiency". It says you can trust my translations into that language and my writing skills because I am "at home" in that language and surely must be proficient in the source language as well.
But during verification, I don't have to prove my "highest proficiency".
No, just talk to me and you will recognize immediately that I am a German native speaker - which makes a lot of sense if you check my personal background (read: pre-qualification for verification).
Also, immersion in a language as in growing up with it does not only involve "unconscious acquisition processes". It definitely involves conscious 'learning" as well. For quite a long time.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
So, even if you are not proficient in a native language, you should declare it. Not declaring it is untruthful.
Nobody forces anyone to declare any native languages on this site. If you are more comfortable not declaring them, that's okay. Just don't declare them if they're not your native languages. That's lying.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
What is the difference otherwise between those translators whom we have been freely branding as liars because they have declared a language as their native language in which they can’t string a straight sentence and those translators who can’t string a straight sentence in a language which is their native language either, but which they have smartly not declared as their native language when it is in fact one of their native languages? Both would qualify as liars in my book.
That's some circular reasoning there, Mr. B., as far as I'm concerned.
You are talking about translators right?
a) declaring a language as one's native language in which they can't string (together) a straight sentence = A lie. Yes!!
b) not declaring a language as one's native language in which you can't string (together) a straight sentence = Excuse me? What? Can't string a sentence together when you're a native speaker translator???
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
And what would be the justification? Because, by not declaring a language as a native language because you are not proficient in it, you are admitting that it is possible for people to be not proficient in their native language. And if that is so, there is nothing strange in a person not being able to string a straight sentence in the declared native language. They are simply not proficient in the declared native language, but that does not make them liars. But you consider them liars, and by the same logic the reverse case of withholding true information should also qualify as a lie. Do you see my point?
More circular reasoning, IMO.
So from your "hypothesis" that a native speaker supposedly can't create a basic, grammatically and idiomatically correct sentence, it must follow that
"... there is nothing strange in a person (these are actually those who lie about their native language, not the real native speakers) not being able to string a straight sentence in the declared native language. They are simply not proficient in the declared native language, but that does not make them liars."
Excuse me? Doesn't make them liars?
First of all, this logic doesn't work. Native speakers, especially if they are translators, do way better than just string some sentences together in that native language.
Secondly, declaring a language as your native language when it's not and when you are clearly deficient in it is indeed lying and inexcusable.
But no, that's perfectly fine in your book, and not only that, but not mentioning your native languages (why you would do that as a translator is beyond me) becomes a lie?
I'm sorry, where is the point to that logic? I'm just asking.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
I wonder what would be Bernhard’s take on this. Would he consider a translator not declaring a native language because he is not proficient in it as lying, because according to him, a native language is the language one learns in childhood and it is not necessarily a language in which you are proficient.
a) A translator who is a native speaker of X is (that's implied) very proficient (usually more so than non-native speakers) in his/her native language.
b) I have no problem with anyone NOT declaring their native language. And no, I wouldn't consider it lying. See above.
c) A child who is a native speaker of a language can indeed be less proficient than a non-native translator. But that doesn't make that translator a native speaker.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
I am raising these issues just to strike home that things like native language are intensely personal matters and really no one has a right to comment on one’s native language. You state in your profile what is advantageous to you and withhold what can paint you in a bad light. It is a purely marketing text. Subjecting it to ethical tests can get everyone into trouble. The outsourcer should take it for what it is and independently do due diligence before selecting a translator.
All I have to say is you need truth in marketing/advertising, especially when you are marketing your "native language". And it's not a personal matter if one lies about it.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
And also to highlight that all that really matters in translation is how proficient you are in your languages, and issues like native language are red herrings.
No one is disputing that all that really matters in translation is proficiency, highest possible proficiency.
That doesn't make native language a red herring.
It's fair to say and believe that "verified" native speakers are highly proficient in their language. And if they are translators, especially so when translating into their native language.
But we should not "test" proficiency levels when we're verifying native languages.
That is quite a different task.
By having verified the "native characteristic" of one's speech or writing, the credential should be given.
If then someone complains about the proficiency of a "native speaker" who came up short in his work, that's between the translator and the person who states such fact.
This is not very likely to happen if the translator is a professional and a native speaker.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: And a third point that this case brings into focus is that you just can't take native language as a proxy for proficiency. Native language and proficiency are two separate things and they should be scrupulously treated as so. Please see this post of mine ( Bringing in "mother tongue" to take some weight off "native language", ) for my suggestions on how we can do this.
Although native language and proficiency are two separate things and the "proficiency levels" among native speaker translators vary, it's safe to say that the proficiency levels between native speaker translators and non-native speaker translators will differ to a much greater degree.
That's why a "native language" is indeed an indicator of one's proficiency versus a non-native. An Indicator!!! Nothing more. The person still has to "prove" him/herself to the client. But the indicator is worth nothing if it's a lie.
Quality issues can always come up, with native (mother tongue) speakers as well as with non-native speakers. very subjective issues, sometimes.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
For the record, I don’t consider you or any similar translator not declaring a native language in which he is not proficient as lying. I consider it within the ambit of ethical behaviour to present to outsourcers a flattering picture of one’s abilities.
Didn't you do a 180 there?
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Also my position is that what counts in translation is proficiency in the language and native language is only tangentially related to proficiency.
[2012-10-02 06:47 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
Only tangentially (peripherally)? Not for translators it isn't.
Bernhard
[Edited at 2012-10-02 21:26 GMT]
| | | |
Anne Diamantidis wrote:
Then, speaking for myself: I really could not care less if a Bulgarian claims being a French native. Sincerely. He/She'll get the job into French, it's going to be a disaster and he/she'll loose the client and hurt his/her own reputation. And with luck, I'll even get that client who's going to be so grateful for a quality work that they'll remain a faithful client of mine for years because they got "traumatized" by a liar and would be too afraid of leaving a translator they're happy with to take risks of being exposed to liars again.
In all, the translator claiming to be a French native did not hurt anyone except himself and the client who A. should hav done a better job checking out the provider and B. will have learnt the lesson (hopefully).
Same goes for people claiming to be specialists in medicine for example, when they clearly are not - at some point, their clients will keep running away and the only harm those translators do is to themselves and their reputation.
Anne has very adroitly summarized the major issue for translation.
In my realm, I don't know if anyone has made false claims to be a native PT-BR speaker, and I couldn't care less. Yet every day I see tons of people who made blatantly false self-assertions on being... translators!
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:49
Hebrew to English
| @Anne and sorry to dampen your enthusiasm Jose but... | Oct 2, 2012 |
Anne Diamantidis wrote:
In all, the translator claiming to be a French native did not hurt anyone except himself and the client who A. should hav done a better job checking out the provider and B. will have learnt the lesson (hopefully).
I'm afraid this isn't so. What about the reputation of this site? What about your reputation by proxy (of being associated with this site)?
Liars hurt themselves, the client, the job in question, the image of the profession as a whole and most pertinently - the reputation of this site - where they are gleefully misrepresenting themselves.
Just because you don't immediately see the harm done, it doesn't mean it isn't done regardless....and it doesn't mean it won't affect you somehow, somewhere down the line.
Saying "it doesn't matter because they only hurt themselves and the hapless client" is somewhat short sighted and an extremely narrow way of looking at things (IMO).
[Edited at 2012-10-02 16:20 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 17:19
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
Ty Kendall wrote: Kirsten Bodart wrote:
The world (and necessarily Proz) has many different languages in it and not all languages are idiomatic, I.e. very colloquially coloured. Even in this thread (somewhere in the beginning, I think it was) there was someone who brought up the fact that some languages are more straightforward, so therefore easier to master to a native level than others.
English is difficult, not in terms of rules, but in terms of nativeness. It is idiomatic and people with a less idiomtic language might struggle to produce that same flow and word choice as a native (although it will not matter in certain areas). It's a non-issue for two reasons. Firstly because I've never come across anything in my study of Linguistics which supports the idea the any one language can be more or less 'idiomatic' than any other. It follows the same logic as the "English doesn't have many rules" fallacy. Saying that "some languages are more straightforward" simply doesn't stand up to linguistic scrutiny.
For once, I have no difficulty in agreeing with Ty. I think whether one language is more or less idiomatic than another has more to do with how specific users of languages handle their language. One writer may adopt a more idiomatic style another may prefer a more straightforward one. In the case of Hindi, Premchand is known for his idiomatic style, while other writers use more straightforward language.
All languages have infinite capacity of expression. The limitation comes on the part of the capacity of individual users of languages. So in my opinion, there are no grounds for treating one language as more complicated or more idiomatic than others. All languages are the creation of human mind have equal expressive power which includes idiomatic usage.
| | |
|
|
|
| Ye, this thread definitely has turned out to be about some other issues than English | Oct 2, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote: Anne Diamantidis wrote:
Then, speaking for myself: I really could not care less if a Bulgarian claims being a French native. Sincerely. He/She'll get the job into French, it's going to be a disaster and he/she'll loose the client and hurt his/her own reputation. And with luck, I'll even get that client who's going to be so grateful for a quality work that they'll remain a faithful client of mine for years because they got "traumatized" by a liar and would be too afraid of leaving a translator they're happy with to take risks of being exposed to liars again.
In all, the translator claiming to be a French native did not hurt anyone except himself and the client who A. should hav done a better job checking out the provider and B. will have learnt the lesson (hopefully).
Same goes for people claiming to be specialists in medicine for example, when they clearly are not - at some point, their clients will keep running away and the only harm those translators do is to themselves and their reputation. Anne has very adroitly summarized the major issue for translation. In my realm, I don't know if anyone has made false claims to be a native PT-BR speaker, and I couldn't care less. Yet every day I see tons of people who made blatantly false self-assertions on being... translators!
First of all some people use a very narrow and outdated definition of a native language. Secondly, yes, I could really care less if someone called himself or herself a native speaker of Polish, or Lithuanian, or some other languages that had played some role in my family heritage. I would be happy really that they felt connected with that culture. (since it is not really about proficiency someone said, right?) You wouldn't almost be allowed to have a name that sounded slightly English, according to some people here. Not to mention other things. So, you can clearly see that this thread is not really about language.
| | | | | It does affect us | Oct 2, 2012 |
Short sighted - narrow way of looking at things - why can't I get rid of the impression that some supporters of this topic tend to get personal.
Ty Kendall wrote:
....and it doesn't mean it won't affect you somehow, somewhere down the line.
Sure it does affect us. Our rates are well above average, and most of our clients have had bad experience with certified agencies and translators claiming all kind of qualifications. Good for us, because they are happy that they found us and they have learned the lesson that quality has its price.
I am not afraid about the reputation of this site - it is just a market place and the market/industry is so huge and so diversified, there are so many different sectors and market segments that in my opinion it does not really matter if there a few crooks on this or on other sites.
I am not afraid about the reputation of the profession either. The industry is continuously growing, in many sectors there is a shortage of good and qualified service providers. I really don't care about the crooks in our industry, I only care about the quality we deliver, our customers and our reputation. It is good that there is a low quality / low rate segment; it makes our live in the high quality / adequate rate segment much easier.
As I said before in this tread, it is the responsibility of the outsourcer to check the qualifications of the service provider and as I said before, most outsourcers are not idiots and do not require being protected by whoever.
Many outsourcers perform a thorough check of the abilities of each translator they use, and this includes checking other sources (i. e. LinkedIn, Xing and other sites), they also check qualifications and linguistic proficiency.
I won't dive to deep into the topic of what in my opinion damages the reputation of the profession, but in my opinion it is not the fact that some translators are claiming to be native in a language they aren't. As Jose already hinted at, if at all - it is the consistent pile of crap translations that is flooding our planet and using only "honest native speakers" as translators won't change this.
| | | | Kirsten Bodart
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:49
Dutch to English
+ ...
| José Enrique and Anna | Oct 2, 2012 |
Have hit it there.
By the way, Anna, if I'm not mistaken you have Greek roots, are you sure you should be calling yourself native French?
No, seriously, the reputation of this site is not at stake here. Well, it is as much at stake as for the outsourcers who do not pay. We are not worrying about that here, are we.
The reputation of the building profession is not at stake either because there a... See more Have hit it there.
By the way, Anna, if I'm not mistaken you have Greek roots, are you sure you should be calling yourself native French?
No, seriously, the reputation of this site is not at stake here. Well, it is as much at stake as for the outsourcers who do not pay. We are not worrying about that here, are we.
The reputation of the building profession is not at stake either because there are a (large) number of cowboys on the market. It's very simple, you need a wall or a bathroom built, you get the builders in. They make your house collapse, you make sure everyone bl**dy well knows not to use that firm. If next time, you need another wall built or you want a terrace you're going to engage yet another builder who hopefully doesn't mess up his job and your house.
Why are you going to expose yourself to that very same risk? Duh, because you cannot do the work ourself or you don't have the time.
Mon oeuil, the reputation of our profession.
The point is that a site like Proz and its counterparts is the best way for an outsourcer to find a translator quickly or to reach many people with one advert. What do we suggest he does otherwise? Look in his local yellow pages?
Ok, maybe we can all call the ATA or its UK equivalent for English translators and then find one who's got time hopefully. But then he's too expensive or we need to call an awful lot of them to finally get one who's available.
The reason why I brought the issue of it being primarily an English thing up again (I still think there was a post about the difference in idiom in various languages) was because I do not see anyone else in other language groups (so there are German 'natives' who are not, that's a daring thing to do) really going for it like in this thread. Either other language groups do not worry about it (and not only because it isn't rife) or they do not really care. If it is the first, we should see what we can learn from it, because it can point us into the right direction for verification; if it is the second then we should see where they draw the line.
About French:
It's nice to see a translator say that, although I wonder how the public outside the academic world assesses a non-French French translation. Taking Canadian out of the equation (it's probably much more different as it has been so long detached from its origins), I wonder whether it is not unacceptable to (a part of) the Frenc French public to have a manual for a TV for example, written for the FR category by a Walloon or Swiss translator. A very simple example: they know what septante and octante mean, yet would they feel comfortable with it in a manual? My guess is that at least a (die-hard) part of the French public would not find it acceptable, hence why most of the manuals are then written in French French. Probably they would feel this is less of a problem in terms of literary works written in French by Swiss or Belgian French writers. You are warned as a reader, after all.
This is not to attack you or anything, you might want to elaborate on it. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:49
Hebrew to English
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
Short sighted - narrow way of looking at things - why can't I get rid of the impression that some supporters of this topic tend to get personal.
Nothing personal, just expressing my opinion.
Sure it does affect us. Our rates are well above average, and most of our clients have had bad experience with certified agencies and translators claiming all kind of qualifications. Good for us, because they are happy that they found us and they have learned the lesson that quality has its price.
I'm glad you manage to profit from it. However, there are other consequences besides the financial.
I am not afraid about the reputation of this site - it is just a market place
You should be, you're on it. In fairness, if I had realised the reputation this site had before I joined, I probably wouldn't have ended up joining.
it does not really matter if there a few crooks on this or on other sites
It's more than just a few though, isn't it?
I really don't care
But some people do.
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:49
Hebrew to English
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
The reputation of the building profession is not at stake either because there are a (large) number of cowboys on the market.
I beg to differ.
Using the terms "cowboy" and "builder" together - it's practically a collocation.
Look what happens when you just type "cowboy" into Google:
[Edited at 2012-10-02 17:27 GMT]
| | | |
Ty Kendall wrote: Anne Diamantidis wrote:
In all, the translator claiming to be a French native did not hurt anyone except himself and the client who A. should hav done a better job checking out the provider and B. will have learnt the lesson (hopefully). I'm afraid this isn't so. What about the reputation of this site? What about your reputation by proxy (of being associated with this site)?
Indeed - back in the early days of the thread, I seem to recall this was quite a popular choice for The Nature of the Problem, about which Something Must Be Done.
However, as I said a day or two back, perhaps I'm just seeing what I want to see.
The Nature of the Problem is, however, clearly still causing confusion.
[Edited at 2012-10-02 19:52 GMT]
| | | | | Shortsighted? That makes us two, then | Oct 2, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: Anne Diamantidis wrote:
In all, the translator claiming to be a French native did not hurt anyone except himself and the client who A. should hav done a better job checking out the provider and B. will have learnt the lesson (hopefully). I'm afraid this isn't so. What about the reputation of this site? What about your reputation by proxy (of being associated with this site)? Liars hurt themselves, the client, the job in question, the image of the profession as a whole and most pertinently - the reputation of this site - where they are gleefully misrepresenting themselves. Just because you don't immediately see the harm done, it doesn't mean it isn't done regardless....and it doesn't mean it won't affect you somehow, somewhere down the line. Saying "it doesn't matter because they only hurt themselves and the hapless client" is somewhat short sighted and an extremely narrow way of looking at things (IMO)
Now and then I visit translation agencies' web sites, and some of them have pages translated into my native PT-BR. So I take a prospective compatriot end-client's stance to read them, and sometimes I think, "Nay, I don't wanna have my imported products' catalogs and manuals in such bad Portuguese!".
So for the sake of Brazilian translators as a whole, I write them a brief note, explaining the reasons why such a page is detrimental to their image in Brazil. I suggest they unplug it immediately, and get a competent pro to review it. I never offer my services because, quite frankly, I'm not particularly fond of translating web sites.
Now this may amaze you, Ty, but some of them reply, and naively say that they used a native speaker, mentioning their town and state in Brazil. Then I have to clarify that I am not questioning their nationality, but their competence as translators.
Therefore my $50-dollar question is:
Which would be more desirable, if only these two options were available:
1) a competent, experienced, professional translator whose native language is the source language; or
2) a bilingual individual, oftentimes posing as a fledgling translator, but whose native language is the target language?
Here is basically our difference:
You and Bernhard would prefer #2, while I'd prefer #1.
The outcome may tell us who was right, or maybe it won't... surprises happen all the time. The seasoned pro might have to work far away from his comfort zone, while the wannabe might be lucky to get work in perhaps the only subject area he is really familiar with.
So both options are shortsighted on their own. There is no simple B&W solution like "native is good/non-native is bad". It behooves due diligence.
| | | | | 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? | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
