| 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: 21:18
Chinese to English
| I would accept all that, but... | Jul 5, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
You don't allow for the possibility of "use it or lose it" applying also, to a lesser extent, to the native tongue?
FWIW I suspect you may be right in terms of following the basic rules of grammar, but you meet expats who have immersed themselves in a locale such that the only English they read is the stuff the produce themselves, and they almost never speak it, and by God they come out with some crap
I think there might be a qualitative difference between that kind of deterioration and the way you'd lose a second language - you'd never lose your first so completely or in the same ways.
Even if that's not true, I'd say such deterioration falls under the broader category of "why not every native speaker is a great translator". We've been particularly blessed in this thread with many examples from that category.
I know that's not quite the point you were making, but I'm happy to stick with the absolute claim because the example you give is one which feels pretty borderline to me, and I don't think Proz should be trying to catch borderline claims at all.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:18
Hebrew to English
| Like for like | Jul 5, 2012 |
jyuan_us wrote:
..an excellent non-target-native, as compared to the use of an average target native. This is because an average target-native might have a lot of problems understanding the source text.
I thought we'd dispensed with these kind of unbalanced and unequal comparisons about 20 pages back. Why don't you compare an excellent non-target native with an excellent target native? It's a rhetorical question I already know the answer.
Following your train of thought: might not an average non-target native also have problems of their own?
2). A higher portion of my income comes from translating from my native tongue.
That's due to a shortage of qualified and appropriate translators in that language pair - in that direction I believe.
| | | | Kirsten Bodart
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:18
Dutch to English
+ ...
| The things that are staring us in the face | Jul 5, 2012 |
but which most of the 'native is the only way to go' people clearly do not want to acknowledge:
1. Once you get verification underway (however that will be done, via peer review or not), you inevitably are going to assess more people than those who have clear problems. Hence, you need a definition.
Before the ruler, there was no measuring as you can't measure without a reference. That's clear as day.
2. First... See more but which most of the 'native is the only way to go' people clearly do not want to acknowledge:
1. Once you get verification underway (however that will be done, via peer review or not), you inevitably are going to assess more people than those who have clear problems. Hence, you need a definition.
Before the ruler, there was no measuring as you can't measure without a reference. That's clear as day.
2. First language is not verified. Um, if I take off my Dutch and English Ns tomorrow and decide on German (I live in Germany, so it would be believable too, even), my German would not be verified... Nor would English be if I decide on English (which would be better for our business, because we rarely work into Dutch).
That seems to be a little easy.
3. This system is supposed to be for all languages and not only for English. I think most people here are forgetting this. What are we to do with the rarer languages? For example, there are only two translators in the database for English-Luxembourgish, also for French-Luxembourgish and they probably overlap. Two translators for English-European Portuguese, I haven't checked the rest, but are they to vet each other??? Very fair that will be.
You can say that is digressing, and still it remains relevant. Saying that is digressing is ignoring the issue.
@Phil:
If a child learns English as a child and then doesn't use it anymore or only talks to its parents, there will be nothing much left of its 'native' English.
I remember a story on here actually, of a Polish girl, I think it was, who turned translator and was amazed at her first text, how little Polish she knew in fact. Yet, she learnt it as a child, from her mother at least, but lived in a different country. What was her native language?
In terms of English this situation might be hard to imagine, as it is omnipresent, but I would not overestimate the idea of 'native language' in any other language but English. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 21:18
Chinese to English
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
Once you get verification underway (however that will be done, via peer review or not), you inevitably are going to assess more people than those who have clear problems. Hence, you need a definition.
That's true, but not as hard as you think. The Proz definition doesn't have to be the "right" definition. It just has to be a functional definition. For me, that means: take the least restrictive definition available. Personally, I'd allow anyone who shows basic competence in the language and spent some time with a parent/guardian/school/environment of that language before the age of 15. I'm open to other suggestions.
2. First language is not verified. Um, if I take off my Dutch and English Ns tomorrow and decide on German (I live in Germany, so it would be believable too, even), my German would not be verified... Nor would English be if I decide on English (which would be better for our business, because we rarely work into Dutch).
That seems to be a little easy.
Yes, people could still game such a system. They'd be less likely to than at present, because it takes a bit of planning and forethought to game the system like that. But you might be right that second-native verification would end up being useless. That's why some (e.g. Charlie) want verification for all native languages. This is very much still being discussed.
3. This system is supposed to be for all languages and not only for English. I think most people here are forgetting this. What are we to do with the rarer languages?
Also a fair point. Peer rating isn't my first choice (I'd prefer using the Samuel scale).
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
You don't allow for the possibility of "use it or lose it" applying also, to a lesser extent, to the native tongue?
FWIW I suspect you may be right in terms of following the basic rules of grammar, but you meet expats who have immersed themselves in a locale such that the only English they read is the stuff the produce themselves, and they almost never speak it, and by God they come out with some crap I think there might be a qualitative difference between that kind of deterioration and the way you'd lose a second language - you'd never lose your first so completely or in the same ways. Even if that's not true, I'd say such deterioration falls under the broader category of "why not every native speaker is a great translator". We've been particularly blessed in this thread with many examples from that category.
No, you don't (lose both the same way), but I can think of at least one practising translator who is excellent in most respects but does, from time to time, pepper their output with Frenchisms that jar. I wouldn't remove the "N" from their profile if they had one, but I think you'd have to allow that worse cases might exist.
Hence my preference for not trying to define "native" per se (in terms of attributes possessed by individuals) for the purposes of this thread (being the clean out of unwarranted "N"s, as described in the very first post, not a perfect all-encompassing validation system), but concentrating on the quality of output, as measured by the number of mistakes that any genuine native-level speaker wouldn't make.
I know that entails a system of grassing people up that might seem unpleasant, but the longer this thread goes on, the more I think I could probably gird up my loins and have a crack at it
I don't think Proz should be trying to catch borderline claims at all.
No, me neither, but I hope I've explained the reasoning now.
| | | | | Some more numbers | Jul 6, 2012 |
Perhaps because once upon a time I was an engineer, I feel the need for numbers to support any claim I may want to make.
It has been said, truthfully in my view, that ATA’s golden standard is that professional translators translate into their native language. It has also been asserted, again truthfully in my view, that non-natives can be outstanding translators into non-native languages. But, it seems that many in the “non-native camp” read those assertions as saying or implyi... See more Perhaps because once upon a time I was an engineer, I feel the need for numbers to support any claim I may want to make.
It has been said, truthfully in my view, that ATA’s golden standard is that professional translators translate into their native language. It has also been asserted, again truthfully in my view, that non-natives can be outstanding translators into non-native languages. But, it seems that many in the “non-native camp” read those assertions as saying or implying that non-native will always be “inferior” translators, unless they are Conrads.
To evaluate whether non-natives can ever reach the level of professional translators when they translate into their non-native languages, I conducted some “experiments” using ATA’s external translators’ database. This is the ATA’s translators’ database accessible to all. There is another database accessible only to ATA’s members. I have access to that internal database. However, since I am uncertain as to what information coming from that database I can make public and, in any event, those who are not ATA’s members cannot verify my reported numbers, I will report based only on the external database.
Obviously, in spite of the importance that ATA assigns to native language, the organization does certify translators who translate out of their respective native language. [Language proficiency trumping nativeness?]. Further, it allows on the members’ profile to offer translation services between any languages even none of them is the translator’s native language(s). ATA only cares about taking an exam where the applicant’s mistakes, either non-native or generic mistakes, do not exceed a given threshold so their translations can be considered professional.
Finally, can a non-native ever pass the ATA exam? Can his or her translation, even if into a non-native language, ever be considered a professional translation? And, what about those that offer non-certified translation services into a non-native language? Are they admitted by ATA?
Let’s see some numbers.
Results for ES>EN translators:
A. Certified ES>EN translators
Any declared native language: 246 translators
EN as at least one of the translator’s declared native languages: 211 translators
B. All ES>EN translators
Any declared native language: 2025 translators
EN as at least one of their declared native languages: 899 translators
Some tentative conclusions:
1. 35 translators for whom English is not their native language have been certified as able to produce a professional translation into English, i.e. 14.23% (35/246 x 100) of the total. It seems that the inference/implication that you must be Conrad to translate into a non-native language is unfounded.
2. Yet, 23.47 % (211/899 x 100) of those who translate from ES to EN and EN is one of their native languages, but only 3.11% (35/1126 x 100) of those who translate from ES to EN and EN is not one of their native languages have been certified as professional translators by ATA.
While ATA certification is far from being a “decider” re who is or is not a professional translator, and I know of many excellent professional translators who refuse to subject themselves to an ATA examination, we are comparing here both directions in the ENES pair. It is not a stretch of imagination to conclude that one will need to evaluate many more translators until an acceptable one is identified if one does not limit oneself to translators whose target language is a native language.
In short, these numbers indicate that nobody can assert that unless you translate into your native language you cannot be a professional translator. Conversely, searching for a professional translator among non-native translators will imply a much wider and much more expensive search, a requirement that no one has the right to impose to the clients. Demanding to be forthright re declaring you true native language(s) is a professional mandate. True, many clients may not fully understand the reasons why native language ability is required. It is to protect those less “educated” clients that a true professional translator will insist on being truthful re native language declaration.
And now what? I see three options:
1. The Bernhard’s solution: only one native language is accepted, the one that is the dominant language, if the translator in question has more than one native language. If a tie, do as in soccer, go to “penalty kicks” or throw a coin in the air. You can use the “About me” section to assert sufficient facts to incentivize the client to pick you as the chosen translator, without asserting that you believe you have two native languages.
2. The “scarlet letter P” solution: ProZ clearly and unequivocally states that when you select “Native language”, only “scarlet” members are verified and re the rest, it is their own unverified declaration.
3. The “chanting solution”: accepting that ProZ is just a Translators’ Yellow Pages and a social media where professional translators and others tangentially related to translation meet. As to professionalism, just chant everyday:
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Needless to say, I favor Bernhard’s solution.
“Saludos” to all,
Luis ▲ Collapse
| | | | Andy Watkinson
Spain
Local time: 15:18
Member
Catalan to English
+ ...
| I'm no lawyer. | Jul 6, 2012 |
As far as defining the term "native language" in the event of legal action (in UK, AU, CAN(?), (US?) and probably many other jurisdictions...
Samuel M. wrote:
"Very well, and what is the normal meaning? Presumably what a dictionary says its normal meaning is. Or how else would you determine the normal meaning?"
"Presumably" no, I believe.
Such a case would be a breach of contract action:
Lisa was given to understand that the other party was one of our famous "native speakers", who then proved to be no such thing (Lisa dixit), as a result of which the work was substandard.
(She could refuse payment simply on the basis of its being unfit for purpose - the "native language" misrepresentation being a supporting argument).
When it comes to deciding what signifies what, (i.e. what you call the "normal meaning"), the person who decides is the "reasonable man", to the best of my knowledge.
Probably not a person enamoured of some of the more rocambolesque claims made in this thread.
There must be a lawyer here familiar with E&W law who can set me straight if I'm mistaken.
"Interpretation is the ascertainment of the meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person* having all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the contract."
* I hasten to add that I became familiar with the term long before its transformation into the now standard usage "person".
| | | | jyuan_us
United States
Local time: 09:18
Member (2005)
English to Chinese
+ ...
| The assumption | Jul 6, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: jyuan_us wrote:
..an excellent non-target-native, as compared to the use of an average target native. This is because an average target-native might have a lot of problems understanding the source text. I thought we'd dispensed with these kind of unbalanced and unequal comparisons about 20 pages back. Why don't you compare an excellent non-target native with an excellent target native? It's a rhetorical question I already know the answer. Following your train of thought: might not an average non-target native also have problems of their own?
In any language pair of which English is a party, there are more translators whose native tongue is NOT English than those whose native tongue is. Thus, it is easier to find an excellent one among the former than an average one among the latter.
There might be exceptions, though.
[Edited at 2012-07-06 07:53 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| No intention of naming names | Jul 6, 2012 |
Michael Beijer wrote: writeaway wrote:
All this discussion and the comments about the colour-coded symbols next to the profile page language claims seems to have spurred at least one colleague to take action.
Before there were 2 (grey) native language claims (one for the actual native language, one for English) but the problem has now been resolved. Now there is only one native language claim in bright blue/yellow (so looking very official). And guess what, it's NOT for the actual native language, but the person has used the system to become a native English speaker only! In the click of a mouse.
It's (still) that simple apparently. Faster than Dorthy's red slippers! Wishful thinking turned into virtual reality. Sure to fool as many people as the Emperor's New Clothes. Storybook fantasy all......... ...but English IS actually my native language. And Dutch. Perhaps a little history will help to clarify the issue: – My father was Dutch and my mother is American. I grew up speaking both Dutch and English at home. – I have two passports. – I lived in the US for 6 years, between the ages of 1 and 7, where I attended a Montessori school – I attended primary school and HAVO in the Netherlands, where I lived in Hoofddorp, Haarlem, Utrecht, Zaandam, and Amsterdam. – My family lived in Spain for around 4 years, where I went to a British school. – I studied fine art at the Utrecht School of the Arts (HKU) in Utrecht (in Dutch), and at the Rietveld Art Academy in Amsterdam (in English and Dutch) for approximately 1 and 4 years, respectively. – I completed a BA in Philosophy at an American university in Greece. – I presently live in the UK, with my British wife, where I plan to stay. My wife is a Cambridge English graduate, a published author, and a former English teacher. She proofreads all of my translations. What is my native language? Your guess is as good as mine. After following this thread for the last day or so, I decided to drop the Dutch native language claim because, although I speak/read/write Ducth fluently, English is the language that I have spent most of my life actually writing and reading. My spoken Dutch is great, but when I have to write it I have to think too much and this slows me down. The reason I initially wanted to list both languages as my native language is that they in fact both ARE my native language. This, and the fact that I only translate from Dutch INTO English. However, having thought about it more as a result of this thread, I realised that English is actually my ‘first’, or ‘best’ native language, and Dutch my second. That's why I changed it today. Michael @writeaway: Or was this perhaps aimed at someone else? [Edited at 2012-07-04 23:57 GMT]
@Michael. This may have just happened now, but the word 'again' needs to be added because it's not the first time someone has decided it's time to eliminate one of his/her native languages in favour of another. Or to simply change native languages altogether. The main point is that this is completely possible with no more hassle than a few mouse clicks. So it's basically open to anyone who feels like it. The objective of this forum is to ask Proz to ensure some sort of credibility/authenticity to native language claims.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 15:18
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Andy -- logic problem | Jul 6, 2012 |
Andy Watkinson wrote:
Lisa was given to understand that the other party was one of our famous "native speakers", who then proved to be no such thing (Lisa dixit), as a result of which the work was substandard.
No, in the hypothetical case that I had in mind, Lisa was given to understand that the other party was one of our famous "native speakers", who then proved to be no such thing ..., [and (not: as a result of which)] the work was substandard.
The ATA's own directory and accreditation system shows clearly that they accept that non-native speakers can be good translators. It does not just automatically follow that if a job was poor, and the person was non-native, that the non-nativeness was the cause of the poor job. I use the ATA as an example of an organisation that a judge might consider as having an expert opinion.
(She could refuse payment simply on the basis of its being unfit for purpose - the "native language" misrepresentation being a supporting argument).
Yes, but that is precisely the point -- the non-nativeness of the translator would not prove or help prove that a translation was non-standard.
[In order to achieve relevance to the native debate and not get side-tracked on other issues, I had hoped that we could assume that the work being unfit for its purpose would not be the main decider about whether Lisa would have to pay the translator. In the hypothetical case that I had in mind, Lisa had declared in public that the fact that the translator lied about being about being a native translator was the deciding factor in not paying him (in fact, I think I even said that). But...]
Thank you for bringing this up, though, because it is actually a good point: some people here actually believe that if a job was poor, and the person turns out to be non-native, that the non-nativeness must have been the cause of the poor job. Right?
There must be a lawyer here familiar with E&W law who can set me straight if I'm mistaken.
Well, it would be interesting to hear from such lawyers, although the point of my tangent was not to open a legal can of worms but to move the burden of proof away from the native claimer for a moment, to see how that would affect the debate. If Lisa was the one who were forced to prove that the translator had lied (since that, in this hypothetical example, is her main claim, and would harm the translator to concede it), how would she have to do it?
[Edited at 2012-07-06 06:41 GMT]
| | | | | expats who have immersed themselves in a locale | Jul 6, 2012 |
Well I'm one. I've lived here for more than twenty years now and rarely converse in English. It's possible that if we were to have a chat on the phone you'd notice a Dutch inflection or some hesitance in finding words (I used to think: 'horror', now I just think: 'whatever', though I was secretly pleased last time I ran into a group of locals in Dover that they could hear I was from NZ as soon as I opened my mouth). However, in all other media except talking out loud, I read and absorb as much o... See more Well I'm one. I've lived here for more than twenty years now and rarely converse in English. It's possible that if we were to have a chat on the phone you'd notice a Dutch inflection or some hesitance in finding words (I used to think: 'horror', now I just think: 'whatever', though I was secretly pleased last time I ran into a group of locals in Dover that they could hear I was from NZ as soon as I opened my mouth). However, in all other media except talking out loud, I read and absorb as much or more of my native language as anyone, so assuming I still write like a native, that may be one of the reasons why, and if this applies to others, then the peer-review-by-phone wouldn't be fair to some of us at least. ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:18
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Can we get back on topic please? A suggestion for an interim solution. | Jul 6, 2012 |
Sorry everyone. I love the debate, I really do but I hadn’t realised my hypothetical case would cause such a stir.
Luis, I also back the one native language option and suggested this near the very start of the thread. I did in fact add a concession to those who truly believe they are bilingual to add further "native languages" under a separate heading "Pending verification". However, Jared was pretty clear in his reply that this is not a path that ProZ are pursuing. They believe t... See more Sorry everyone. I love the debate, I really do but I hadn’t realised my hypothetical case would cause such a stir.
Luis, I also back the one native language option and suggested this near the very start of the thread. I did in fact add a concession to those who truly believe they are bilingual to add further "native languages" under a separate heading "Pending verification". However, Jared was pretty clear in his reply that this is not a path that ProZ are pursuing. They believe that the existing icons indicating “confirmed” or “unconfirmed” native languages do the job.
One of the most recent suggestions is that “unconfirmed languages” (black and grey N icons) be excluded from directory searches and filtering criteria on jobs. I think we've agreed that the current distinction is evidently not clear enough to most of us, let alone to the outsourcer. I am certain that people have been exploiting this loophole and weakness in the system. This change might “encourage” a few to reconsider their position and select one native language, which would then be displayed as “confirmed”. A “confirmed” second native language would be subject to site verification in line with site policy when everyone joined the site: http://www.proz.com/faq/2401#2401. No verification system currently exists and, as I understand it, the only one being considered for possible implementation is the Peer Review. I believe we urgently need an interim solution.
I know the arguments against:
1) ‘It won’t stop people from claiming the “wrong” native language as their “confirmed” one’. No, but they’re doing that at present anyway simply by having two unconfirmed and still being eligible for the same jobs. I am confident, however, that it will reduce the numbers of fraudulent claims.
2) ‘It's not fair because I'm bilingual and have two or more native languages’. Well, with this system you’d have one "confirmed" native language rather than two "unconfirmed” ones. None of this stops you from offering any number or combination of working languages you wish. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:18
Hebrew to English
| From assumptions to generalisations | Jul 6, 2012 |
jyuan_us wrote:
In any language pair of which English is party, there are awful lot more translators for whom English is NOT their native tongue than those whose native tongue is English. Thus, it is easier to find an excellent translator who translate from his or her native tongue, than an average one whose native tongue is English.
There might be exceptions.
*Emphasis is mine*
I don't think anyone can credibly make this rather sweeping claim about a vast number of language pairs and just lump them all together simply because English is one of the pair in each case.
I'm sure it's true in some pairs, such as yours, in my language pair it's more complex, more a shade of grey (for example, does an expat with massive language fade/L2 interference still count as a native speaker [for the purposes of translation] if they litter their output with non-nativisms??) and in other language pairs which include English I'm sure it's not true at all.
Following on from your own logic - if there were far more non-target native translators in general out there than target natives - then surely it would be harder to find an "excellent" non-target translator by virtue of sheer numbers??? i.e. greater numbers in general doesn't necessarily equate to more "excellent" translators - it could just be a saturation of average translators. Conversely you could argue that it would be much easier to find an "excellent" target native with such a shallow pool to go fishing in.
Nope, the logic, the argument....just doesn't stack up for me.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 15:18
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Lisa -- solutions and bigger problems | Jul 6, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Can we get back on topic please? A suggestion for an interim solution. Sorry everyone. I love the debate, I really do but I hadn’t realised my hypothetical case would cause such a stir.
Several interim solutions have been suggested. However, not all of them are acceptable to all, so obviously they have issues that need to be addressed, hence further discussion.
One of the most recent suggestions is that “unconfirmed languages” (black and grey N icons) be excluded from directory searches and filtering criteria on jobs. ... This change might encourage a few to reconsider their position and select one native language, which would then be displayed as “confirmed”. ... I believe we urgently need an interim solution.
Just to be clear on this Lisa: an interim solution to what? What exactly is the problem that we're (you're) trying to find an interim solution to?
As far as I can remember, there were two problems:
1. You dislike they grey icons
2. You don't want people with multiple native languages to benefit from both native languages
The problem (#1) that the grey icons are somewhat meaningless has been addressed by the developers, after I submitted a bug report about it, and the icons now have tooltips in all browsers. Have you tried it?
The other problem (#2) is more problematic. Let me see if I understand that problem correctly:
You believe that translators with multiple native languages have an unfair advantage over those with only one native language, because they are matched in more searches, which means they get more jobs. You don't think it is unfair that translators who don't have that native language are excluded from directory searches even if they are perfectly capable of doing the job. Therefore your "solution" would then be something that would level the playing field between single-native and multi-native translators without levelling the playing field for other-native translators at the same time... so that translators with only one native language could get more jobs than they would otherwise qualify for. Is that the gist of it?
Here's food for thought: Selecting a native language is optional in all searches, but selecting language combination is never optional. In every single directory search on ProZ.com a language combination must be selected, whereas selecting a native language is optional. This means that language combination fraud would be far more important than native language fraud, don't you agree? All this effort spent on native language fraud prevention should really be spent on language combination fraud prevention, then.
To transplant your "problem" and "solution" to the much bigger issue of language combinations, I guess you could say that translators with multiple language combinations would get an unfair advantage over those with only one language combination. And then those with only one language combination get matched in fewer searches, which would mean that they would get fewer jobs. And a solution similar to the one above would then be to consider only one language combination "verified", and include only that language combination in searches, and mark the other language combinations as "Pending verification", and not include those in directory searches.
Would that be popular, do you think?
I know the argument against [it, namely] It's not fair because I'm bilingual and have two or more native languages. Well, with this system you’d have one "confirmed" native language rather than two "unconfirmed” ones.
I rather doubt that those who have this objection would see your "solution" in such favourable terms. It is naive, I think, to think that changing the label of one unconfirmed native language to "confirmed" would ever make up for the loss that comes from not having both native languages match in searches.
[Edited at 2012-07-06 10:36 GMT]
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:18
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Concentrating on exceptions once again | Jul 6, 2012 |
@ Samuel – if you insist on concentrating on exceptions we will never get anywhere. How many of these “multi-native” translators do you think there actually are on ProZ? I might be mistaken as there have now been a number of contributors to this thread but I do not recall a single one who is genuinely “multi-native”*.
* in the languages I can judge.
[Edited at 2012-07-06 10:49 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? | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
