| 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)
|
|---|
Samuel Murray 
Netherlands
Local time: 14:07
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Lisa (back to the topic, I hope) | Jul 17, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Can those who are still arguing against "us" honestly say that you have never come across anyone on this site .... who through their writing reveal to all the native speakers of the language in question that they are making a false declaration?
I can't say that I have (though I would not know for certain), but I do have come across people on this site (and elsewhere) about whose native language I have no doubt but who commit errors that would typically be called "non-native" errors.
See, the problem here is similar to the "all dogs are animals and have four legs, therefore all animals with four legs must be dogs" logic error. The type of errors that are typical of non-native speakers are not necessarily atypical of native speakers. The presence of those errors can't be used reliably to unmask a non-native speaker. It can at best be used to uncover poor translators.
Yes, (1) the more highly skilled a native speaker, the less likely he is to make those types of errors, and yes, (2) we can expect translators to make fewer of those errors because translators are supposed to be skilled at language. But instead of supporting the view that non-nativeness can be detected through checking for typical non-native errors, these two points actually support an opposing view, namely that you are less likely to detect a non-native speaker who is a translator, if you do so only by watching out for typical non-native errors.
And what some people here have done is to attempt to combine those two points of view by arguing that since translators are less likely to make non-native errors, a translator who does make a non-native error is much more likely to be a non-native speaker.
What happens, Lisa, is that you set the bar very high, and when you see translators whose bar is much lower, you think "Unbelieveable! These people claim to be translators, therefore their errors can't be because they have poor language skills, therefore it has to be because of something else, and since the errors that they make are typical of errors one would expect of non-native speakers, the only thing I can think of is that they must be non-native speakers."
This has been said before, but I'll repeat it: If one were to apply the reasoning "one can tell a non-native speaker by his non-native errors" to a nativeness test, the test can only be exclusionary, i.e. it can only identify some non-natives (and it will likely identify only those non-natives who are very lowly skilled in the language), and it won't be capable of identifying natives. And if it can't identify natives, then there is no sense in having a label "verified native speaker", unless you verify it in some way that is not based on categories of errors.
And I have suggested something along these lines also, but let me repeat it: If we (or ProZ.com) can define "native speaker" as "a translator who is so skilled that he generally does not make errors that are typical of non-native speakers", then we can get somewhere... with a written test, specially designed for each language. Such a test would basically test whether the translator is capable of avoiding most common non-native errors, and that his grammar, spelling and use of punctuation is generally up to scratch.
It would mean, however, that those who believe that most people have only one native language, or those who want the "native language" label to act as an exclusivity label, would have to be satisfied that the "native speaker" label in ProZ.com does not mean what they want it to mean.
| | | | Rob Grayson
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:07
French to English
| Here we go again… | Jul 17, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
What happens, Lisa, is that you set the bar very high, and when you see translators whose bar is much lower, you think "Unbelieveable! These people claim to be translators, therefore their errors can't be because they have poor language skills, therefore it has to be because of something else, and since the errors that they make are typical of errors one would expect of non-native speakers, the only thing I can think of is that they must be non-native speakers."
No, Samuel. The point that Lisa and others have been trying to make ad nauseam is that even if you set the bar very low, there is no shortage of users whose written proficiency is so riddled with errors as to be nowhere even remotely approximating to native level, and yet who blithely and freely claim to be native speakers. That's the point.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 14:07
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Rob (re: Lisa's point) | Jul 17, 2012 |
Rob Grayson wrote:
The point that Lisa and others have been trying to make ad nauseam is that even if you set the bar very low, there is no shortage of users whose written proficiency is so riddled with errors as to be nowhere even remotely approximating to native level, and yet who blithely and freely claim to be native speakers. That's the point.
Aah, so you believe that Lisa's issue is with non-native translators who are very, very, very bad translators. Very well, allow me to assume that (in this post), and then be frank: no tinkering with the "native speaker" label will fix it. If you merely want to help filter out bad translators, then using the "native speaker" label is not the appropriate way to do it.
It would be simpler to administer a "good translator" test. It is much easier to prove that someone is bad at a language than it is to prove that they are not a native speaker.
Suggestion 1: For example, one could introduce a Gold, Silver and Bronze red pee membership. Bronze means that you have convinced your peers that you are at least at the bar (i.e. merely adequate). Silver and Gold means something more, and silverees and goldies get more benefits. Then, allow non-paying members to become bronzies, and make the "Bronze" level selected by default in directory searches (so that clients who wish to include non-bronzies should specifically deselect that option).
Suggestion 2: Or, for example, instead of tinkering with the red pee system, introduce a simple language proficiency test, that is designed to filter out the worst of the worst, but which is not meant as a mark of quality. Let this not be only for paying members. Then, in directory searches, have the option "Preliminary proficiency: Yes/No" and let "Yes" be the default selected option.
Then leave the label "native language" to mean whatever people want to think it means. If you want to reduce the relevance of it, simply move it lower down in the directory search search form.
| | | | | categories, categories, categories | Jul 17, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
... (loads of stuff about native and non-native errors and then we get to the key point)
And I have suggested something along these lines also, but let me repeat it: If we (or ProZ.com) can define "native speaker" as "a translator who is so skilled that he generally does not make errors
And that is all we need. Cut the rest. Bin it. Irrelevant. Can this person produce competent written output in a claimed target language?
Seriously, all we need then is a threshold for errors. Not 23 different categories of error, defined in a 7-dimensional matrix with complex weighting applied to factors such as birthplace and education and residency.
Still, the discussion is proving very interesting in geo-political terms of late.
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 17:37
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | The problem would be in establishing this definition of native language | Jul 17, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
If we (or ProZ.com) can define "native speaker" as "a translator who is so skilled that he generally does not make errors that are typical of non-native speakers", then we can get somewhere... with a written test, specially designed for each language. Such a test would basically test whether the translator is capable of avoiding most common non-native errors, and that his grammar, spelling and use of punctuation is generally up to scratch.
The real problem that I anticipate with this is that it completely reinterprets "nativity", so much so that it does not even remotely mean what is commonly understood by the term. Getting this meaning established in the translation industry (would it be sufficient to just get proz.com go with this definition?) for "nativity" would require considerable effort.
Is there any real advantage in retaining the old name (ie, "nativity") for this new concept? Would it serve our purpose better if we instead present it as a new concept altogether with an entirely different name, so that people don't confuse it with the current ideas that go with the term "native speaker"?
In either case, we would need to embark upon a major educative drive to popularize this concept. For without such an effort, there would be a strong interference with the established, rather vague meaning that "nativity" has gained over the years among the players in the translation industry, and eventually, the established, albeit nebulous concept of "nativity" will win, and we would be back to square one. Which is why I feel, it might be a safer bet to present this as a new concept under a new name, and altogether dump lock stock and barrel the current concept of "native speaker".
It would mean, however, that those who believe that most people have only one native language, or those who want the "native language" label to act as an exclusivity label, would have to be satisfied that the "native speaker" label in ProZ.com does not mean what they want it to mean.
This would be tough on those who use "native language" to exclude competition, and a very vigorous reaction to this can be expected from these quarters!
[2012-07-17 11:59 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Michael Beijer
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:07
Member (2009)
Dutch to English
+ ...
| ‘Can the person produce competent written output in a claimed target language?’ | Jul 17, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
... (loads of stuff about native and non-native errors and then we get to the key point)
And I have suggested something along these lines also, but let me repeat it: If we (or ProZ.com) can define "native speaker" as "a translator who is so skilled that he generally does not make errors And that is all we need. Cut the rest. Bin it. Irrelevant. Can this person produce competent written output in a claimed target language? Seriously, all we need then is a threshold for errors. Not 23 different categories of error, defined in a 7-dimensional matrix with complex weighting applied to factors such as birthplace and education and residency. Still, the discussion is proving very interesting in geo-political terms of late.
If my wife, who has taught English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in Cambridge, can tell which native language a student speaks by looking at the types of error they make in their written work, surely something like this shouldn't be all too difficult to implement...
Michael
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:07
Hebrew to English
| Speaking in oxymorons and offending everyone here..... | Jul 17, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
Some monolingual translators (meaning with one native language) would like multilingual translators to do interpreting, one of the hardest and most complex jobs which requires top linguistic and other skills, while they would not let multilingual people translate into their L1 since multilingual people may exhibit some errors which come from interference -- language interference.
You do the dirty job, and we get the prize, sort of.
....does nothing to advance this discussion. This isn't the playground, I'm not interested in pulling your hair and screaming "my job's harder than your job".
There's nothing "harder" or intrinsically "more complex" about intepreting at all. Both roles require vastly different skills. The are equally complex and demanding.
Now, unless you want to rewrite the dictionaries and inform every native speaker that they don't know what they're talking about, "monolingual" means:
"having or using only one language" (Merriam Webster - I used an American source as I wouldn't want to be all colonial and use anything British).
So, by definition, there's no such thing as a "monolingual translator". Monolingual does NOT mean "speaking multiple languages but having only one 'native' language". That's a definition being imposed by you, but it is not shared by the language community (and as far as language use is concerned, majority usually rules).
[Edited at 2012-07-17 12:36 GMT]
| | | | | since you asked | Jul 17, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
... Here, again is the definition (slightly different from my first one on page 36) for native language: the/a language that you 1) acquired during the critical period, 2) STILL (continue to) speak and write AND 3) consider the language you speak and write BEST.
for the declaration page:
4): Translator X further declares that his/her statement about his/her native language is truthful. Violations are subject to .........
Bernhard
Bernhard, aren't you confusing issues a bit here? What has speaking got to do with translation? Translation is a written medium. It is how you write that matters, not how you speak. ...
It is also how you speak that matters -- when verifying native language status that is.
And speech has a major impact on how you think, comprehend, and write - thus it's important for translators. Most here know this.
But before I start, I live in the US and we do speak English here, real English. And this thread is in English as well, so I thought.
In most cases, when you first learn your native language, you certainly don't write much. At least I didn't. I must have been 7 months old. But I was a native listener of German from Day One. Yes, it was a dialect at first but the dialect didn't appear out of nowhere or was unrelated to the standard version. And it laid the foundation of how one thinks in German.
Even when you begin to learn a language later, say at the age of 7 (years), and use it in life and school, you're not only "writing" it. You're not running around without saying a word or holding up written signs, expecting to get written answers back. As a matter of fact, you will always speak and listen more than you will write, from the first day you are exposed to that language. But you did that yourself, right?
The true native speaker has acquired her/his language by listening, speaking, and writing. The back and forth between listening and speaking enables our brains to acquire and use all regularities and idiosyncrasies of a language, it enables us to "think", "speak" and "write" on a "native-language level". It means your brain processes the language on a far more complex level and often much faster.
I argue that translators as well as interpreters and anybody else need to be "native" in speech to be called "native speakers". As far as writing is concerned, the way you write has a lot to do with the way you speak. That's true the other way around too.
You won't be able to truly "absorb" a language on a native level if you only read and write it. And it will show, often especially when the speaker opens her/his mouth. Maybe that's why we call it native "speaker" and not native "writer". "Native language" encompasses both, speaking and writing.
Once you are past your critical period (during which I at least did a lot of "listening and speaking"), you simply cannot become a native speaker (geniuses excluded). You can still learn to speak and especially write English very well, but you are never going to be a native English speaker. That's a fact. So if you hardly ever "spoke" a language, and only read and wrote in it, I wouldn't accept any such person as a native speaker.
As far as claims of more than one native language are concerned, I am always very skeptical when I hear of such claims. Vocabulary and grammatical complexity applied by such speakers are often clearly inferior when they are compared to true "natives".
As many colleagues have pointed out here, this thread is entitled "should native language claims be verified" (in order to prevent false native speaker claims). We should focus on that.
I made some suggestions. I favor acceptance of one native language based on a more differentiated checklist (see above and p. 45- and I know my suggestions are not perfect); I know you have to meet certain conditions to get the yellow dot even for one native language and that's good. If you have lived in Germany most of your life and have graduated from German schools, you are most likely a true German native speaker. That much can be verified.
But I believe we all agree that we need to improve the current verification process. Abuse is possible.
If more than one language is claimed as native language, then I believe all native languages should be verified before a "certainty" stamp (yellow dot) is given to any. As long as we don't have good verification procedures in place, these languages could be labeled more clearly/prominently "unverified" to alert any prospective client and prevent misunderstandings and abuse.
Or, as I suggested earlier, when looking for native language speakers, the search could present two columns, one showing verified and one showing unverified native speakers.
And regarding different versions of English. As long as you are a true native speaker of any English variant, you are still an "English" native speaker. The differences are not as drastic as between, say, German and Dutch. And as far as the directory is concerned, you can search for English native speakers and specify location (US, UK, Australia, Canada, etc.) The same is true for German (Germany, Austria, Switzerland). But Sarah already raised that point.
B
| | |
|
|
|
| I still agree with most Mr. B says the gentleman from India | Jul 17, 2012 |
I agree with most of his statements, or at least the essence of them. The United States is not a colony of England, and AE is a separate variety of English, no worse than BE.
As for non-native mistakes, I would find many so called non-native mistakes in many people's writing, both people born in England, Poland, or Russia: in their native writing, I mean. What are non-native mistakes, anyhow? Some words or constructions people from another town are not familiar with?
... See more I agree with most of his statements, or at least the essence of them. The United States is not a colony of England, and AE is a separate variety of English, no worse than BE.
As for non-native mistakes, I would find many so called non-native mistakes in many people's writing, both people born in England, Poland, or Russia: in their native writing, I mean. What are non-native mistakes, anyhow? Some words or constructions people from another town are not familiar with?
Also, there is no such a thing as 100% bilingualism, or it is very rare, but there are a lot of bilingual, or multilingual people whose L1 and L2s do not differ that much.
[Edited at 2012-07-17 14:16 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:07
Hebrew to English
| Did we recolonize the US without me noticing? | Jul 17, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
I agree with most of his statement, or at least the essence of them. The United States is not a colony of England, and AE is a separate variety of English, no worse than BE.
As for non-native mistakes, I would find many so called non-native mistakes in many people's writing, both people born in England, Poland, or Russia: in their native writing, I mean. What are non-native mistakes, anyhow? Some words or constructions people from another town are not familiar with?
1. Nobody said anything about the US being a colony of England, it hasn't been for centuries. American English is one (major) variety of English, not altogether vastly different from British English (the differences continue to fade away*)...and certainly nobody made any value judgements as to which is "better" - again this is playground level talk - "my English is better than yours and I'll give you a deadarm to prove it" - however, nobody has said this.
2. Non-native mistakes are easily distinguishable from native errors. A native speaker would not misuse articles in the same way as someone whose language lacks them, those pesky phrasal and prepositional verbs don't pose an obstacle to native speakers - a native speaker would never say "he took up him on the offer". There are simply grammatical mistakes that non-natives make which a non-native would rarely, if ever make (and vice versa).
It has nothing to do with what town you are from.
*My mother chastised me the other day for using the "American pronounciation" of "depot".
[Edited at 2012-07-17 14:25 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 20:07
Chinese to English
| Lilian, you're setting records | Jul 17, 2012 |
It's truly amazing: almost literally everything you write is wrong. I've never seen such concentrated wrongness all in one place! I'm kind of in awe...
As for non-native mistakes, I would find many so called non-native mistakes in many people's writing, both people born in England, Poland, or Russia: in their native writing, I mean.
No, you wouldn't.
What are non-native mistakes, anyhow?
You seem completely impervious to the fact that this question has been answered multiple times before, but I'll have a go, using a site I was working on just today:
http://www.cma.org.cn/ensite/index/ExchangePrograms/2012612/1339484437225_1.html
"Chinese-French Medical Week (CFMW) was initiated in 1980 aiming at enhancing communications and cooperation between the two countries in the field of medical sciences. It was proposed by France-China Medical Exchange Committee during their visit to China in April 1979."
This passage has several distinctively non-native errors. Lack of proper use of articles is one (the..committee). Odd vocabulary use is another (initiated). Incorrect use of verb forms is a third (aiming).
On their own, it is possible that any one of these errors could be made by a native speaker. Taken together, they form a distinctive pattern.
Also, there is no such a thing as 100% bilingualism, or it is very rare, but there are a lot of bilingual, or multilingual people whose L1 and L2s do not differ that much.
This is just tosh. Where I live, pretty much everyone is bilingual (in Minnan and Mandarin). Bilingualism is extremely common, globally. It is only uncommon in Europe/the USA, where early industrialisation means that national language standardisation has been going on for a long time.
Samuel wrote:
The type of errors that are typical of non-native speakers are not necessarily atypical of native speakers.
That can be true for some errors (though there are some kinds of errors that native speakers literally never make - article errors, for example, are vanishingly rare among native English speakers, though a typo can look like an article error). That is why people are suggesting some kind of error count. A single typo should not decide your fate. But these errors don't come in singles. With the kind of people we'd like to weed out, the errors are systemic. Every sentence has problems.
| | | | | I think Ty you can claim Hebrew as your native language | Jul 17, 2012 |
I think , Ty, you can claim Hebrew as your native language, if you are absolutely proficient in it, if it feels to you like a native language, if you have a native level of understanding of that language, if you identify with it somehow (this is an important part), if you could write PhD dissertations in it on a subject you know well. This should do it. Even if you have a slight accent it does not matter. Hebrew is a reconstructed language anyhow. The identification part is very important when d... See more I think , Ty, you can claim Hebrew as your native language, if you are absolutely proficient in it, if it feels to you like a native language, if you have a native level of understanding of that language, if you identify with it somehow (this is an important part), if you could write PhD dissertations in it on a subject you know well. This should do it. Even if you have a slight accent it does not matter. Hebrew is a reconstructed language anyhow. The identification part is very important when deciding whether a language is your native or not.
I am sorry, Phil, by certain things seem wrong to you, from your own point of view. Everything depends on the point of view. There are many multilingual people, but there are few really bilingual, or 100% multilingual.
100% bilingualism would mean absolutely the same knowledge and skills in both languages; that the person would have to have equal education in both languages, not just one. If there is a person who has one Master's Degree in L1 and another one in L2, I will call such a person almost bilingual 99.9%.
You can find any type of mistakes in contemporary AE, made by native speakers, Polish speakers as well -- many non-native mistakes that come as a result of language interference -- mostly from English.
[Edited at 2012-07-17 15:35 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 05:07
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| "Unmasking" non-natives | Jul 17, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
The type of errors that are typical of non-native speakers are not necessarily atypical of native speakers. The presence of those errors can't be used reliably to unmask a non-native speaker.
Really? In other words you cannot tell the difference between a native and a non-native speaker?
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:07
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | The "Peer Review" system | Jul 17, 2012 |
Please forget I ever mentioned it. I didn't realise the company I was keeping.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 14:07
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Michele and @Phil | Jul 17, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
The type of errors that are typical of non-native speakers are not necessarily atypical of native speakers. The presence of those errors can't be used reliably to unmask a non-native speaker. Really? In other words you cannot tell the difference between a native and a non-native speaker?
1. Not quite what I said... if taking into account (a) only typical non-native errors and (b) only in writing, then: no. But I can get a fairly good feel for it if you'll give me just 10 minutes in conversation with the person.
2. I suppose it should be possible to use writing to unmask a non-native speaker, but you'd need to supplement your evaluation with additional information about the writer, and make your decision on the balance of evidence, not simply on the presence of a number of typical non-native errors.
If we could speculate a bit: If you find errors in writing that are accepted by scholars to be typical non-native errors for that language combination, and you suspect that those errors are evidence of non-nativeness, you'd have to devise a second test (possibly more) to verify that those errors are truly not the result of any other reason. For example, if a person makes a typically non-native grammar error but also makes similar grammar errors that non-natives typically do not make, then it casts doubt on whether those typically non-native errors are made because of non-nativeness.
3. Perhaps we should qualify these sweeping statements by saying that for some language combinations there may certainly be markers that are so uncommon for native speakers that they can reasonably reliable be considered red flags. But you'd have to be lucky enough that your suspect use that exact marker, which means that you'd only be able to catch the worst cases.
An example of that would be if the punter's suspected native language does not use articles with nouns, and his claimed native language does, and he consistently fails to use them. That would be a bright red flag, but you can't build a case on one flag.
Phil Hand wrote: Samuel wrote:
The type of errors that are typical of non-native speakers are not necessarily atypical of native speakers. That can be true for some errors (though there are some kinds of errors that native speakers literally never make - article errors, for example, are vanishingly rare among native English speakers, though a typo can look like an article error).
True -- what I mean by "red flag" above.
But these errors don't come in singles. With the kind of people we'd like to weed out, the errors are systemic. Every sentence has problems.
Say, would the errors that you have in mind here also be identified in a simple language test that does not focus on trying to identify non-nativeness? I mean, would my "preliminary proficiency test" idea (mentioned a few posts back) catch most of the blokes you're referring to here?
[Edited at 2012-07-17 18:05 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? | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | 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 
