| 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)
|
|---|
S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 10:32
Italian to English
| English as a second language?! | Jul 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
And in the colonies of England, like USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, etc, many people speak English to native-level [ ... ]
Just out of curiosity, if Americans et al can only be described as speaking English to a 'native-level', what pray tell do you understand the native language(s) to actually be in the US and the other 'colonies of England'?
One more time now: this thread is not about whether or not translators can or should translate into non-native languages.
Nor is this thread about whether or not people can or do have more than one native language.
It is about fraudulent native language claims and has absolutely nothing to do with translating into non-native languages or having more than one native language.
| | | | | I agree almost with everything Balasubramaniam said | Jul 16, 2012 |
You are a very learned man, Balasubramaniam. I agree with most things you have said.
It is hard to explain things to some people who might be good translators but have almost no knowledge about linguistics. Folk etymology is etymology based on urban legends rather than real facts. I said in this type of discourse related to definitions of native language, folk definition might be more appropriate.
By, the way US is not a colony of England. Do they still teach histor... See more You are a very learned man, Balasubramaniam. I agree with most things you have said.
It is hard to explain things to some people who might be good translators but have almost no knowledge about linguistics. Folk etymology is etymology based on urban legends rather than real facts. I said in this type of discourse related to definitions of native language, folk definition might be more appropriate.
By, the way US is not a colony of England. Do they still teach history in schools?
How can an act be called fraudulent if the definition of the subject of the fraud has not been established. I agree that some people whose level of the so-called native language is really low, and they have never lived in a country where it is spoken, are lying and they should not be doing it. But would just as well leave half of the translators without a native language with your imaginary definition of nativeness.
[Edited at 2012-07-16 18:47 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-07-16 18:53 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Samuel Murray 
Netherlands
Local time: 10:32
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| (Title of your reply) | Jul 16, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
A third relevant point that needs to be deliberated upon is how much nativity is actually required for translation purposes, as translators are working with only an abridged sub-set of the whole target language, that is with only the written version of the language, and their output is primarily meant for being read, not heard.
There's no deliberation to be done. It's already been acknowledged that nativity is a useful criterion in translation.
Sure, Ty, it is "useful", but I think that Balasubramaniam's point about why it might not be terribly useful is a good point. Written language is a formalised version of a subset of spoken language. Not everything that affects spoken language has a bearing on written language, and what's more, written language has an artificiality that actually contradicts spoken language.
I don't think this is the thread to discuss that, though, although it certainly is a very good point and deserves closer inspection. There are many elements and aspects of native language that have little impact on written language, which is what is important for translators (and for clients who demand native translators).
==
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Samuel Murray wrote:
What are your thoughts on judging nativeness by fluency instead of grammatical inerrancy?
I agree, the only way of knowing whether a person is really native in a language is to test his speaking ability, for the simple reason that speaking involves physical dexterity - the suppleness of our vocal cord and tongue, which harden after a certain age which coincides with the age at which languages are best learnt.
Actually, I wasn't thinking so much of the vocal dexterity but of dexterity of the mind. A fluent speaker may hesitate because he's trying to get his thoughts in order, but a non-fluent speaker will hesitate because he is trying to find the right words and is not able to cover it up. A fluent speaker can also remember conversations better (I mean things that were said seconds ago), because he doesn't have to spend some of his focus on trying to make sense of the words.
But how relevant is speaking ability to a translator?
I think the relevance of it is mostly using it in a test of nativeness. That is why I proposed it, and not because I may believe that verbal dexterity is important for translators.
The only "practical" argument that has surfaced so far in this 50-plus-page discussion is that clients use nativity as a yardstick.
Yes, I think that that is precisely the point here. It is also at the heart of ProZ.com's attitude at this stage, i.e. that while translators (and many clients) have different definitions of "native language", clients want to use "native language" as a yard stick, and would (so ProZ.com believes, I think) be happy to use it as a yard stick regardless of what it actually means. But this would go back to the "definition" argument, and the main proponents in this thread are nondefinitionalists, so I don't think we gain anything by going there.
==
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
A translator is a person who very early in age has been exposed to two language cultures. He/she is a unique person and very different from a monolingual who has exposure to only one language.
Odd as it may seem to you and I, Balasubramaniam, there are actually translators who learnt their second (and other) languages later in life. Some translators even learnt it at college, and no doubt many of those translators think that that is the most natural way of doing it. Given that translators who learnt their second language late in life would realise how poorly it compares to their first language, it is understandable if such translators are skeptical about translators who believe that their second language is not just a shirt over the skin but in fact a second skin.
==
Ty Kendall wrote:
Would you care to comment on why on both your ProZ profile and your C.V. you only list one native language (Hindi). You seem to have ignored requests to clarify this.
By some definitions of "native language" I also have two native languages, but I choose to declare only one, because (a) I favour a certain definition of it, and (b) I prefer a yellow icon over a grey one.
Besides, I think it is neither good form nor honest argument to cast doubts on a person who has an opinion, only because his own actions are somehow seemingly inconsistent with what he proposes. One should play the ball and not the man. I see that Balasubramaniam did respond to the impeachment eventually. Did his response convince you that he is not a fraud? If not, what is it about his response that you still find unreasonable? This is not meant as a rhetorical question.
==
Ty Kendall wrote:
As for "excluding English from the native requirement", I think we've already established that that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
No, "we" did not establish that. It was proposed (by me), and an objection was raised against it (well, not much an argued objection as simply stating that the objector did not like it). It was never really discussed after it was proposed. Saying "we've already established" is just an attempt to squash further consideration of it.
| | | | | Monolingual translators want bilingual people to do the hardest part and to leave the rest to them. | Jul 16, 2012 |
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.
... See more 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.
[Edited at 2012-07-16 21:11 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:32
Hebrew to English
| I have cast doubts on nobody | Jul 16, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Besides, I think it is neither good form nor honest argument to cast doubts on a person who has an opinion, only because his own actions are somehow seemingly inconsistent with what he proposes. One should play the ball and not the man. I see that Balasubramaniam did respond to the impeachment eventually. Did his response convince you that he is not a fraud? If not, what is it about his response that you still find unreasonable? This is not meant as a rhetorical question.
I merely requested reconciliation as to why somebody would so vehemently claim one thing, yet do another. It was not only his actions which were inconsistent, but his words, which for reference were:
any worthwhile and competent translator will have two native languages
...Given this situation, I do not believe it was unreasonable to request clarification (since by saying the above, he potentially offended a great many people on here - compounded by the apparent hypocrisy of it).
About questioning his native language claim:
a) I never claimed, said or insinuated that he was a fraud in the first place. He claims to be a native speaker of Hindi, I believed him before and I don't question that now.
b) I questioned why he didn't list more than one native language when he was so vehemently peddling the notion that only "worthwhile and competent translators have two (or more) native languages" and that people claiming only one native language were incompetent monolinguals "masquerading" as translators. Therefore by his own definition he was the latter. This is slightly odd, no? This is why I asked him.
On his response:
You'll notice I have made no comment on his response, have I not?
Much less found it unreasonable (your words, not mine). I reserve the right not to comment on his response.
I asked a question, I received an answer. I have neither the will nor desire to delve further into irrelevant discourse.
[Edited at 2012-07-16 22:03 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 14:02
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | The US is a land of immigrants | Jul 17, 2012 |
Sarah Elizabeth Cree wrote:
Just out of curiosity, if Americans et al can only be described as speaking English to a 'native-level', what pray tell do you understand the native language(s) to actually be in the US and the other 'colonies of England'?
The US has always been a land of immigrants. Its own indigenous populations were wiped out by the early immigrants. The US uses English as its main language because the early immigrants mainly came from across the "pond" from English-speaking islands of England, Ireland and Scotland. But there were also a lot of Italians, Germans, Dutch and French from across Europe coming to the US. During the second world war when Hitler in Germany began his progroms against the German Jews, a lot of Jews migrated to the US. Einstein was one of them. There have also been Russians and other linguistic groups of the former Soviet Union migrating to the US in large numbers. From down South, there has been a constant stream of Spanish-speaking Mexicans, especially after the US acquired Texas, formerly a part of Mexico. Spanish is almost a second lingua franca, in addition to American English, in the southern parts of the US.
Then there is the entire slave labour forcefully brought over to the US to work in the cotton plantations by British ships. All of these slaves had different African languages as their native languages. Today they constitute about 10% of the population of the US. Most of them have lost their original languages and speak a pidgin version of English, or standard American English.
During the gold rush years and during the era of construction of the great railroads and the highways, a lot of Chinese labour migrated to the US, which explains why there are China Towns in many large cities of the US.
Even today, millions of Indians, Chinese, Koreans, Japanase migrate into the USA. There are almost 3 million people of Indian origin in the US. For the first generation Indian Americans, the native language would be any of the Indian languages that they spoke while in India - Hindi, Punjabi, Gujarati, etc.
So what this means, is to a lot of Americans, the native language as defined in this thread would not be English (or American English), but Italian, German, Spanish, Hindi, Punjabi, Gujarati, Japanese or Chinese.
Further, over the centuries, the US has evolved a distinct version of English with its own corpus of literature, spelling rules and usages, which only people residing in the US can really master. This English used in the US must be given a separate identity as American English, so that outsourcers are not hoodwinked into thinking that people from UK, for example, can handle this version of English.
Lilian had made this point while talking about American publishers not hiring UK people for language jobs in their publishing houses.
[2012-07-17 02:08 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 14:02
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Have you thought why there are fradulent claims | Jul 17, 2012 |
Sarah Elizabeth Cree wrote:
One more time now: this thread is not about whether or not translators can or should translate into non-native languages.
Nor is this thread about whether or not people can or do have more than one native language.
It is about fraudulent native language claims and has absolutely nothing to do with translating into non-native languages or having more than one native language.
As I have explained in my earlier post, it is quite natural for translators to have more than one native language. There is nothing fraudulent in it at all. It is in the nature of being a translator - which implies immersion in more than one linguistic milieu at an early age and hence the imbuement of two languages at a high level of proficiency - to know more than one language.
I would have thought that all of you being translators here, this simple fact would need no explaining at all.
In fact, again as I have pointed out in an earlier post, it is translators declaring one language as native-language that is problematic. For what this means is that these translators have an inferior level of competency in one of their languages which further implies that their level of comprehension of the nuances of the source text too would be faulty. In highly demanding translations, such as literature for example, perfect bilingualism is a must, if you are to turn out a good translation. Of course, for must commercial translation purposes, you don't need this level of perfection, and capturing the uppermost meaning of the source text is sufficient. In any case, commercial text is carefully written to exude only one unambiguous meaning, and is not like poetry, for example, which can have nineteen different interpretations for one single stanza.
So you are all barking up the wrong tree, when you howl about lies, fraud and dishonesty. The cat is smugly perched on an entirely different tree and is having a good laugh at all of us!
[2012-07-17 02:27 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 14:02
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | The problem as I see it | Jul 17, 2012 |
The problem as I see it with this thread is that we have all been led astray by the red herring of native language, which should not have at all come into the discussion.
The discussion as originally intended was about the quality of the proz.com translator databases.
It was mistakenly assumed, that nativity in the target language is the hallmark of quality, but what should have been discussed is how to keep out those who are clearly not translator material, native or o... See more The problem as I see it with this thread is that we have all been led astray by the red herring of native language, which should not have at all come into the discussion.
The discussion as originally intended was about the quality of the proz.com translator databases.
It was mistakenly assumed, that nativity in the target language is the hallmark of quality, but what should have been discussed is how to keep out those who are clearly not translator material, native or otherwise, from getting into the database and on this site.
Since the site thrives on numbers and having more and more members is important to the site, this may be a ticklish issue to tackle as not many people can be truly translators, and if the site restricts itself to true translators, the site would not be able to adequately fill its coffers. It seems to me that the site is well aware of this, which is why it is trying to build a site within the site through its certified pro network, where members are selected on more stringent criteria. It is its way of meeting the problem half-way.
Translation, because it can be done freelance and part-time, and apparently needs no formal qualification, is attractive to many, who drift in temporarily while they are unemployed or undergoing a shift in career or just want to take a break, and it is such people who turn out shody kudoz entries and grammatically incorrect forum posts by the dozens. This has nothing to do with the nativity issue at all.
If we separate the two issues, we can still salvage this thread.
[2012-07-17 02:49 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 14:02
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Coming to the nuts and bolts... | Jul 17, 2012 |
Now moving on from the asides, I suggest the following working plan for further discussion:
In order to facilitate outsources to pick up the best talent in the easiest and the surest way, the site should order its translators using competence as a yardstick in the following manner:
1. The elite club
Consisting of true bilinguals with proven equal dexterity in both their languages. They would have two native languages to display.
Symbolically, w... See more Now moving on from the asides, I suggest the following working plan for further discussion:
In order to facilitate outsources to pick up the best talent in the easiest and the surest way, the site should order its translators using competence as a yardstick in the following manner:
1. The elite club
Consisting of true bilinguals with proven equal dexterity in both their languages. They would have two native languages to display.
Symbolically, we can have a blue tab for them - blue symbolizing blue blood to borrow a phrase that has come into currency earlier in this discussion.
The elite club would be thinly populated as all can't or won't be bilingual.
My definition of bilingualism is almost equal level of early exposure to both the languages and consistent cultivation of both the languages throughout the whole life of the translator and constant professional use of both languages.
The elite status should be backed up by commensurate higher rates from the outsourcers.
2. The unidirectional club
This would constitute the bulk of the translators. They would have a second language in addition to the primary native language with which they would have come in contact later on in life at college or past the age of twenty. Their competence in the second language would not compare with their competence in the first language (the native language) but for most purposes, their comprehension of the source text in the second language would be adequate.
They are entitled to translate only into their first language which they would declare as their only native language.
Point to consider: Can a member of the unidirectional club at a later stage migrate up the ladder to the elite club? This is a question that will need to be considered by taking into confidence linguists. This is where the site can step in, by inviting language professors from universities to step into the discussion and explain the scientific possibility of a person progressing to true bilingualism when his exposure to the second language has been at an age which by common wisdom is past the age of language learning.
While deliberating on this, we need to consider the practical aspects, which have been briefly touched upon in the earlier discussions of the thread. A person exposed to a new language at a later age (beyond twenty years of age) can never truly acquire the vocal abilities of a native, but since translation is a written medium, it needs to be found out, whether it is possible to acquire very high levels of written competency in the second language. If the verdict to this is yes, then there should be mechanisms for promoting the unidirectional translator to the elite club of bilinguals.
Rates: Still high, but less than those of elite club
Colour of tab: Orange (for no particular reason)
3. The mediocre club (for want of a better term)
A more dignified term would need to be thought for this, but basically this would be for novices, fence-sitters, drifters and other non-serious type of translators. They might have the potential and the inclination for becoming translators but currently they are better described as members of other callings. (This is the problem category which started off this thread in the first place, and which was mistaken to be an issue of nativity).
There should be a way to promote the deserved of this category quickly up to the unidrectional, or even to the elite club if they show promise.
Rates: Average
Colour of tab: Yellow (from the traffic signal analogy, where yellow signifies getting ready but not moving forward)
4. Student club
This could be for students of translation to enable them to observe real translators at work and learn from them. I would suggest they should not be allowed to bid for jobs, or that outsourcers should not be given the ability to contact them directly, as they are still novices. They could depress the translation markets and lend themselves to exploitation by low-paying outsourcers if they prematurely enter the translation market.
Rates: Not applicable
Colour of tab: Red (for no particular reason)
5. True monolinguals
These would not strictly be translators as they would know only one lanugage and one might wonder why they are even there in a translators site. The reason is, they can provide editing and proof-reading services which are highly in demand in the translation industry.
The monolinguals should be accorded a very high status in our community and they should be compensated very well by outsourcers as they can bring in the native flair of the target language into the translations.
Needless to say, the elites and the unidirectionals too can work as editors and proof-readers, the former (in both their languages and the latter in their main language only), but one can expect all their time to be taken up by translation, leaving them with little time for editing and proof-reading. Moreover, many translators might enjoy translation itself so much that they might not relish editing/proofing jobs. Which is where the monolinguals come into the picture.
6. Reviewers
Another category would be those of reviewers, both subject reviwers and translation reviewers. Subject reviewers would have subject knowledge plus familiarity with both source and target language. They would check accuracy of translation. Language reviewers would check that nothing is mistranslated from the source and nothing is left out.
Ideally, a translation should after being reviewed go to a monolingual editor or proofreader for finalization.
7. Miscellaneous service providers
This would include service providers like DTP experts, transcribers, designers, layout artists, etc., who often work in close collaboration with translators and translation agencies. In the current scheme of things, all these people register as translators. In the new scheme they will get their identities separately, which would provide them limited access to the site. For example, these people can be debarred from participating in kudoz and they won't be listed in the translation databases. They could have their separate databases.
The problems I forsee with this type of classification based on translator ability are the following:
Since the site accepts paid members, it might not be possible for the site to make such distinctions between paid members. Once a member has paid a certain membership fee, he is entitled to an equal status on the site, irrespective of his translation abilities. So the site might be powerless to enforce such a gradation of translators. But even now, the site has devised a halfway house in its certified pro network where genuine translators are provided certain extra privileges from other members. May be this idea can somehow be dovetailed with the certified pro network idea.
The second problem would be human nature. Most members would make it an ego issue if they are not accommodated in the first category, which by its very definition is exclusive, not all can be bilingual - certain accidents of birth are necessary to be a bilingual, such as exposure to two languages at an early age. But if the overriding concern is to help outsourcers sift chaff from wheat, a concern so eloquently exhibited by many in this thread, I don't see this to be a major problem!
I will be delighted to have your views on the above.
[2012-07-17 05:39 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Empty post. | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:32
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | “Monolinguals” | Jul 17, 2012 |
Might it have occurred to anyone that the “monolinguals” on this site include some who were exposed to four languages from birth, who were brought up completely bilingual, who acquired their five working languages long before another contributor's suggested crucial cut-off point of "the twenties"? These same “monolinguals”, by virtue of having learnt multiple languages to a very high level, are very well aware of the standards of fluency and accuracy required to call oneself a native spe... See more Might it have occurred to anyone that the “monolinguals” on this site include some who were exposed to four languages from birth, who were brought up completely bilingual, who acquired their five working languages long before another contributor's suggested crucial cut-off point of "the twenties"? These same “monolinguals”, by virtue of having learnt multiple languages to a very high level, are very well aware of the standards of fluency and accuracy required to call oneself a native speaker, and have thus exercised rigour and honesty in making their choice of native language.
Let’s please stop playing devil’s advocate; we still have a few who persist in ignoring the main thrust of this thread and Sarah's frequent attempts to call you back on topic. This thread is not about numbers of native languages, nor is it about what does or doesn't constitute a good translator and it most certainly isn't about language migration over the centuries. Can those who are still arguing against us honestly say that you have never come across anyone on this site, even on this very thread, who through their writing reveal to all the native speakers of the language in question that they are making a false declaration? Simple question.
[Edited at 2012-07-17 09:05 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | You're on a roll this week and no mistake, squire | Jul 17, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
3. The mediocre club (for want of a better term)
A more dignified term would need to be thought for this, but basically this would be for novices, fence-sitters, drifters and other non-serious type of translators. ... (This is the problem category which started off this thread in the first place, and which was mistaken to be an issue of nativity).
I will be delighted to have your views on the above.
My view? Why oh why oh why are so many determined to embark on some Linnaean scale of undertaking to categorise and classify everything and everyone? And why oh why oh why are you all so bloody useless at it? I don't fall into any of your so-carefully defined groups. And, for instance, who are you to go around pontificating about what rates people you have shoved into your caste system should charge? At least make some attempt to stick to what's vaguely relevant.
And why oh why oh why haven't you anything better to do with your time? (Like researching the implications of referring to "blue blood" incessantly.)
The "problem category which started off the thread in the first place" is liars. People who claim a little "N" and clearly are not able to write (write, not speak) a decent couple of sentences in that language. All we want(ed) was a mechanism to remove that "N". The only reason it is "mistaken to be an issue of nativity" is because certain not so wise men (see what i did there?) have decided to make it one (probably as a knee-jerk reaction to the symbol used. Presumably if the symbol chosen had been a star, this would be 50+ pages about astrology). It isn't. It's about quality of output. That is all.
There may or may not be a missing "t" in the above post. Or the heading. Bound to be one, somewhere. After all, if discussing nativity is a mistake, what have you been playing at for the last few pages? Deliberately discussing a view you don't in truth hold, simply for the purposes of provoking a reaction. Surely not?
[Edited at 2012-07-17 09:04 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 09:32
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| This really is too much | Jul 17, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
As I have explained in my earlier post, it is quite natural for translators to have more than one native language. There is nothing fraudulent in it at all. It is in the nature of being a translator - which implies immersion in more than one linguistic milieu at an early age and hence the imbuement of two languages at a high level of proficiency - to know more than one language.
I would have thought that all of you being translators here, this simple fact would need no explaining at all
First of all you treat us to a lecture on the history of America as though we never went to school or found out anything about the world around us, and then you accuse us of knowing absolutely nothing about the fundamentals of our profession.
I have never used these forums for anything remotely personal, but I really must protest about all these pages of lecturing, when you hold a minority view that's at odds with that held by very many highly qualified and experienced professional translators here. Voice your own opinions if you like, but treat your peers as peers, please, rather than as ignorant school children.
Sheila
| | | | S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 10:32
Italian to English
| sophistry and willful misunderstanding win neither hearts nor minds | Jul 17, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
So what this means, is to a lot of Americans, the native language as defined in this thread would not be English (or American English), but Italian, German, Spanish, Hindi, Punjabi, Gujarati, Japanese or Chinese.
Your elementary-school rehearsal of American history does nothing to change the fact that English is the national language in the US. The fact that immigrants from non-English speaking countries have native languages other than English is an absolute non-point because self-evident.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
This English used in the US must be given a separate identity as American English, so that outsourcers are not hoodwinked into thinking that people from UK, for example, can handle this version of English.
Lilian had made this point while talking about American publishers not hiring UK people for language jobs in their publishing houses.
Another non-point. Surely as an experienced professional translator working into English you must know that clients and translators alike already specify the language variation wherever necessary and according to target audience (i.e., American English versus British English). This is nothing new and is not news. Presenting it as such does not make it so.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
It was mistakenly assumed, that nativity in the target language is the hallmark of quality
No, this was not assumed. What was assumed is that on a website that purports to be for professional translators, native language claims should be honest and accurate.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
As I have explained in my earlier post, it is quite natural for translators to have more than one native language. There is nothing fraudulent in it at all.
Sorry, but what is it about 'this thread is not about whether or not people can have more than one native language' that you do not understand?
(And, again, nor is it for that matter about whether or not people can or should translate into native languages.)
As you will already know having read this thread in its entirety prior to posting, this thread is not about people claiming more than one native language who actually have more than one native language.
This thread is instead about people who are making fraudulent claims. It is not about people who are making legitimate claims. Period.
| | | | nmfurla (X)
Local time: 10:32
Italian to English
| He's gotta be joking | Jul 17, 2012 |
Sarah Elizabeth Cree wrote:
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
And in the colonies of England, like USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, etc, many people speak English to native-levels, even though languages of each of these places can also be categorized as separate languages - American English, Australian English, Indian English, etc.
You must be joking.
I'm truly flabbergasted at Monsieur Balasubramaniam's statement.
[Edited at 2012-07-17 09:49 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? | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
