yndigo

I was editing a particularly spectacular translation the other day. Creative turns of phrase, source meaning fully intact, and just beautifully readable English. The translator obviously had a nuanced understanding of the source language paired with a level of comprehension of the subject matter that usually betrays an industry insider. My editing was moot. Any retouches apart from the two or three real-word typos that spell-check didn’t catch could only have brought it down.

After editing hundreds of translations over the years–good, bad and everything in between–this translation did a couple things, besides making our client happy, that is. It reconfirmed my faith in human translation (alright that’s a bit over the top perhaps; I hadn’t really lost my faith in human translation, I just tend to forget how far superior it can be), and it led me to consider that too often we let the machines win.

It’s become cliché in translation to say computers will never figure out how to truly replicate what we do, yet between some translations I’ve read and machine output there really isn’t a lot of daylight. Machines are catching up. But please, let’s not go meet them halfway.

Now you may claim with the workload and the price pressure — much of it caused by those same machines — how are we supposed to have time to craft translations that make the client say, “Wow, I’m glad I hired a human!” Good question. The daily grind can sap much of that creative juice that made us choose this career over accounting* way back when.

First, let me say that most translations I come across are better (and quite a bit more accurate) than machine output. However many translators skip the one step that can most efficiently help them leave machines in the dust: Re-reading. While downright essential for new translators, it should not be overlooked by old-hats either.

I know when I’ve translated I often feel I’ve written the most fluent English sentence, only to go back and discover it doesn’t sound like English at all. When we re-read we really discover the translation for the first time as a native speaker. Because, when we’re translating, we are tethered to the idiom of the original and can find it very difficult to take the ideas while leaving the original language structure behind. It’s a two-step process (sometimes more) when done right. When an editor claims a translation wasn’t done by a native speaker, often it’s just that the translator did not re-read.

Of course there are different levels of re-reading. You can look it over quickly to make sure there are no errors or you can read aloud until all the little seams are ironed out. Either way it’s the best way for both beginning and experienced translators to improve and to continue to make the client choose them over the machine.

*I apologize for perpetuating the stereotype of the uncreative accountant. With the state of Wall Street over the past few months, it looks like the accountants have been quite creative in fact. Whoops, now it seems I’ve called them underhanded too…