Until you actually need one, it’s hard to imagine how many translators and translations agencies are out there. Especially the first time, how can you be sure you’re getting a good translation?

1. Get a recommendation: Ask a colleague or friend, even better if that colleague is a friend! Chances are good if they received quality and service at a fair price, you will too. Don’t forget to ask how recently or how frequently they’ve used the translator or agency.
2. Ask for samples: If you have the luxury of time, ask a translator or a translation agency for what they consider their best work in the subject matter you’re interested in. This step is really essential if you have an ongoing project.
3. Ask questions: Translators want to do a good job so most will not take on a project that is outside their expertise. You should ask questions, however, to learn how extensive their background is in the field, how they learned it, how they maintain their language skills, how they conduct research, what other types of jobs they have worked on, etc. If you’re speaking with someone at a translation agency, try to talk with the project manager (not just the salesperson) so you can ask about their quality assurance measures.
4. Be a partner: Seasoned translators have seen thousands of documents of all different sorts, but they haven’t seen yours. And you know your subject matter. Whenever possible, help the translator give you a high quality product by providing reference documents, glossaries of preferred terminology, style guides, background information, etc., and be open to questions about the project. It will lead to a much better translation.
5. Read ATA’s Translation: Getting it Right: Get ready, I’ve saved the best advice for last. You can find the ATA’s publication on shopping for translation services here. It’s chock-full of useful information in plain language.
]]> 1 Glenn http://yndigotranslations.com/blog/?p=63 2008-07-14T16:47:35Z 2008-07-14T16:47:35Z
When a word has no good equivalent

In my last post, I talked about words that were so closely tied to a certain country’s sporting event, they are inevitably used internationally in their original language. But how about words that don’t translate at all because the situation they grew out of just doesn’t exist elsewhere?

Many websites have compiled long lists of these, such as the Mirror.co.uk. Transubstantiation, a blog I follow, covers the topic here and here. Read more of his posts and you’ll see how deeply he gets into the notion of the impossibility of translation in general.

Some “untranslatable” words are less translatable than others. Take the Yamana word dona which means “to take lice from a person’s head and squash them between one’s teeth.” American English has no word for that, thank goodness. And there would be no way to translate “dona” (though I can’t imagine ever needing to professionally) without a translator’s note, which can make the translation either messy or unacceptable.

There are some cases, however, when a more practical “untranslatable” must be used. Keeping the word in the original language is prettier of course, but that’s not really translation. Preserving the original also falsely assumes the reader’s familiarity with that language and/or culture. Somewhere in between these two options, perhaps, creative use of periphrases and neologisms may help to bridge the two languages, even if some of the cultural flavor is lost.

One term that appears on many lists of untranslatables is the French esprit d’escalier, which means “to possess a mind that thinks of comebacks too late, as in when you’re descending the staircase (escalier) on your way out of a party.” The difficulty here is not that the idea does not exist in English (why not ?) but that the French coined a term based on a setting where this term frequently came into play. So we can translate the idea — “delayed wit,” pehaps — but the cultural flavor will be lost. How do you say, “Monday morning quarterbacking” in French?

]]> 1 Glenn http://yndigotranslations.com/blog/?p=61 2008-07-08T18:44:13Z 2008-07-08T16:42:31Z
When one language dominates the terminology



“Kiss your Julys goodbye,” someone told me a few years ago when I started watching professional cycling. He was right. The Tour de France is upon us and now, along with WordPress, my e-mail, and a translation I’m reviewing, I have two browser tabs dedicated to today’s 4th stage, a 30 km individual time trial in Cholet, France.

Along with the competition, I love the history and lore of this 105-year old event. Take Eugène Christophe’s 1913 ride over the Pyrenees, a time when Tour rules forbade giving assistance to riders. Having broken his front fork, Christophe carried his bike down a mountain to a blacksmith and repaired the bike himself, only to get hit with a time penalty because a boy had been seen helping him pump the bellows!

Cycling is one of those things, like cuisine and couture, that grew up in Europe and centered in France. And now, many cycling terms are French: tour, peloton, étape, prime, soigneur, directeur sportif, domestique, etc.

Now some of these terms have English equivalents, for example peloton = main field; étape = stage. Yet the French terms dominate even in races outside France. And other terms like tour, soigneur and domestique have never been translated to anyone’s satisfaction.

We cannot call the Tour de France the “Ride of France.” And “Spin Around France” would be taking the grueling three-week event a bit lightly. A soigneur has some of the duties of an athletic trainer but often takes care of food, clothes and even massages. Domestique — literally “servant” — is the term for cyclists on a team that help their leader win the race by pacing him, giving him a wheel, carrying water bottles, etc.

Thus it would be inappropriate to translate many of these words. Because I know something about the sport, I would know which words to render into English and which to leave alone. Yet I certainly can’t say the same for cuisine, and when it comes to couture I’d be totally lost.

]]> 5 Glenn http://yndigotranslations.com/blog/?p=60 2008-07-03T22:07:55Z 2008-07-03T22:07:55Z
Fisher Tool Co., Inc. v. Gillet Outillage

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion the other day in a case that involved, among other things, an apparent mistranslation. Mécanisme à cliquet was translated into English as “ratchet mechanism,” a mistranslation the opinion claims “certainly isn’t clear on its face, since French-to-English dictionaries support it.” This is a case where cliquet is a broader term than ratchet; the French has several possible meanings, and the chosen translation did not fit the context.

It would be interesting to know whether the person translating the patent reviewed the figures, in which case he would have seen a “pawl” or “catch” — the intended meaning of the the French expression here — rather than ratchet, which, according to Wikipedia, is “a device that allows linear or rotary motion in only one direction, while preventing motion in the opposite direction,” i.e., a pawl plus other components.

The alleged mistranslation was part of Fisher’s suit claiming malicious prosecution (for a prior infringement case brought by Gillet), in which it argued that Gillet was aware of the the mistranslation and that the mistranslation invalidated the patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 375(b), because it broadened the claim.

In the end, the translator was “off the hook” so to speak, as the judge found Gillet’s original case tenable and that it had probable cause to sue.

]]> 1 Glenn http://yndigotranslations.com/blog/?p=54 2008-07-02T19:36:55Z 2008-07-02T19:36:55Z
Translation pricing



When you talk price with someone who’s never bought translations before, there are frequently two reactions: laughter and then shock.

Laughter at the idea that translators charge by the word or that a penny higher or lower makes a big difference. For example, I was interviewed by SmartMoney.com about working with freelancers and the interviewer, Diana, chuckled a few times when I told her that talk among project managers will often sound like, “he’s only 11 cents… yeah but he’s not so great… she’s 13… really?.. is she worth it?.. well, she’s decent, but always busy; what’s your budget?” etc.

Shock at the total price. “It’s only a few pages!” Well, actually it’s 35 single-spaced pages from Korean to English. Although prices in the translation industry have generally been stagnant for years, I understand sticker shock, as I discussed in a previous post about misunderstood translation clients.

Which word?

In translation, we talk about source words and target words. Because source words are more easily countable these days, the trend in the industry is to price by the source word. In my segment — legal translation — per-target-word pricing still prevails but the industry-wide per-source word practice is slowly encroaching as more and more translators become accustomed to pricing that way.

Why not by the hour?

Corinne McKay added some great insights to this debate in a post a few months back, her conclusion being that good translators make out better overall when pricing by the word and that clients are better able to price their translations up front.

Bernie Bierman added a comment to Corinne’s post from his own article about how translator compensation has changed through the years. According to Bernie, “[t]he per-word unit has for at least one hundred years been the basis for determining a translator’s fee,” but Computer Aided Translation tools have completely changed the playing field and today’s translators are “like livestock marching in willing resignation and without protest to the slaughtering pens.” Strong words.

Will translators continue to make sense per word?

Technology is marching on and the translation industry is embracing it. If the efficient new translation model proposed by some in which texts are machine translated and then post-edited by a professional translator, who knows, maybe we’ll see translation priced by the hour, which is normally how editing is done. And if so, will those editors be paid more than today’s translators, or less?

]]> 4 Glenn http://yndigotranslations.com/blog/?p=39 2008-06-30T19:34:12Z 2008-06-30T19:32:49Z
Wictionary.org defines translatorese as: “(pejorative) Stilted or unidiomatic language produced by translation.” That doesn’t sound good.

However some contend there are certain types of documents and certain audiences where erring on the literal side is a safer bet. Not literature of course (ironically we can’t take literature literally as one of my grad school professors used to say). And not advertising or marketing. So which translations should be anything less than perfectly readable?

Well, none really. Translations need to be read, and struggling through clunky prose in any context can keep us from fully understanding the meaning of the original. But there are limits when it comes to transforming the original for the sake of style.

A translator’s creativity should at times be held to a minimum. Accuracy is paramount. And rendering a translation that is 100% accurate and reads as if it were written in the target language to begin with, while possible perhaps, would take far too long to produce, i.e, longer than most translators are afforded. Especially in certain language pairs.

And there are potential dangers if style is our ultimate goal. Readibility is easy. Just edit the translation until it reads well. If we’re not careful though, we can stray not only from the original structure but from its meaning, too. Thus in the time allotted, translators often have to strike a balance… and the balance often tips toward the literal.

Secondly, a client using translations from multiple translators will have headaches if one or more translators rework the text to such an extent that (1) referring back to the original will be difficult, and (2) piecing it together with other translations, impossible. This is especially true if an interpreter is using the translations or if references are made to other documents, which may already be translated.

]]> 0 Glenn http://yndigotranslations.com/blog/?p=58 2008-06-26T16:02:30Z 2008-06-26T16:02:30Z

Is there such thing as neutral Spanish?

This question has been asked time and time again in translation circles. To many Spanish speakers the very idea is laughable. When people from different Spanish speaking countries strike up a conversation, they recognize, often understand, and sometimes chuckle at, the words and expressions the other uses. But these regional terms rarely impede the conversation, and, although there are sometimes universal word choices that more easily bridge national divides, there is no manufactured Spanish language shared by all speakers.

For practical purposes, however, there is. And it consists not so much in creating words shared by all as it does eliminating words unique to just one locale. For translation customers, this is good news. If you want to market your products to various Spanish-speaking groups, you can save money by translating your advertising just once. Agencies and translators, although they sometimes discourage the practice — especially in the case of advertising, which many would claim should be “hyper-local” to be effective — increasingly honor this request and have become more adept at creating a neutralized language.

According to Guillermo Cabanellas de las Cuevas, in his article, Neutral Spanish: Is it Necessary? Does it Exist?, finding words without local flavor is not always possible. “Suppose that our hypothetical client wants to market peaches in the Spanish-speaking world. What word should he use on his cans? Melocotón (used in Spain and other countries) or durazno (used in Argentina and other countries, and even in certain parts of Spain)? There is no ‘neutrality’ for this conundrum. We cannot mix melocotón and durazno and get a ‘melozno’ or a ‘duracotón’.”

On the other hand, Prof. Isabel García Izquierdo, in her article highlights the fact that some see neutral Spanish “not as an artifice devoid of any identity. Instead, they see it as a way of bringing the 400 million speakers of Spanish closer together without losing their identity in the process.” The purpose of a Universal Spanish in this case, therefore, would not be market your products cheaper but to enrich understanding in the Spanish speaking world.

So why not Universal French? Or Universal English?

In all my years in translation, I’ve never received a request for Universal French. We translate for Canada or Switzerland or Belgium, or perhaps into “standard French” as the French and their Académie might have us call it. But the industry doesn’t seem to have coined the term “neutral French” as it has with Spanish.

And when we translate into English, we ask “British or American?” So what’s different between Spanish and other languages with regional differences?

]]> 9 Glenn http://yndigotranslations.com/blog/?p=57 2008-06-27T16:57:55Z 2008-06-25T20:45:49Z
The little I know so far



Despite the fact it takes a lot of work and the desired results can be slow in coming and difficult to measure, I like blogging. It’s a great exercise for those of us who have lots of thoughts and opinions we never took the time to jot down.

And since I began blogging a relatively short time ago, I’ve formulated a few thoughts about blogging itself. First, whether you blog for business or just to express yourself (I happen to do both), bloggers want to be read. Which is why many people judge their blog’s success by how many readers or subscribers they have.

Since I’ve been blogging I’ve started reading other blogs. Blogs not just about translation but about many things. Sometimes to learn something and sometimes just to see how they blog. I’ve even visited blogs about blogging; there are hundreds of them. These bloggers are professional bloggers. The blogger’s blogger, so to speak. Akin to a teacher who teaches teachers.

I’ve learned things from their “top 10 blogging tips” or “top 5 blogging no-nos.” I try to post on a regular basis. I try not to run off at the keyboard and do my best to keep posts relevant and interesting. I try to invite discussion. I like to get involved in discussions on other’s blogs; sharing our ideas in the larger blogging community is fun and educational, like wandering around a big party participating in the variety of smaller discussions. I’ve imported some widgets and plugins and have optimized my blog for search engines (fellow bloggers will know what I’m talking about).

For example, I recently loaded the plugin that gives a few buttons at the bottom of the post so readers can share it or bookmark on digg or technorati or in various other ways. By the way, for those of you who haven’t tried it, I like Stumble Upon, which not only lets you collect sites you like but allows you to, ahem, stumble upon others you might never have discovered. For example, here’s one of the fascinating articles I Stumbled Upon.

But most of us are not full time bloggers. We only blog about something else we do full time. So besides keeping up with our industry or hobby, we’re learning lots of little tricks about a new medium so we can share the stuff we really know about.

The downside about reading blogs about blogging is we can get blog envy — I know I’ve had it. Bloggers who blog about blogging or marketing or other popular topics tell us things like, “don’t worry, it takes time… it took more than a month before I got up to 5,000 hits a day.” Only a month? That’s a little like the school teacher listening to people in the corporate world comiserate about how this year’s bonus will be slightly smaller. And I admit to feeling a little envious when I see an uninteresting post receive 143 comments. But I’m not discouraged. My numbers are lower but, as I say, I like blogging.

But now I’m off the topic of my blog, which is usually on the “no-no” list. So what’s my point? No point other than to take a moment away from my main topic to discuss the new tool I’ve been using to communicate it, and to share a few thoughts with my fellow bloggers in my blogging community.

]]> 4 Glenn http://yndigotranslations.com/blog/?p=40 2008-06-25T02:44:37Z 2008-06-25T02:40:51Z
There is some confusion over what a Certificate of Accuracy is, who may issue it and under what circumstances it is required.

A certificate of accuracy is a statement in writing that claims, “I was qualified to do this translation and I believe it is faithful to the original.” It does not claim the translation is perfect (there’s no such thing as a perfect translation), nor that a different translator wouldn’t have a different take. Nor does it claim, at least in the United States, that a certified translator performed the translation. For more on certified translators (or the fact they don’t exist) see my previous post on the topic. So a certified translation simply means that a certificate is issued with the translation.

A request for a certificate, however, should put the translator or agency on notice that they’ll want to do a translation they can stand behind and defend if necessary. Many agencies now offer two levels of service: certified or “for informational purposes.” Certified translations often undergo the agency’s Quality Assurance process before getting the stamp of approval. Translations labeled “for informational purposes” or draft normally undergo a cursory QA, therefore they can save the client time and money. As an aside, draft translations should nonetheless be assigned to a translator that’s highly qualified in the relevant field. Just because it’s a draft doesn’t mean corners should be cut.

Certificates of accuracy can be issued by the translator who did the translation or by an agency. And even if an agency provides the translation, a client can request that the translator issue the certificate. The wording in this case will be different and will usually read something like, “I, Mary Translator, declare under penalty of perjury that I am fluent in language A and language B and that I performed this translation, which is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge, etc.” Sometimes the qualifications, educational background, experience, etc., of the translator will be requested, too.

A certificate issued by an agency will be a bit different because the person signing it is not normally the translator. And if the agency has edited, proofread, or altered the translation, the translator should not approve it unless he has read it and agrees with it, in which case the wording of the certificate will need to be changed.

The agency’s certificate will read something like, “the attached is to the best of my knowledge a complete and accurate translation of the original document,” and will be notarized. As you lawyers know, the notary stamp on the certificate doesn’t support the accuracy of the translation, it only attests that the person signing is who he says he is.

Certificates of Accuracy are required when filing a translation with a court. Certain regulatory bodies in other countries may enforce the practice, too, and they are often required in the medical arena and other regulated industries. Essentially, unless you need the document for internal purposes — so that you can gleen the information in order to act on it — it’s safest to ask for a certified translation. Agencies often add a nominal processing fee for the certificate itself, but it’s usually worth it.

]]> 2 Glenn http://yndigotranslations.com/blog/?p=56 2008-06-24T16:03:49Z 2008-06-23T15:53:35Z
Follow-up on a recent post

The beginnings of a good discussion on a recent post, Getting Testy, made me want to dig a bit deeper into the issue. I know translation tests have already been debated ad nauseam on the web for years but mostly from the freelancer’s point of view. Our discussion included comments from an agency “tester” who essentially said, “Hey, quit your whining! If you want to work with us, show us you can really translate!”

The Masked Translator suggested paid tests; and he encouraged agencies not to announce them as tests. This would allow us to see the translator in his natural environment. And paying for the tests would certainly cut down on the frivilous type that are assigned automatically to every interested freelancer.

Many of you have probably read Andrei Gerasimov’s excellent article describing his discouraging experience with translation tests, as well as his follow-up that distinguishes tests that are useful from those that are useless.

Gerasimov’s conclusions, based on numerous contacts with agencies — some that tested and some that didn’t — were that agencies that test don’t have work for the applicant. The tests and other application forms are simply a way to get rid of the person. If they have work, they won’t send a test, but a job. Too cynical?

Maybe, but the prevalent belief that tests are an utter waste of time has inspired rallying calls on translator forums to stop taking tests altogether. The tone of the messages is, “We’re professionals. Let’s stand as a group and reject this waste of our time.” Of course, a fight like this is tough to inspire or maintain.

But I’m certain my call to agencies to rethink their application process would be even less successful. Selective agencies know that many people who claim to be translators are simply unqualified. Some should pursue another profession entirely despite their sterling resumes. But to find those who are good, test and take it seriously. Why test if you don’t plan on evaluating? And if you evaluate, try to provide results and feedback.

As we grow, compete and globalize, we seem to know our translators — their expertise, strengths, depth of knowledge, flaws, work habits, dedication — even less. And increasing the amount of paperwork not only doesn’t solve the problem, it creates suspicion and ill will toward all agencies.

]]> 3