| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | Should “native language” claims be verified? Thread poster: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
Phil Hand 
China
Local time: 18:44
Chinese to English
| Samuel, you still haven't come up with a single example | Jun 28, 2012 |
You keep imagining that there's all these people who are running around with different understandings of native/mother/first language, and that might be causing the problem. But we've yet to find a single example. None of us here want to change the practice of what's being done by the complex Europeans in this thread. My Chinese thread has not turned up any new understandings. This is not about differences of opinion. It is about deliberate misrepresentation.
On the first/sec... See more You keep imagining that there's all these people who are running around with different understandings of native/mother/first language, and that might be causing the problem. But we've yet to find a single example. None of us here want to change the practice of what's being done by the complex Europeans in this thread. My Chinese thread has not turned up any new understandings. This is not about differences of opinion. It is about deliberate misrepresentation.
On the first/second thing - yes, they're defined, but the terms are less widely understood than native. Everyone knows what native means (even if some choose to ignore it). Changing the word doesn't solve the problem.
I don't know what you mean by "declare our second languages"? If you put a language down as a working language, but not a native language, then it is a second language. What other kind of declaration could there be? If you know other languages, but don't work with them, you can refer to them in your profile, but having them searchable would just be confusing. What's relevant on this site is working languages.
And yeah, I may have been a bit overzealous with that post. But I can't really work out what kind of a system you're aiming for - a three level classification of 1) native/first languages, 2) second languages, 3) other languages that I'm not so good at but thought I'd offer anyway? Who would want to put that on their profile?!
What we want to know is simple: what languages do you work out of? what languages do you work into? what is your native language? These are all strong claims about ability - but they're also the client's job to verify (e.g. by looking at a CV). Proz doesn't verify everything, nor should it.
[Edited at 2012-06-28 09:12 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | As high as professionalism needs it to be... | Jun 28, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Phil Hand wrote:
If you're not near-native, you have no business working with this language in the first place. ... (1) Just by putting a language on your profile on a professional translators website, you are saying "I'm pretty [darn] proficient in this language." (2) If you offer to translate into language X, you are saying I'm a good enough writer in X to produce professional-looking material.
I think you're setting the bar much higher than most people do. I disagree with your statement #1 but I fully agree with your statement #2.
I think Phil set the bar in the right height of professionalism. If most people - here on Proz - don´t set the bar that high, how can they call themselves professional translators?
I agree with every single word Phil said. And Ty, Kim, Andy, Charlie and Lisa before him... I want to thank you all for this interesting discussion. Sometimes I find it hard to write my thoughts down but a few minutes later I see that you have already done it much better than I would ever have.
| | | | | It's a non-question | Jun 28, 2012 |
Why all the fuss?
Why on earth verify native language?
It won't make anyone a better translator.
The proof of the pudding is simply in the eating, ie, if "verification" is required present a sample translation for approval.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 11:44
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Phil Hand wrote:
This is not about differences of opinion.
You have read this entire thread and the other threads and you still say that you are unaware of any genuine, bona fide differences of opinion.
It is about deliberate misrepresentation.
No, it's about verfiability.
Liars will always lie (if they want to), but you can't catch a liar if you don't define the lie. And you can't warn or coerce a liar not to lie if he knows that you can't prove that he is lying.
Everyone knows what native means (even if some choose to ignore it).
That seems to be your opinion, yes.
I don't know what you mean by "declare our second languages"? If you put a language down as a working language, but not a native language, then it is a second language. What other kind of declaration could there be?
I think you misunderstand what "working language" is, as used in ProZ.com profile pages. At ProZ.com, the term "working languge" refers to a language *combination* in which you offer *services*, regardless of your fluencey or proficiecy in any of those languages individually.
Anyway, my comment about being able to declare second language was an aside -- it does not form part of any of my arguments.
And yeah, I may have been a bit overzealous with that post. ... Who would want to put that on their profile?!
Your point is well taken, but it applies to what you've been saying too. The point is not what things actually mean, but what people tend to think they mean. In linguistics, the term "foreign language" is well-defined and has no negative connotation, but no translator would want to put that on his profile page as a working language, because he knows that clients are likely to misinterpret what is being declared.
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 11:44
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Nani Delgado wrote:
Samuel Murray wrote:
Phil Hand wrote:
If you're not near-native, you have no business working with this language in the first place. ... (1) Just by putting a language on your profile on a professional translators website, you are saying "I'm pretty [darn] proficient in this language." (2) If you offer to translate into language X, you are saying I'm a good enough writer in X to produce professional-looking material.
I think you're setting the bar much higher than most people do. I disagree with your statement #1 but I fully agree with your statement #2.
I think Phil set the bar in the right height of professionalism. If most people - here on Proz - don´t set the bar that high, how can they call themselves professional translators?
Would you still have that opinion if (a) you were reasonably good at Spanish to German and (b) the amount of German to Spanish work you get is irrevocably reduced by e.g. 50%? It is easy to set the bar high if the atmosphere is favourable.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 18:44
Chinese to English
"You have read this entire thread and the other threads and you still say that you are unaware of any genuine, bona fide differences of opinion."
Yes. What have you read that I haven't?
Not a single person has appeared on this thread to say: My understanding of a native language is that you don't have to have learned the language as a child.
People have said: don't debate this, it's stupid; native translators make lots of mistakes; native is not a useful co... See more "You have read this entire thread and the other threads and you still say that you are unaware of any genuine, bona fide differences of opinion."
Yes. What have you read that I haven't?
Not a single person has appeared on this thread to say: My understanding of a native language is that you don't have to have learned the language as a child.
People have said: don't debate this, it's stupid; native translators make lots of mistakes; native is not a useful concept; native is parochial...
They've said lots of things. But no-one has challenged the core meaning of the word. And the same arguments are being played out in Chinese, in a very similar way.
And no, it's not really about verifiability. Verification is one of the potential tools. But it's about misrepresentation. Ultimately, I don't care if our native languages are verified or not. I just want the abuse to stop. We could use verification, or we could use extra questions like you proposed, or we could just do a blanket ban on multiple native languages. Each of these would have problems, and that's why we're arguing through them. But the means are not the point. The point is ending abuse. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | He obviously is not... | Jun 28, 2012 |
Marina Steinbach wrote:
Kim Metzger wrote:
The typical fraudster was born, raised and educated in a country in which the target language (usually English) is not the mother tongue. In the Netherlands, Germany or China, for example.
I beg your pardon? You are calling ProZ members from these countries fraudsters?
.... as would be apparent to an English speaker. He is saying that someone born and raised in, say, Germany, and whose English is clearly not at native level, with perhaps misuse of definite articles and verb tenses (or the best word order to use to express indignation by means of a question), for example, is not being entirely honest when they stick an "N" for English in their profile.
To describe, as Kim did, some features of a fraudster, is not the same thing as saying everyone with those features is a fraudster. It's like the famous girls and ginger hair thing that you must have heard of, to explain errors of logic.
[Edited at 2012-06-28 10:11 GMT]
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 10:44
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Don't worry you're doing an excellent job | Jun 28, 2012 |
Nani Delgado wrote:
Sometimes I find it hard to write my thoughts down but a few minutes later I see that you have already done it much better than I would ever have.
I think one or two of us have already pointed out that your written English is actually better than that of a great number of people on this site claiming to have it as a native language
This discussion has developed into a "them" and "us" discussion between native English and non-native English speakers, with underlying accusations of linguistic cleansing and more overt ones about us "protecting our turf". The non-native English speakers have, with apparently very few exceptions (you're one of them, Nani), opted for the "non-verification camp". Might that alone be telling us something? The verification initially put forward was of all claims to native languages, not just English . Curiously what this thread has thrown up is that the bulk of the problem does in fact lie with bogus claims about English, which so many purport to speak as well as the natives under the mistaken assumption that this is easily done since the language has no rules, is easy and has so many variants to it anyway that anything goes. I would urge everyone please to focus their minds on their own native languages and whether or not they would be able to identify a non-native speaker in a flash, and furthermore, how they would feel if they saw this site swamped with people claiming to speak their language to native level, when they clearly cannot even write a forum post without making mistakes a native would never make .
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 10:44
Hebrew to English
| Favourable atmosphere | Jun 28, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Would you still have that opinion if (a) you were reasonably good at Spanish to German and (b) the amount of German to Spanish work you get is irrevocably reduced by e.g. 50%? It is easy to set the bar high if the atmosphere is favourable.
So, you're saying that it would be ok for Nani to claim nativity in German, if she was reasonably good at translating in that direction? Is that all it takes? Being 'reasonably good'? I would have thought the bar should be quite a bit higher than reasonably good.
You say it's easy to set the bar high if the atmosphere is favourable. Not so. I work in a smaller language pair with far less traffic than the larger languages. I only offer HE>EN. Now, there are times when I have quite long stretches without work. I'm not talking about dry patches, more like desert conditions....far from what I would consider a "favourable atmosphere". Yet I've never been tempted to slap Hebrew up as a native language and start translating EN>HE (and it's not due to a lack of ability to do so either; I'd rate my abilities in Hebrew as far better than "reasonably good" - but not 'native' obviously! ).
So I just don't buy it.
[Edited at 2012-06-28 10:20 GMT]
| | | | | Recycling is good, right? :-) | Jun 28, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Phil Hand wrote:
It is about deliberate misrepresentation.
No, it's about verfiability.
Liars will always lie (if they want to), but you can't catch a liar if you don't define the lie.
Usually I'd agree with your thorough approach, and I see your point. But you are nit-picking this issue to death, while other people are dragging your reputation through the mud by shamelessly lying through their teeth about their abilities on a website of which you are a prominent member. D'y want people to say "yeah, that Samuel Murray, he says a lot on that website that lets people lie their arses off about what and who they are. He says he can do our project, but can we believe him?"
I'm gonna go back to the tennis analogy I used before. You're like a tennis tournament organiser, sitting there wondering about whether chalk dust is a reliable indicator or whether you should introduce Hawkeye; meanwhile you have no rules at all and a ball whacked into the stand still counts as in. I think we should be allowed to call "out".
| | | | | Definitely not an English-only issue | Jun 28, 2012 |
I think everyone becomes incensed (or a bit amused) when they read things (manuals, tourist info, instructions, product descriptions etc. etc.) supposedly written in their language but clearly not by a native speaker.
A native speaker of any language can usually spot a non-native speaker a mile away as soon as they put pen to paper, so to speak.
All we are asking here is for fraudulent native language claims to be stopped or banned and for those claims already listed that are... See more I think everyone becomes incensed (or a bit amused) when they read things (manuals, tourist info, instructions, product descriptions etc. etc.) supposedly written in their language but clearly not by a native speaker.
A native speaker of any language can usually spot a non-native speaker a mile away as soon as they put pen to paper, so to speak.
All we are asking here is for fraudulent native language claims to be stopped or banned and for those claims already listed that are blatantly fraudulent to be corrected to show the authentic native language (only). ▲ Collapse
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 18:44
Chinese to English
| How we verify isn't that important | Jun 28, 2012 |
Just to continue a thought from my last post:
I said: "The point is ending abuse... Verification is one of the potential tools."
Which is why I think arguments about exactly what the verification process would be are a bit misplaced. We're not seeking to get at some absolute and lasting truth about what a native language is here. We're just looking to weed out the obvious wrong'uns. So if the verification process is a bit rough and ready, or if it doesn't quite match yo... See more Just to continue a thought from my last post:
I said: "The point is ending abuse... Verification is one of the potential tools."
Which is why I think arguments about exactly what the verification process would be are a bit misplaced. We're not seeking to get at some absolute and lasting truth about what a native language is here. We're just looking to weed out the obvious wrong'uns. So if the verification process is a bit rough and ready, or if it doesn't quite match your personal idea of what native means, it doesn't really matter.
(Certainly the Proz staff aren't going to be expelling members left right and centre. They've made it very clear that they want to cause as little disturbance as possible, and will only take action if absolutely necessary. It's a good position.)
Most likely the simple existence/not of a verification procedure is much more important than the detail of what the procedure is and what exactly it verifies. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Alison MacG
United Kingdom
Local time: 10:44
German to English
+ ...
| Misrepresentation, not misunderstanding | Jun 28, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
If Spanish or Dutch or Chinese translators fill in their profiles and the label that is translated as "native language" in English does not say "native language" to them, then no-one knows what is being declared, and no-one can tell how one might be able to verify it.
I think you are being too generous, Samuel. Misunderstanding is not the problem here. Deliberate misrepresentation is.
If you experiment with changing the language in which you view the site, you will find the following:
English - native language
Spanish - idioma materno
Dutch - moedertaal
Chinese - native language
German - Muttersprache
French - langue maternelle
etc.
No matter how proficient someone is, or believes he or she is, there will always be a difference between "native language/mother tongue" and "language of habitual use" (or however you prefer to phrase it). If an outsourcer is happy to use translators for whom, say, English, is their language of habitual use rather than their native language, that's fine. All people are asking here, as I see it, is that it made clear that this is what they are getting. In many cases at present, this is simply not the case.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 11:44
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Ty -- you read too quickly | Jun 28, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Samuel Murray wrote:
Would you still have that opinion if (a) you were reasonably good at Spanish to German and (b) the amount of German to Spanish work you get is irrevocably reduced by e.g. 50%? It is easy to set the bar high if the atmosphere is favourable.
So, you're saying that it would be ok for Nani to claim nativity in German, if she was reasonably good at translating in that direction?
No, never!
Methinks you read the two posts a little too quickly, and thought that Nani's "opinion" (mentioned in my post) is about native language declaration, and it wasn't.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 10:44
Hebrew to English
| @Samuel - Erm, no | Jun 28, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Ty Kendall wrote:
Samuel Murray wrote:
Would you still have that opinion if (a) you were reasonably good at Spanish to German and (b) the amount of German to Spanish work you get is irrevocably reduced by e.g. 50%? It is easy to set the bar high if the atmosphere is favourable.
So, you're saying that it would be ok for Nani to claim nativity in German, if she was reasonably good at translating in that direction?
No, never!
Methinks you read the two posts a little too quickly, and thought that Nani's "opinion" (mentioned in my post) is about native language declaration, and it wasn't.
Feel free to enlighten me, but I wasn't interested in Nani's post, I was more interested in your response, which seems to insinutate that if Nani was "reasonably good" at translating in the opposite direction then she'd believe contrary to what she does (which is nonsense by the way).
| | | | | 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? | 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 » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
