W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-translators@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: translation Circus

From: gareth edison <gareth.edison@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 15:19:00 +0100
Message-ID: <a6177d2e0801010619v599ac7ach824f2f5b2dbb39b1@mail.gmail.com>
To: w3c-translators@w3.org
>
> A happy new years to everyone


okay, so I have touched a few sensitive nerve endings with my post. This
doesnt suprise me at all
but its nice to know we are relish the freedom of speach.

I would just like to reply on some of the remarks made by Charles

*> I fail to grasp the importancy of translating documents into languages
> > like Turmen, Uzbek, Azerbajan, Kazakh, Belarussian, Ukrainian, Estonian,
> > Latvian, Tatar, Georgian or even Armenian.
>
> Well, if you happen to speak such a language, which quite a lot of people
> do, then it is helpful to find documents in that language.*


In this case I m sure it will not bother you if I propose to translate some
of the documents
into the following Irish dialects: Caighdeán Oifigiúil, Gaeilge Bhleá Cliath
and Caighdeán Oifigiúil
as well as Welsh Cymraeg ( I am Welsh ) and maybe when Im finnished I may
dabble in
the Scottish Gàidhlig

This brings me once again to the whole point of my first post, and I repeat:

Who is going to proof read all these translations in able to uphold the high
standards required for an online translation of a W3C document ? Who is
going to proof read Turmen, Uzbek, Azerbajan, Kazakh, Tatar and the likes ?


*> Wouldnt it be much wiser to allow ONLY *native speakers* to translate
> > documents for W3C instead of people producing translations
> > which they cant read themselves?
>
> Not really, in my opinion. People in the real world use automatic
> translations of things they find, so we are unlikely to end up worse off
> than that by offering something that is based on that principle with a
> small number of really glarin errors corrected. (For the same reason,
> while
> a translation of a translation is sub-optimal, I see no reason to ban it
> in practice).*


Firstly it seems that W3C made similar proposals and I quote:

"I think we should inquire of translators whether they are native speakers,
and even prefer them to be in-country, and only go with people who aren't
when there are unusual circumstances."

On this note it wont harm if I ask my next door neighbour to translate a W3c
document
into Kalaallisut. He is a fisherman but I am sure he will make his way
thought he translation  ;-)


*> Maybe W3c should start only allowing main
> languages instead of sub-divisions of these languages like the
> many Russian dialects as mentioned above.

Along with most other respondents I think this demonstrates taht you don't
know much about the languages you listed (estonian is related to finnish,
but nothing at all like russian, english is closer to german than latvian
or estonian to russian). *

I dont have a degree in linguistics nor do I speak Welsh. It was also nevery
my intent
to offend anyone at anytime. So I apologize if I did offend anyone.

*That probably explains why you would even make such a terrible suggestion.
I think it is best forgotten as quickly as
possible.*
**
**
Maybe, maybe not ;-)

Cheers

Gareth ( The Welsh Guy )
Received on Tuesday, 1 January 2008 14:19:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:27:41 UTC