| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | An Example of "Reader Orientation" Thread poster: Yan Yuliang
|
|---|
Phil Hand 
China
Local time: 20:11
Chinese to English
| Arguable, I think | Sep 24, 2013 |
wherestip wrote:
In this case, I truly believe the author misused the Latin term id est where he meant to use exempli gratia.
i.e. 即
e.g. 比如
BTW, I think you yourself also (perhaps subconsciously) noticed the discrepancy to make the minor adjustment or modification in your translation:
（如：4,200元、4,500元、4,800元等）
Yes, I noticed that and thought that a translation to 如 would be an easier read in Chinese. "E.g." would certainly work in that position, but I think there's an argument to be made for "i.e." as well: in the previous lines the author gave increments, but in this line he's giving levels, and needs that explanation in brackets to make clear what they are - "what they are" = i.e.
Most importantly, the use of i.e. here does not hinder my comprehension of the text in the slightest. And this is what I was trying to argue above: I think there's a real cultural difference here. When you go to writing school in the US/UK, they emphasise communication above all else. Being "correct" doesn't matter, being "elegant" doesn't matter - they are entirely secondary to getting your point across. As I understand it, that's not how they teach writing in China.
So I think there are cases where you can see inconsistencies and odd grammar in English texts which *would be errors if they were in Chinese texts*, but are not errors in the English text, because they follow the cardinal rule: always communicate.
When translating, you have to read through those to the message, and then convey the message in good Chinese, which may well involve "fixing" the inconsistencies.
And of course that works the other way round as well, when Chinese plays fast and loose with those omitted grammatical subjects.
| | | | wherestip
United States
Local time: 07:11
Chinese to English
+ ...
| Getting the message across. | Sep 24, 2013 |
Phil Hand wrote: wherestip wrote:
In this case, I truly believe the author misused the Latin term id est where he meant to use exempli gratia.
i.e. 即
e.g. 比如
BTW, I think you yourself also (perhaps subconsciously) noticed the discrepancy to make the minor adjustment or modification in your translation:
（如：4,200元、4,500元、4,800元等） Yes, I noticed that and thought that a translation to 如 would be an easier read in Chinese. "E.g." would certainly work in that position, but I think there's an argument to be made for "i.e." as well: in the previous lines the author gave increments, but in this line he's giving levels, and needs that explanation in brackets to make clear what they are - "what they are" = i.e. Most importantly, the use of i.e. here does not hinder my comprehension of the text in the slightest. And this is what I was trying to argue above: I think there's a real cultural difference here. When you go to writing school in the US/UK, they emphasise communication above all else. Being "correct" doesn't matter, being "elegant" doesn't matter - they are entirely secondary to getting your point across. As I understand it, that's not how they teach writing in China. So I think there are cases where you can see inconsistencies and odd grammar in English texts which *would be errors if they were in Chinese texts*, but are not errors in the English text, because they follow the cardinal rule: always communicate. When translating, you have to read through those to the message, and then convey the message in good Chinese, which may well involve "fixing" the inconsistencies. And of course that works the other way round as well, when Chinese plays fast and loose with those omitted grammatical subjects.
Phil,
I understand what your main argument on this is now. Yes, I agree with you that the main objective is communication. To be hung up on minor inconsistencies is actually not being able to see the forest for the trees.
| | | | Jinhang Wang
China
Local time: 20:11
English to Chinese
+ ...
wherestip wrote: The English text is not poorly written. Neither is there a typo. It is industry trade practice, or the way they conduct business at the auction houses ... http://www.christies.com/about/help/faq/faqtopic.aspx?faqsubid=41
What are Christie's standard bidding increments?
While our auctioneers may vary the increments at their discretion, they usually increase bidding in the following increments regardless of currency:
3,000-5,000 (by 200/500/800); 5,000-10,000 (by 500)
如果我们对拍卖行业比较熟悉，了解他们的行话，即 “3,000-5,000 (by 200/500/800); ”，就不会有这个翻译问题了。
毕竟这里不是需要使用科学语言的科技论文。
| | | | wherestip
United States
Local time: 07:11
Chinese to English
+ ...
J.H.,
You got me. I always try to be accommodating to different views, as long as they're not too far-fetched. 
Way back there was a disagreement on the use of the word "refrigeration". Although I knew I was correct, I still went along with the consensus, which wasn't necessarily accurate.
| | |
|
|
|
Jinhang Wang
China
Local time: 20:11
English to Chinese
+ ...
wherestip wrote: J.H., You got me. I always try to be accommodating to different views, as long as they're not too far-fetched. Way back there was a disagreement on the use of the word "refrigeration". Although I knew I was correct, I still went along with the consensus, which wasn't necessarily accurate.
根据我的经验，由于对翻译材料的行业/专业知识了解不够而造成理解困难的情况是很常见的。这就是为什么大家在之前的讨论中都比较认同慎接不熟悉的翻译材料的原因。
| | | | Jinhang Wang
China
Local time: 20:11
English to Chinese
+ ...
| 译者面对的是文化的汪洋大海 | Sep 24, 2013 |
各种各样的情况都有可能碰到，所以，一般来说，速度不宜太快，需要经常查阅资料谨慎求证。
事实上，严格地说，翻译人（尤其是非科技题材的翻译）应该有丰富的国外生活经验。可是，现实条件下，一时又做不到。
同时，对本国的语言、文化应有更深刻的了解。这样才可能做好翻译。
[Edited at 2013-09-25 02:05 GMT]
| | | | QHE
United States
Local time: 08:11
English to Chinese
+ ...
Phil Hand wrote:
我正在做的一篇财务报告中有这么一句话（经过修改）：
“2012年应收账款周转天数、应付账款周转天数以及存货周转天数分别为31天、42天以及27天”
这句话的“沟通性”怎么样？很差吧。听的话，肯定抓不住其中的信息，阅读时也得左右前后看几遍才能确定哪个数字对照哪个项目。虽然这句话在逻辑上毫无瑕疵，但作为信息传输工具，它不太合格。我们大概都知道，英文中不可能出现这样子的句型，反而会把每个项目和数字放在一起，另外也要尽量去除“周转天数”等重复性。
如：Turnover periods in 2012: receivables, 31 days; payables, 42 days; stock, 27 days.
Phil:
The Payables/Receivables/Inventory turnover is one of the accounting activity ratios（率）; however, in financial accounting, the following terms are normally used to "measure" the cash conversion cycle- in “days”:
应收账款周转天数:
Receivables Collection Period(days) or Days Sales Outstanding(DSO)
应付账款周转天数:
Payables Deferral Period (days) or Days Payable Outstanding(DPO)
存货周转天数:
Inventory Conversion Period(days) or Days Inventory Outstanding(DIO)
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cashconversioncycle.asp
不一定适合原文具体内容，供参考。
Phil Hand wrote:
虽然这句话在逻辑上毫无瑕疵，但作为信息传输工具，它不太合格。我们大概都知道，英文中不可能出现这样子的句型，…
英文中，总结结果时经常会见到这种表达方式，特别在研究报告中，下面举的例子是屡见不鲜的:
Patients were classified into undetectable TnT at baseline (n = 594), detectable but below the median of 0.12 ng/mL (n = 330), and above the median (n = 326). Rates of 30-day CV death were 1.5%, 4.5%, and 9.5%, respectively (P < .0001).
| | | | wherestip
United States
Local time: 07:11
Chinese to English
+ ...
J.H. Wang wrote:
各种各样的情况都有可能碰到，所以，一般来说，速度不宜太快，需要经常查阅资料谨慎求证。
事实上，严格地说，翻译人（尤其是非科技题材的翻译）应该有丰富的国外生活经验。可是，现实条件下，一时又做不到。
同时，对本国的语言、文化应有更深刻的了解。这样才可能做好翻译。
说得对。要做好中英语言对的翻译，没有在中国与在讲英文国家分别长期生活过的经验是很不易的。实话说，缺乏这种经历双重文化环境的优势，光靠书本知识和查阅参考资料是弥补不了的。所以我认为真正要在翻译事业上作出成绩，还是得像 Yueyin, Phil 等人（其他人恕不一一列举）那样在两种文化环境中都长期居住一段。
[Edited at 2013-09-25 00:54 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Yan Yuliang
Local time: 20:11
English to Chinese
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Am I too stubborn? | Sep 24, 2013 |
Interestingly, native speakers may also have difficulty understanding this text.
I asked this question on wordreference.com, and an American guy gave a different explanation, although he did not notice the 10% restriction.
Therefore I need to confirm, further, until I get an answer that seems convincing to me.
Native speakers are not always right. I, as a Chinese, dare not say that what I write is perfectly understandable by every other Chinese. So why can... See more Interestingly, native speakers may also have difficulty understanding this text.
I asked this question on wordreference.com, and an American guy gave a different explanation, although he did not notice the 10% restriction.
Therefore I need to confirm, further, until I get an answer that seems convincing to me.
Native speakers are not always right. I, as a Chinese, dare not say that what I write is perfectly understandable by every other Chinese. So why can't I doubt that the source text is wrong?
If one has already assumed that the source text is correct, then he/she would try to prove it right. However, is anybody 100% sure that it is error-free?
Maybe that American guy did not receive proper eduction in writing, I guess. So I need to ask others.
[修改时间: 2013-09-24 17:24 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Yan Yuliang
Local time: 20:11
English to Chinese
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
wherestip wrote: J.H. Wang wrote:
各种各样的情况都有可能碰到，所以，一般来说，速度不宜太快，需要经常查阅资料谨慎求证。
事实上，严格地说，翻译人（尤其是非科技题材的翻译）应该有丰富的国外生活经验。可是，现实条件下，一时又做不到。
同时，对本国的语言、文化应有更深刻的了解。这样才可能做好翻译。 说得对。要做好中英语言对的翻译，没有在中国与在讲英文国家分别长期生活的经验是很不易的。实话说，这种双重文化环境上的优势，光靠书本知识和查阅参考资料是补偿不了的。所以我认为真正要在翻译业上作出成绩，还是得像 Yueyin, Phil 等人这样， 两种文化环境都须长期住住。 [Edited at 2013-09-24 17:12 GMT]
互联网络的发达，为我们提供了很便利的条件。作为翻译，如果能做到谨慎求证、敢于质疑，是不缺乏求助渠道的。
话说在跨国交流这么多，我们又是做翻译的，总有几个相熟的吧，呵呵。再不济网络上也有各种论坛，还是有很多热心人的。
翻译的好坏，和是否有国外生活经验，我认为并无必然联系。关键在于自己是否能够注意时刻积累知识。
作为翻译，我认为更重要的，是学习能力。拿到一篇稿件，能迅速搞清楚一些相关的理论知识，不至于理解困难。在翻译过程中，把理论和文中的具体内容相互印证，也能有效避免一些讹误。
| | | | wherestip
United States
Local time: 07:11
Chinese to English
+ ...
| Mastering a language, 1st or 2nd | Sep 24, 2013 |
Yan Yuliang wrote:
互联网络的发达，为我们提供了很便利的条件。作为翻译，如果能做到谨慎求证、敢于质疑，是不缺乏求助渠道的。
话说在跨国交流这么多，我们又是做翻译的，总有几个相熟的吧，呵呵。再不济网络上也有各种论坛，还是有很多热心人的。
翻译的好坏，和是否有国外生活经验，我认为并无必然联系。关键在于自己是否能够注意时刻积累知识。
作为翻译，我认为更重要的，是学习能力。拿到一篇稿件，能迅速搞清楚一些相关的理论知识，不至于理解困难。在翻译过程中，把理论和文中的具体内容相互印证，也能有效避免一些讹误。
Yuliang,
Indeed one could create a working environment that continually promotes the development of one's language skills, whether Chinese or English. But IMO a virtual environment is still not as good as a real one. As diligent as one could be, endeavors such as looking up references, searching the web, communicating with clients could only get one so far. Nothing could compare to the firsthand experience of living a language in its native environment. I believe the breakthrough to truly mastering a language needs to come from immersing oneself in the specific language and culture - for long periods of time.
And even then, it still depends on an individual's effort or talent, or a combination thereof.
[Edited at 2013-09-25 13:48 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 20:11
Chinese to English
QHE wrote:
...DSO...DPO...DIO
谢谢，这三个我知道，CCC没了解过！
英文中，总结结果时经常会见到这种表达方式，特别在研究报告中
的确有，我说得太绝对。但有文类和文风的差异，英文不能像中文那么经常用：
http://www.oecd.org/about/publishing/40500006.pdf
OECD语言规范
Respectively, latter, former should be avoided.
They break the forward flow of the reader’s
eye movement as the reader is obliged
to look back in the sentence to see the
connection between the words.
USE: Food prices rose 7%, fuel prices
3% and housing 2%.
AVOID: Food, fuel and housing prices
rose 7%, 3% and 2%, respectively.
USE: Ms. Francis and Mr. Joya will attend
the meeting. Ms. Francis is a child health
specialist.
AVOID: Ms. Francis and Mr. Joya will
attend the meeting. The former is a child
health specialist.
| | |
|
|
|
wherestip
United States
Local time: 07:11
Chinese to English
+ ...
| A little levity | Sep 25, 2013 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRkFDcX_72c
So the moral of the story is ... drumroll, please ...
Knowing which native speaker to ask is also a science in itself.
[Edited at 2013-09-25 15:55 GMT]
| | | | Rita Pang
Canada
Local time: 08:11
Member (2011)
Chinese to English
+ ...
Moderator of this forum | Bravo, Yuliang | Sep 26, 2013 |
Yan Yuliang wrote:
Interestingly, native speakers may also have difficulty understanding this text.
I asked this question on wordreference.com, and an American guy gave a different explanation, although he did not notice the 10% restriction.
Therefore I need to confirm, further, until I get an answer that seems convincing to me.
Native speakers are not always right. I, as a Chinese, dare not say that what I write is perfectly understandable by every other Chinese. So why can't I doubt that the source text is wrong?
If one has already assumed that the source text is correct, then he/she would try to prove it right. However, is anybody 100% sure that it is error-free?
Maybe that American guy did not receive proper eduction in writing, I guess. So I need to ask others.
[修改时间: 2013-09-24 17:24 GMT]
Yuliang, 你小心求证的态度是值得我们都去学习的。你在这里一直克制的讨论也让这有意思的议题一直延伸。可是我真的要side with Phil on this one - this truly is instantaneously understood. Increments simply mean "multiples of" (now someone might jump out and pick at me for using "multiples" here as a substitute, and frankly, I don't have a better alternative right here and now in my head), but truth of the matter is, this was a very straight-forward piece of text. Not flawless in terms of using the most effective language, possibly, but looking at the context (an auction) and the fact that this is regarding a bid, increments for me automatically translates to "person A raises their hand, price jumps up by that particular increment, and so on and so forth".
That being said, however, I think your attitude to verify is worth applauding for. On a side note, Wordreference.com is a great site which I use quite frequently, but I can't say I am a huge fan of some of the discussion forums there- there are definitely gems there, but I wouldn't rely on the occurrence of one lone American and relate that as "not all native speakers can get this right away" (nationality is really not at all a matter of importance here, as we all know one's fluency in a certain language is mostly related to education and the environment he/she is exposed to, instead of being able to wear the American hat or else).
We might be jumping onto the bandwagon again on the whole topic of native speakers and L1 and L2 and second language acquisition and all that, so I'll stop here. If anyone is interested in the whole definition of the terms, I believe there was a massive thread somewhere on Proz about this.
| | | | Yan Yuliang
Local time: 20:11
English to Chinese
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | It simply does not make sense | Sep 26, 2013 |
Hello Rita,
Thank you for your reply.
Literally, the source text is easy to understand. The 200, 500 and 800 are not increments, of course. I'm OK with this from the very beginning.
However, the two questions I have raised are:
1. Why start with 4,200 in the first example, and start with 32,000 and 320,000 in the next two examples?
2. I would accept increment pattens like 3,200, 3,500, 3,800, 4,100, 4,400, 4,700, 5,000. In this way, the first 20... See more Hello Rita,
Thank you for your reply.
Literally, the source text is easy to understand. The 200, 500 and 800 are not increments, of course. I'm OK with this from the very beginning.
However, the two questions I have raised are:
1. Why start with 4,200 in the first example, and start with 32,000 and 320,000 in the next two examples?
2. I would accept increment pattens like 3,200, 3,500, 3,800, 4,100, 4,400, 4,700, 5,000. In this way, the first 200 is used for round-up purpose, and afterwards you just add 300 in your next bid, until the bid amount reaches 5,000. This is much simpler and makes complete sense.
So, what's the point of designing a much more complex bidding increment system?
The explanations on this thread point out that the author is deliberately making a complex system. Yes, this explanation solves the math problem. However why would someone deliberately make simpler things complex?
Take a look at the increment patterns, and tell me, as a reader/bidder, which is more acceptable to you?
3,200, 3,500, 3,800, 4,100, 4,400, 4,700, 5,000
3,200, 3,500, 3,800, 4,000, 4,200, 4,500, 4,800, 5,000
Rita Pang wrote: Yan Yuliang wrote:
Interestingly, native speakers may also have difficulty understanding this text.
I asked this question on wordreference.com, and an American guy gave a different explanation, although he did not notice the 10% restriction.
Therefore I need to confirm, further, until I get an answer that seems convincing to me.
Native speakers are not always right. I, as a Chinese, dare not say that what I write is perfectly understandable by every other Chinese. So why can't I doubt that the source text is wrong?
If one has already assumed that the source text is correct, then he/she would try to prove it right. However, is anybody 100% sure that it is error-free?
Maybe that American guy did not receive proper eduction in writing, I guess. So I need to ask others.
[修改时间: 2013-09-24 17:24 GMT] Yuliang, 你小心求证的态度是值得我们都去学习的。你在这里一直克制的讨论也让这有意思的议题一直延伸。可是我真的要side with Phil on this one - this truly is instantaneously understood. Increments simply mean "multiples of" (now someone might jump out and pick at me for using "multiples" here as a substitute, and frankly, I don't have a better alternative right here and now in my head), but truth of the matter is, this was a very straight-forward piece of text. Not flawless in terms of using the most effective language, possibly, but looking at the context (an auction) and the fact that this is regarding a bid, increments for me automatically translates to "person A raises their hand, price jumps up by that particular increment, and so on and so forth". That being said, however, I think your attitude to verify is worth applauding for. On a side note, Wordreference.com is a great site which I use quite frequently, but I can't say I am a huge fan of some of the discussion forums there- there are definitely gems there, but I wouldn't rely on the occurrence of one lone American and relate that as "not all native speakers can get this right away" (nationality is really not at all a matter of importance here, as we all know one's fluency in a certain language is mostly related to education and the environment he/she is exposed to, instead of being able to wear the American hat or else). We might be jumping onto the bandwagon again on the whole topic of native speakers and L1 and L2 and second language acquisition and all that, so I'll stop here. If anyone is interested in the whole definition of the terms, I believe there was a massive thread somewhere on Proz about this.
[修改时间: 2013-09-26 14:43 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » An Example of "Reader Orientation" | 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 » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
