| 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)
|
|---|
Samuel Murray 
Netherlands
Local time: 02:06
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Phil and @Nicole | Jul 22, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
This is a fair point, and worth weighing up. But the form of your argument is this:
I'm not sure we should supply partial information X because on the basis of partial information X, some clients might make assumption Y.
I think the main point of the post I was replying to was the proximity of the two piece of information on the profile page [to each other], and not the fact that the information is available.
==
Nicole Schnell wrote:
Samuel wrote:
Yes, but my point is: what is an "instructional language"?
Who knows - and is it relevant?
It is only relevant because your objection to Bernhard's suggestion hinges on it  but that's all.
[Edited at 2012-07-22 14:31 GMT]
| | | | | Natve language non-question | Jul 22, 2012 |
And on and on the discussion goes, and nothing comes out of it.
What is my grandson's native language?
Born and bred in France of parents whose first language is Swedish, but the boy speaks better French than Swedish.
His mother was born abroad of Swedish parents -- one from the far north and one from the southeast of Sweden.
His father was born in Sweden of a Swedish mother and his English father (me) -- made him automatically a British subject - he speaks ... See more And on and on the discussion goes, and nothing comes out of it.
What is my grandson's native language?
Born and bred in France of parents whose first language is Swedish, but the boy speaks better French than Swedish.
His mother was born abroad of Swedish parents -- one from the far north and one from the southeast of Sweden.
His father was born in Sweden of a Swedish mother and his English father (me) -- made him automatically a British subject - he speaks Swedish as his first language. We have always spoken Swedish in the family.
It's a rum do...
The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 18:06
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Best solution | Jul 22, 2012 |
Nobody has suggested this, probably because ProZ would never allow it, but the most effective solution would be one where translators are "motivated" to be honest by the reaction of colleagues. If ProZ members/users were allowed to publicly contest native language claims when it is clear from a profile, forum postings or KudoZ participation that the claim is inaccurate, those inaccurate claims would be less likely to be made.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 01:06
Hebrew to English
| Damn right they wouldn't allow it | Jul 22, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
Nobody has suggested this, probably because ProZ would never allow it, but the most effective solution would be one where translators are "motivated" to be honest by the reaction of colleagues. If ProZ members/users were allowed to publicly contest native language claims when it is clear from a profile, forum postings or KudoZ participation that the claim is inaccurate, those inaccurate claims would be less likely to be made.
It would show a lack of "mutual respect". 
Unfortunately that rule presupposes that everyone is automatically entitled to such respect. I would contend that the charlatans amongst us are not really worthy of it.
[Edited at 2012-07-22 19:29 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 18:06
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
Ty Kendall wrote:
It would show a lack of "mutual respect".
How much respect is being shown to colleagues and the site by those who are dishonest? And how much loss of respect is suffered by the site from dishonest claims?
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 01:06
Hebrew to English
| Couldn't agree more | Jul 22, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
Ty Kendall wrote:
It would show a lack of "mutual respect".
How much respect is being shown to colleagues and the site by those who are dishonest? And how much loss of respect is suffered by the site from dishonest claims?
But the chances of them allowing it....about as much chance as a man with a wooden leg in a forest fire.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 09:06
Chinese to English
| Or we could just try the ducking stool | Jul 23, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
Nobody has suggested this, probably because ProZ would never allow it, but the most effective solution would be one where translators are "motivated" to be honest by the reaction of colleagues. If ProZ members/users were allowed to publicly contest native language claims when it is clear from a profile, forum postings or KudoZ participation that the claim is inaccurate, those inaccurate claims would be less likely to be made.
Throw the translator into the water, and if they shout for help in that language, throw them in again just to make sure. It's the only way.
Seriously, Michele, that's a terrible idea. This is the internet. Courtesy drops away pretty quickly. Public accusations would just lead to massive flame wars. It would be nice to think that there is some group of uber-professional translator commandos out there who would remain icy calm whatever was said about them, and just defend themselves with rapier-like wit. But there aren't. There's just humans. And humans don't respond well to confrontational public accusations.
It's not being soft to call for realistic solutions. Nor is it silly to suggest a little collegiality. We'd like to self-regulate, sure. But we'd like to self-regulate *for the benefit of the profession*. If our regulatory mechanism sets translators at each others' throats (and just read this thread if you want to see how it would pan out), then we're hardly helping the profession, are we?
| | | |
Phil Hand wrote:
Seriously, Michele, that's a terrible idea. This is the internet. Courtesy drops away pretty quickly. Public accusations would just lead to massive flame wars.
... and to massive series of actions at law brought against both ProZ and the individual authors of those public accusations, namely in Europe and more particularly in France. There would be no shortage of charges : discrimination, defamation, violation of the Law on personal data protection, etc...
It would be nice to think that there is some group of uber-professional translator commandos out there who would remain icy calm whatever was said about them, and just defend themselves with rapier-like wit. But there aren't. There's just humans. And humans don't respond well to confrontational public accusations.
It's not being soft to call for realistic solutions. Nor is it silly to suggest a little collegiality. We'd like to self-regulate, sure. But we'd like to self-regulate *for the benefit of the profession*. If our regulatory mechanism sets translators at each others' throats (and just read this thread if you want to see how it would pan out), then we're hardly helping the profession, are we?
You are absolutely right.
Have a great day
Catherine
[Edited at 2012-07-23 08:57 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 02:06
Italian to English
In memoriam | Anyone for a spot of libel tourism? | Jul 23, 2012 |
Catherine GUILLIAUMET wrote:
... and to massive series of actions at law brought against both ProZ and the individual authors of those public accusations, namely in Europe and more particularly in France.
At the moment, London might be a more lucrative jurisdiction in which to pursue claims of defamation, particularly if you need a "no win, no fee" deal, but your point is entirely valid!
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 18:06
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| A simple solution | Jul 23, 2012 |
Let members/users declare one native language. If a member/user wants to declare a second native language, the burden of proof that the second native language claim is true should be borne by the member/user. Let him or her submit whatever evidence in support of the claim he or she wishes. Let the claim be evaluated by ProZ with the help of native speakers of the second declared language.
| | | | | Seemingly... | Jul 23, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
Let members/users declare one native language. If a member/user wants to declare a second native language, the burden of proof that the second native language claim is true should be borne by the member/user.
...there are those making false claims on the one and only native language they do claim.
So there can be no assumption that the first language claimed is most probably the truth in all circs, leaving us to focus here on false claims of bilingualism/total mastery of 2 tongues.
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 18:06
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
Charlie Bavington wrote:
...there are those making false claims on the one and only native language they do claim.
Yes, but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Part of the problem is that it is just too easy to declare a second native language. Making it more difficult would dissuade many from making a false claim.
Rather than verifying native language claims, ProZ would accept native language claims. The first one automatically, and the second one with supporting evidence.
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble wrote:
Yes, but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Part of the problem is that it is just too easy to declare a second native language. Making it more difficult would dissuade many from making a false claim.
Rather than verifying native language claims, ProZ would accept native language claims. The first one automatically, and the second one with supporting evidence.
At last, one constructive thought ! It's much better and wiser than most of the sophisticated, complex, rather illegal and non-cost-effective measures considered so far.
Catherine
| | | | Kirsten Bodart
United Kingdom
Local time: 02:06
Dutch to English
+ ...
| We have had that pne already, though | Jul 23, 2012 |
I seem to remember it has already been discussed and found to be open to as much abuse as the present system.
That was several pages ago.
I gave as an example that that way, I could claim German as my native language tomorrow (as I live in Germany, I could fool people that way-) and that that claim would not even be verified, because it is the only one, yet I would still be a fraud.
Those who insist on fraudulent second native languages could reduce their claims t... See more I seem to remember it has already been discussed and found to be open to as much abuse as the present system.
That was several pages ago.
I gave as an example that that way, I could claim German as my native language tomorrow (as I live in Germany, I could fool people that way-) and that that claim would not even be verified, because it is the only one, yet I would still be a fraud.
Those who insist on fraudulent second native languages could reduce their claims to the one, possibly most prfitable language.
If we are talking verification, we should either verify all claims or none of them.
By the way, I realise my last post was sloppy (I was in a hurry). That's no reason to presume I always write that way. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | So plus ça change...... | Jul 23, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
Charlie Bavington wrote:
...there are those making false claims on the one and only native language they do claim.
Yes, but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Part of the problem is that it is just too easy to declare a second native language. Making it more difficult would dissuade many from making a false claim.
Rather than verifying native language claims, ProZ would accept native language claims. The first one automatically, and the second one with supporting evidence.
This will mean it's still just as easy to lie about one's native language. So instead of tacking on a second language, they will only list the language they find the easiest and most lucrative to translate into, regardless of whether or not it IS their native language. That is what many have done up to now, only now it will become officially ok?
And here we are, back to where we started......
| | | | | 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? | 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 » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
