| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | Debutant Thread poster: Rintaro I
|
|---|
Balasubramaniam L. 
India
Local time: 03:00
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Very well said | Jun 24, 2013 |
S. Elizabeth wrote:
...if I were to use the word "debutant" (or in my case, "debutante") to describe myself as a person making an official start as a translator, I would have to use it knowing that this would be an unconventional usage and intending to play off its conventional usage in some meaningful way (perhaps equating entry into the world of translation to entry into the competitive, dog-eat-dog world of sports). And I would need to give my readers some kind of sign or cue or clue as to my special meaning and acknowledgement that I am aware that it is an unconventional choice. In short, my usage of "debutante" in such a context would have to be "clever".
Exactly. There is very much the possibility of such a "clever" use of debutant in English, as is there of any other word which has or has not got into dictionaries.
So arguing that no "native" English speaker would ever use debutant in his writing is displaying ignorance of English.
[2013-06-24 07:09 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Hannah Doyle
France
Local time: 22:30
French to English
+ ...
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Hannah D wrote:
As to the general vibe of English not being the sole preserve of native anglophones...for the time being, there is still quite a lot of importance placed on having your English translations done by a native speaker. Obviously this is because English is not the pick and mix, off-the-cuff language many would like it to be. Maybe that will change. At the moment, that's how it is. For the time being, you can't use 'debutant' to replace the word 'beginner'. Sorry.
But that has all changed long ago. You are behind time on this.
I have no concrete statistics, but I think there are now more non-native speakers of English than native speakers. And I don't mean people who have studied English for a few years at college and who can understand most of what is written in it and speak a smattering of the language sufficient to communicate what they want to say. But I mean those whose competency over English is equal to that of the best native speakers of English and better than that of the average native English speaker.
Naturally what they (the non-native speakers) do with English will affect and shape the language as a whole, by sheer statistical pressure. However galling this may be to the original natives of English, that unfortunately is the reality. The sooner this is faced, the sooner you can come out a false sense of security.
Having said that, I see no reason why native speakers of English should feel threatened by non native professionals of English. They should welcome the competition and join hands with their non native linguistic compatriots to shape English to make it the most vibrant and expressive language in the world.
''But I mean those whose competency over English is equal to that of the best native speakers of English and better than that of the average native English speaker.''
I think a lot of people with nearly perfect English as a second language have this hang-up of being ''equal to'' or ''better'' than the native masses. People often bring this point up. And they're nearly always referring to people who speak a variety of English that has been influenced by where they grew up.
The thing is (to me at least!), a variety of English like that will always be more acceptable to my ear than a close to flawless variety of English that is a second language. In other words, ''it was me what done it'' is ''better English'' to me than ''In actual fact, one would have to consider the context within which one was to begin life as a debutant translator.''
| | | | Kay Denney
France
Local time: 22:30
French to English
| higher and lesser mortals? | Jun 24, 2013 |
First of all I take exception to the "higher and lesser mortals". A person who cannot write poetry is in no way inferior to a poet.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Jack Doughty wrote:
The use of "debutant" in the male form is virtually unknown to English native speakers.
It does not follow, from this, that, so people should not use debutant.
Excuse me, the fact that English people wouldn't understand a word is not a reason for avoiding it? Don't you think that the main point of writing is to put a message across and for the readers to understand it?
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
All languages have infinite possibilities and all words, whatever their dictionary meaning, have inherent in them the possibility of being used in a sense that is not captured by dictionaries or current usage.
If that were not so, dictionaries would not be seeing changes over the years, and once made, they would stand like writings on stone for all time to come. But we all know that this is true neither of dictionaries nor of grammar rules.
Creative users of a language, wring out of words what meaning they want , and words and their meanings are like putty in their hands to be shaped into whatever they please.
It is the lesser mortals who play by the rules and fearfully peep into the dictionary before every word they use.
No, that is not the way to use language. I would recommend people to lose their fear of grammar and dictionaries, and take language and words boldly in both hands and make what they want to make with them.
Of course, this advice is only for the higher mortals, who know what languages are and what they can do, and which rules of grammar are sacred and which can be creatively broken.
Of course, I am also not arguing that the OP should emulate this advice.
I do love and whole-heartedly agree with your ode to creative language but as I said before (but nobody will have seen it because my messages are taking time to be cleared by the moderators),
A translator's job is to put a message across and the OP clearly failed in this, since we hadn't a clue what the thread was going to be about until we clicked on it.
Of course the OP might have argued that it was a clever ploy to attract us to yet another thread about someone starting out, but he instead chose to change the title of the thread!
Translators can innovate of course but in the normal run of things, we should choose words that the reader already knows and recognises, in known and recognisable settings. With the exception of transcreation (where your ode to creative flair would be highly appropriate, but someone who is asking about CAT tools is hardly likely to specialised in that), we need to use language that puts the message across without drawing attention to itself.
We're criticising the usage of "debutant" because apart from the occasional gentle semantic boxing like here and in the "less recent" thread about grammar, there's not really much sport on Proz. And it's only the first of the very many mistakes littering the post of a person who thinks his English is not only good enough to translate from it but also into it.
The misplaced presumption of capability is really rather an insult to our talent and the hard work we have all put in it learning to express ourselves well.
[Edited at 2013-06-24 09:37 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:30
Hebrew to English
| Call it Globish | Jun 24, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
I have always had problems with the definition of "native" in native language.
Yes, I know you have.
To me the word "native" is strongly suggestive of a geographical point of origin.
Yes, unfortunate that.
And if we define native language in this sense, the only people who are technically competent to call themselves native speakers of English are those who belong to that geographical area where English originated - the few islands of UK, excluding perhaps Ireland, Scotland and Welsh which speak other languages.
No! You're allowing your anti-British prejudice to cloud your logic. It means that only people who actually ARE native speakers are technically competent to call themselves native speakers [i.e. people from America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, not to mention those raised by native-English speaking parents in non-English speaking countries].
All others, including the Irish, Scot, Welsh, the Americans, Indians, Australians - the whole lot - speak English and use it as a non-native language.
Don't be silly. [Although for many Indians, English is a non-native language by virtue of having learnt it as a non-native language long after their L1)].
And as an aside, I am intrigued by your inclusion of South Africa in the list. South Africa is by no stretch of imagination an English speaking country. It is a multi-lingual country where many languages are spoken. Even during the apartheid regime English and Afrikans [sic] were the dominant languages of the regime.
Exactly. A dominant language. Ergo, an English-speaking area.
And the converse is also true - just because a word is in the dictionary, it does not mean that you should not use it.
I never said you shouldn't. Unfortunately, we're not arguing the converse.
Now...........
The "natives" of English come to the language with a lot of cultural and historical baggage, idiosyncrasies and downright irrationalities. When others use English they are not constrained to take English, as if it is a package deal with all its warts and uglinesses.[sic] They have the creative freedom to take a more scientific, rational approach to it and dump much of the unwanted baggage.
Of course, they also have the right to introduce of their own much cultural and historical baggage, idiosyncrasis and downright irrationalities into the English they use, and others equally have the liberty to dump what they don't find useful.
Any creative user of any language will know that this is a statement that expresses how a language functions and how masters of languages use it for their purposes.
"Cultural and historical baggage" ....ALL languages have these Bala, strip these away and what do you have - Esperanto.
No thanks.
If you want to take English, strip away this "cultural and historical baggage", mangle and deform it and then claim ownership of that "product", then by all means, please do so.
Just don't call it English.
You also seem to use "cultural and historical baggage, idiosyncrasies and downright irrationalities" as a negative which is like a ball and chain on the ankle of a native speaker, yet you use the same phrase as a virtue for non-native speakers who can apparently and magically take them or leave them [interesting hypothesis, but not rooted in reality]. You can't have it both ways.
Additionally, you also seem to conveniently overlook the fact that non-native speakers have their own "cultural and historical baggage, idiosyncrasies and downright irrationalities" from their own languages, it's called L1 interference.
its warts and uglinesses [sic]
I must say, as a trained linguist, that this statement is chilling and reveals a lack of linguistic knowledge, awareness and sensitivity. It's also borderline offensive when being used to refer to my native language.
I would reiterate Wendell Rickett once again here:
"How have we come to consider it acceptable for English to be treated, unlike any other language you could name, as if it had no country or history—as if, that is, it “belonged” to anyone with access to it? How have we let English be kidnapped, stripped of context and meaning, and “simplified” rather than preserved as a cultural treasure and celebrated for its richness? How, in short, is it possible for English to be so widely used (in more than one sense of the word) and, at the same time, so ruthlessly disrespected?"
http://aiic.net/page/3711/please-mind-the-gap-defending-english-against-passive-translation/lang/1
...and no, the answer is simply not "colonialism".
[Edited at 2013-06-24 10:07 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Hannah D wrote:
Well yes, but then that makes quite a lot of sense, doesn't it? For debutant to be used for politicans and actors, I mean - it's about making your first public 'showing'. Hardly appropriate in this context.
I think your comment on colonialism is slightly irrelevant. Let's see if there are any Americans/Australians/other anglophones who would use 'debutant' this way.
I have never even heard of “debutant” being an English word before I read this thread. But I don’t read sports news; perhaps that’s why.
If I saw it being used for an actor or politician I’d have just assumed it’s a French word. Canada is a bilingual country after all.
Ty Kendall wrote:
I would reiterate Wendell Rickett once again here:
"How have we come to consider it acceptable for English to be treated, unlike any other language you could name, as if it had no country or history—as if, that is, it “belonged” to anyone with access to it? How have we let English be kidnapped, stripped of context and meaning, and “simplified” rather than preserved as a cultural treasure and celebrated for its richness? How, in short, is it possible for English to be so widely used (in more than one sense of the word) and, at the same time, so ruthlessly disrespected?"
http://aiic.net/page/3711/please-mind-the-gap-defending-english-against-passive-translation/lang/1
I love that reference to “simplified”, in quotes.
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 21:30
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| Thank you, thank you, thank you, Ty! | Jun 24, 2013 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The "natives" of English come to the language with a lot of cultural and historical baggage, idiosyncrasies and downright irrationalities. When others use English they are not constrained to take English, as if it is a package deal with all its warts and uglinesses.[sic] They have the creative freedom to take a more scientific, rational approach to it and dump much of the unwanted baggage.
Of course, they also have the right to introduce of their own much cultural and historical baggage, idiosyncrasis and downright irrationalities into the English they use, and others equally have the liberty to dump what they don't find useful.
"Cultural and historical baggage" ....ALL languages have these Bala, strip these away and what do you have - Esperanto.
You also seem to use "cultural and historical baggage, idiosyncrasies and downright irrationalities" as a negative which is like a ball and chain on the ankle of a native speaker, yet you use the same phrase as a virtue for non-native speakers who can apparently and magically take them or leave them [interesting hypothesis, but not rooted in reality]. You can't have it both ways.
In that well-expressed response you've said exactly what I wanted to say but would have expressed in terms that would probably have had the moderators down on me like a ton of bricks.
I don't know why so many people like to disparage the long and complex evolution of English before this very recent global-communication era. But to claim the absolute right to impose the idiosyncracies and downright irrationalities of their own languages on it is insufferable, IMO. If people like to claim that their grasp of English is "equal to that of the best native speakers of English and better than that of the average native English speaker" (to quote Bala), shouldn't they at least show some respect for the language, even if they don't respect its true native speakers?
| | | | Suzan Hamer
Netherlands
Local time: 22:30
English
+ ...
S. Elizabeth wrote:
As for "debutant", I also have only heard this used in the female form and only in reference to debutante balls. In fact what popped into mind when I read the title of your post was a powder-blue taffeta ball gown and the first thing I wondered was why the "e" was left off. I am not a sports fan, so had not come across its use in that arena.
.... if I were to use the word "debutant" (or in my case, "debutante") to describe myself as a person making an official start as a translator, I would have to use it knowing that this would be an unconventional usage and intending to play off its conventional usage in some meaningful way (perhaps equating entry into the world of translation to entry into the competitive, dog-eat-dog world of sports). And I would need to give my readers some kind of sign or cue or clue as to my special meaning and acknowledgement that I am aware that it is an unconventional choice. In short, my usage of "debutante" in such a context would have to be "clever". Otherwise it would just be bad, careless, sloppy writing.
.
| | | | Kirsten Bodart
United Kingdom
Local time: 22:30
Dutch to English
+ ...
| Gosh, for it 'not being used' | Jun 24, 2013 |
there are surprisingly many hits for comedians, politicians and authors on supposedly native English websites. Admittedly, fewer from the UK, but a nice lot from Australia and New Zealand (apart from those from India and other countries). Surely, it's not all the immigrants, Aboriginals and Maoris who wrote those entries, or are they?
Incidentally, my husband, also an EFL teacher for about 15 years now, overall respected in his team and by his upper level students for his vocab and ... See more there are surprisingly many hits for comedians, politicians and authors on supposedly native English websites. Admittedly, fewer from the UK, but a nice lot from Australia and New Zealand (apart from those from India and other countries). Surely, it's not all the immigrants, Aboriginals and Maoris who wrote those entries, or are they?
Incidentally, my husband, also an EFL teacher for about 15 years now, overall respected in his team and by his upper level students for his vocab and knowledge, and a 100% UK native speaker of English, has no problem with this word. The reply a page back was from the native of this profile, not from the non-native.
In fact, I, as the non-native in this family would go with the argument that the word would be 'clever' rather than wrong. As you could read, my husband even thought this word was fine. Went as far as saying that outlawing any word, because it is not mainstream is impoverishing the language.
'Especially' in the dictionary definition means it is used more often in a sports context, but not exclusively.
To be fair, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, this word has been in the English language in its male form since 1824 and particularly referred to a speaker or performer making his first appearance. Hence why the Indians still use it now in this context. It was also used for billiards and bowls.
Saying that, it is now being used in an adjectival context mainly for people, but seems to also start out as proper adjective. You've got debutant drivers, debutant models, debutant authors, debutant directors and also debutant drugs and debutant prizes.
Therefore, saying that this word is not used is a bit hasty. Maybe we should settle for 'debutant translator' instead.
If Jeremy Paxman were to use the word tonight or tomorrow on Newsnight, no-one would bat an eyelid. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:30
Portuguese to English
+ ...
| Batting of eyelids | Jun 24, 2013 |
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
If Jeremy Paxman were to use the word tonight or tomorrow on Newsnight, no-one would bat an eyelid.
I would. I'd think he was being ironic.
| | | | | Another 5 examples | Jun 24, 2013 |
Another five examples of "debutant" being used in headlines by UK publications, including in a non-sporting context, so I think we can safely say that "debutant" is widely used in English, despite what some British native English speakers here might ... See more
| | | | Gül Kaya
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:30
Turkish to English
+ ...
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
If Jeremy Paxman were to use the word tonight or tomorrow on Newsnight, no-one would bat an eyelid.
I would. I'd think he was being ironic.
More than that, he would sneer in its face and make it flee the studio in fear. But that's just Jeremy. He has a way.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:30
Hebrew to English
| Google hits beware | Jun 24, 2013 |
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
there are surprisingly many hits for comedians, politicians and authors on supposedly native English websites.
I'm always very cautious about using Ghits as a corpus. As that age old adage goes: "anyone can write any old poo on the internet".
I wasn't so absolute in my post - it is indeed used, but in extremely restricted contexts, i.e. in both UK and US it was shown to be pretty much limited to sports (in its masculine form, the feminine form was almost entirely restricted to debutante balls).
As our American colleague S.Elizabeth pointed out (and I alluded to somewhere) its use could indicate an attempt to be "clever" or "amusing". However, this takes some pretty higher-level linguistic manipulation, which is not completely the sole preserve of native speakers - extremely highly proficient non-natives are also capable of this, but given the quality of the original post [it's full of errors, yet we're all debating "debutant"] I don't believe the OP possesses this level of linguistic proficiency (no offence) so I would hazard a guess here that the usage in this case is simply misguided, at the very least it has proven to be unsuccessful [with so many native speakers questioning it].
Furthermore, I also think the nuance is being swept under the carpet. "Debutant" is not a direct synonym of "beginner". "Debutant" denotes someone who is making their "debut" (they may or may not be a "beginner", but they are making their first appearance as such - which is why it is used in sporting contexts as I also showed earlier:
"Lions 2013: Australia debutant Israel Folau targeted by Gatland".... was the headline, that is because Israel Folau is a professional athlete and former rugby player but he was making his (re) debut in a rugby game, i.e. he was a debutant but not a beginner.
Now, no doubt someone will try to argue that is indeed what he meant given that he said: "I'm a debutant for translation career, technically and specifically I have done some translation jobs for 3 years." However, I still think it's a bit of a stretch, not least because the 'technically and specifically' clause is unclear and the strange grammar of the first bit highlights the unusual lexis even more....imo it's a bit too "marked" to be 'clever', in any event, there are far better and more idiomatic ways of basically saying "This is my first foray into the translation profession" [this being just one of them].
[Edited at 2013-06-24 11:59 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| My impression | Jun 24, 2013 |
As an American, when I saw first saw the post title I thought of this. Interesting debate though, I learned some things.
| | | | | From now on, please stick to the topic as introduced | Jun 24, 2013 |
Hello all,
I'd like to remind you of forum rule http://www.proz.com/siterules/forum/4#4 which clearly states that forum participants are required to stick to the topic as introduced when responding to a topic.
In line with this rule then, I kindly ask you all to please stick to the topic as introduced from now on (advice on getting started and CAT tools). Further off-topi... See more Hello all,
I'd like to remind you of forum rule http://www.proz.com/siterules/forum/4#4 which clearly states that forum participants are required to stick to the topic as introduced when responding to a topic.
In line with this rule then, I kindly ask you all to please stick to the topic as introduced from now on (advice on getting started and CAT tools). Further off-topic posts will be removed. Thanks!
Lucia ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Debutant | 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! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
