同業擠兌何日休 — 論胡亂校對 Thread poster: Kenneth Woo
|
|---|
我平素翻譯十分認真，遇到不懂之處必定小心查證，或請教英美友人，雖然自問乃無名之輩，但譯文極少有硬傷，還遇到一部分譯社的客戶指定請我翻譯。
因校對者把我的譯文貶得一無是處，入行十三年來，最近破天荒第一次被翻譯公司扣稿費，開始要扣50%，經我據理力爭，結果仍扣25%，令人氣憤至極。
胡亂校對的情況我迄今遇到過幾次，但都沒有這次離�... See more 我平素翻譯十分認真，遇到不懂之處必定小心查證，或請教英美友人，雖然自問乃無名之輩，但譯文極少有硬傷，還遇到一部分譯社的客戶指定請我翻譯。
因校對者把我的譯文貶得一無是處，入行十三年來，最近破天荒第一次被翻譯公司扣稿費，開始要扣50%，經我據理力爭，結果仍扣25%，令人氣憤至極。
胡亂校對的情況我迄今遇到過幾次，但都沒有這次離譜。
2014年左右，我受託給澳洲一家譯社翻譯遊樂園海報。譯好之後，譯社請人校對，隨後又把校樣用電子郵件發給我，請我過目定稿。在郵件中，譯社稱校對者對我的譯文評價非常高，我很開心，但打開校樣一看，裡面有好些地方改壞了，甚至有少許地方明顯改錯了，心裡不免不快，一是因為許多改動根本不必，尤其把對的改錯，更是不應該，二是因為我需要無償把原本正確而被改錯了的地方又改回來，時間花得冤枉。花了一個小時左右修訂，接納了少許改動，其餘全部撤回，最後譯社用了我的版本。
2018年左右，一家英國譯社請我翻譯衛生潔具方面的文件，裡頭專業術語頗多，有些十分生僻，為了翻譯正確，我逐一小心查證，甚至還閱讀了一些潔具生產工藝方面的文章。文件譯好交出去，不久譯社給我發來校樣，請我過目定稿。不看不要緊，看了有些不快，校對者不懂文中術語，把我苦心查證的潔具術語改成了冶金學術語。我告訴項目經理，改動基本未予採納，並說明了原因。項目經理開始很不滿意，認為無法跟客戶交差（原話是：「I am sure you will appreciate this is a difficult thing to approach the client with.」），於是我又舉了幾個例子，並告訴她，舉例證明客戶提供的譯文錯誤，我的譯文正確，十分耗時，如果需要更多例子，需要收費。兩天之後，項目經理來函告訴我，客戶自己承認不懂潔具生產術語（原話是：「They admitted that they didn’t have the technical know-how to update your terminology and they were happy to go with your updated files」）。
又去年，另外一家英國譯社請我當判官。原來，他們一位譯者的文件遭遇投訴，被貶得一文不值（原話是：「The client has made allegations that it is unusable, according to their Chinese market.」）。我打開文件，發現原譯雖有少許問題，但質量尚可，倒是所謂修訂版，錯漏百出，把人家許多原本對的地方都改錯了。
舉幾個例子：
原文：take criticism personally
原譯：認為批評是在針對自己
校樣：自我批評
原文：As people who “aim to please,”
原譯：作為討好導向的人
校樣：是「與人方便」之人
原譯固非佳譯，但意思貼近原文，而校樣則與原文意思大相徑庭。此外，該部分是句子開頭，校對者如此翻譯，直接令句子成了一個不合文法的斷頭句，沒有主語。
原文： develop thicker skins over the course of their career
原譯：在他們的職業生涯中會變得更加堅強
校樣：在他們的職業生涯中會發展的更加堅強
原文：most likely to be a celebrity musician
原譯：最有可能成為名人音樂家
校樣：最有可能是天生音樂家
原文：most likely to develop instant rapport with a stranger
原譯：最有可能與陌生人快速熟絡起來
校樣：最有可能與陌生人快速的熟絡
這樣的例子還有許多。除此之外，校對者在校對時根本漫不經心，不僅把正確的譯文改錯，還帶進來不少錯別字和重複標點（兩個逗號或者兩個句號在一起）。然而，就是就是這樣的校對者，反而跟客戶說譯者的譯文一塌糊塗。後來，我如實告訴了譯社情況，為譯者平了反，並提醒譯社：「On a final note, when a customer files a complaint, it is best to ask him/her to be specific by explaining in detail why certain expressions or sentences are problematic. If customers are required to do so, their linguists may think twice before deciding whether a change is really necessary, especially when they are not entirely sure about the meaning of the English. Many customers do not have very experienced in-house linguists and are prone to making ill-informed allegations based on the number and extent of the changes made to the delivered work.」若譯社沒有請人評判，或者所託非人，這位譯者很可能一分錢也拿不到，白忙活一場。
沒想到這種事最近落在了我自己頭上。文件是醫療消毒產品資料，目標語言是香港中文，除一些病菌名稱，並無多少艱深術語，我自認為大體上還翻譯得不錯，不料到半月之後，項目經理發來一封郵件，稱客戶指責我的譯文不符合正體中文市場口味（not aimed at the Traditional Chinese reader），某些地方或不地道（sound foreign，根據他的解釋，就是literal; direct），或措辭陳腐(outdated)，或用詞超長（long phrases），或拗口難懂（hard to comprehend），或屬於直譯硬譯（literal; direct translation），並附有若干例子。我針對各個例子據理反駁，而後，項目經理便請了一位判官來評卷。平心而論，也算公道了，但判官的總體結論是，有些改動的確可有可無，但大部分改動使得譯文在準確性和可讀性有改善，也更正式（more formal）。又說我，括號用錯（wrong use of the brackets），文句冗長（wordy），自由發揮（over-translated），誤譯(mistranslated)。一下判了我死刑。
因為原文不便貼出，這裡姑且貼出我針對判官所有具體評語的回應，以及我針對校對者在某一文件開頭兩百字所作所有改動的評論（校對者所作改動極多，且經常表面大刪，而實際改動很小，只更改個別字詞，限於時間，我只回應該文件開頭的改動）。可惜，項目經理對校對者和判官的話深信不疑，根本不屑看我的這些回應。
註：
1. 評 = assessor’s comment
2. 駁 = counter-comment
3. 駁校 = comment on reviewer’s change
4. 有的駁條下列有a、b、c，但每一駁條只指針對一個句子。
5. The second translator指的就是校對者。
評1: The revised version adds book title mark, which complies with the Chinese specification better, but I think an English annotation should be added after the article name as a further revise.
駁1: This is the legend of the microbial tolerance to disinfectants table, not a cited article or book name. For this reason, book marks, which are used only when someone cites a book or article, are not applicable here.
評2：The revised version changes the Chinese brackets into English ones, which complies with the written specification better, and also in this sentence the original translation have some unnecessary words.
駁2：
a. We are translating into Chinese rather than English and this is good reason Chinese punctuation marks should be used. Others may use English brackets but that’s purely a stylistic choice; and
b. By stating that ‘the original translation have some unnecessary words’, the assessor may be implying that the word ‘italic’ , with a line across in the middle, appears twice in my translation. This is something that was generated when the second translator removed the formatting, which was italic, of course, from the original Chinese text. Unfortunately, by doing this, the second translator introduced a mistake as it is common sense in scholarship that Latin names must be italicised in print. Furthermore, the removal of the formatting was inconsistent throughout all the documents.
評3：The revised version is more accurate, and the original version is over translated
駁3：‘Modified’ means there are very small changes and that’s exactly what ‘略有修訂’ means – if necessary look up the word ‘modify’ in a dictionary. On the other hand, while I have no problem with ‘修訂版’ which means revised version, I see no need for the change.
I’d also like to point out that like a revised version, a 修訂版 can include changes ranging from minor ones/modifications to extensive, chunky deletions and additions. In some cases, it may even involve the removal or addition of whole chapters, or massive expansions.
評4：The original translation is more accurate.
駁4：It is not just more accurate. The amended version is wrong. It means 6x the surface coverage.
評5：The revised version is more accurate, and it seems that the original translator does not understand the source sentence.
駁5：I didn’t misunderstand the English text. The intended meaning is pretty clear from the context. I didn’t use ‘接觸面積更大’ , as the second translator did, or any similar expression because I didn’t want to repeat the idea in the following texts. Here ‘each wipe’ can be interpreted in two ways, i.e. the disinfecting fabric or a wiping movement with the material and both interpretations make sense. ‘每次擦拭都不一般’ simply implies it is better or more effective than other similar products.
註：原文是「Each wipe goes further.」
評6：The revised version is more readable, and the original translation is just literal translation
駁6：This is a valid point. The revised version is better.
評7：The revised version is more accurate
駁7：It is not more accurate, but merely a matter of word choice. ‘電郵’ may be more common than ‘郵箱’ but the latter is used by major HK newspapers including 文匯報 and 明報, as well as book stores, such as 香港中華書局. links: …
註：在香港，確實「電郵」通行一些，但我認為用「郵箱」並非什麼大問題。
評8：The revised version is better, and the original one is literal translation
駁8：‘Sales aid’ is a business term. It refers to the material that sales reps distribute to prospects to offer product information or enhance sales presentations. It should be mentioned, however, that sales aids are visual in nature, generally supported by a concise copy, and often presented in face-to-face meetings. Some are as simple as individual slides, while others are more interactive. In other words, a sales aid can be a ‘宣傳小冊子’, i.e. a publicity pamphlet, but often this may not be the case. In my humble opinion, it is highly risky to take liberties when translating such specialised terms as you would either substantially broaden or in this case, narrow down their scope.
Translating specialised terms as they are is standard and safe practice and the translation would be self-explanatory in the context even if the translated term is a new introduction to the target language.
It may be worth mentioning that in today’s Chinese, ‘助手’ can be used metaphorically to refer to a tool which you use to achieve something. I see nothing wrong with translating ‘sales aid’ as ‘銷售助手’.
評9：The revised version is more formal
駁9：The word ‘me’ is presumably the text for an icon or hyperlink. In an Internet context, it’s perfectly fine to translate ‘me’ as ‘我’, i.e. the Chinese character for the English pronoun. Surely, you can '開啟' an era but it would sound more than bizarre if you try to 開啟a video clip or a slide presentation. Furthermore, the second translator used '開啟' as an intransitive verb, thereby omitting 'me' and making the meaning of the sentence a bit vague. This is a bad decision as the visitor would be left wondering, open, but open what.
評10：The revised word is a standard use
駁10：This is the simplified version of 註. My bad.
評11：The revised version better complies with the HK style and the translation of “collateral” is more accurate
駁11： a. ‘連接’ is a typo in the original translation so it’s indeed a mistake; and
b. In a business context, collateral means something that is related. Here it specifically refers to Bynder, ‘a platform that enables teams to collaborate in the cloud, get content to market faster, and maximize the impact of marketing assets.’ I’m afraid here we cannot say Bynder is ‘宣傳資料’, i.e. publicity material, as both the second translator and the assessor put it.
駁校1：
a. The second translator added something that doesn’t exist there by inserting ‘消毒’ right before ‘拭巾’ throughout all the documents, which is fine in this case as the wipes are for disinfection purposes but this change is unnecessary;
b. The second translator skipped 'persistent' in the revision and again added something that doesn't exist there, i.e. '蔓延', or in English the spread of an infectious disease;
c. In the original translation, '呵護健康更勝一籌' is used as the translation for 'unbeatable protection'. Again, the second translator removed it, leaving this phrase untranslated.
駁校2:
a. Changing '用於' to '適用於' is fine but unnecessary.
b. The second translator changed my original translation of '疫期' to '疫情期間'. Granted, many people use the phrase today but it's a very bad phrase. Correctly speaking, 疫, which means an epidemic or plague, and 情 status or state, when combined, refer to the state of an epidemic. Using '疫情期間' is pretty much like saying 'during the state of the epidemic'; and
c. How '為人員多添一層保護' is problematic as a translation for 'provide an extra level of protection' is a mystery to me as this is what we say and write every day. Translating this as 'an ideal option', as done by the second translator, may sound fancy. But this is a deviation from the original text! Although this can be tolerated to some extent, it should not be encouraged, unless the client has made it crystal clear that what they want is transcreation.
駁校3:
a. Again, the second translator added something that doesn’t exist there, i.e. ‘特別’;
b. The collocation, i.e. ‘添加配方’ doesn’t work for me in this context;
c. In the amended version, ‘特別’ and ‘獨特’ are put together, which doesn’t sound good.
註：校對者把我的譯文貶得一文不值，我也是生氣了。b條其實也算不上問題，所涉原文實際上是說把消毒劑（formula，也就是按照配方配好的消毒劑）放到消毒布裡頭；c條有略微誇大之嫌，但胡亂加詞是真的。
駁校4：
a. The second translator removed the Chinese text for ‘The wipes are supplied dry’, leaving the translation incomplete! (It seems he/she moved this part to the next string)
b. ‘沾水’ and ‘濕水’ are interchangeable but the former is more common. Again, I see no point in the change.
駁校5：
Because the second translator removed that part mentioned above, this sentence sounds abrupt by implying at its start that those wipes are supplied dry.
b. The amended version ‘（其）設計可確保在接近中性的pH環境中製造’ is puzzling. Readers would be left wondering, 製造, but 製造what?
註：文章講的是消毒乾巾，因為是乾的，所以可在接近中性的pH環境下製造。
駁校6：
a. Regarding ‘消毒’ and ‘濕水’, these have been covered before so there’s no need to elaborate; :
b. There’s no need to add ‘後’, although it's fine;
c. ‘生成’ is the standard chemical term used in textbooks. Why the second translator changed it into ‘產生’, although it’s fine’, is a mystery to me.
駁校7:
I see no problem with the original translation. If anything, it’s much more concise.
駁校8：
Both versions basically mean the same thing. I see no significant problem with the original version.
駁校9：
Translating ‘referred to’ as ‘引述’ is puzzling and sounds strange. To 引述 is to quote somebody or something.
今天先寫到這裡。有時間再更。
[Edited at 2022-04-15 16:19 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Jim Yuan
China
Local time: 02:34
English to Chinese
+ ...
| Jianrong Sun 
China
Local time: 02:34
Member (2019)
English to Chinese
+ ...
以英译汉为例：
对于一般性的文档，严格意义上说，95%的译者是不合格的，换句话说，只有5%的合格率；
对于专业技术文档，严格意义上说，又有95%的译者是不合格的，换句话说，只有5%*5%=0.0025%的合格率。
看看上面的数据，就不难理解这个行业的一些现象了。
| | | | ysun
United States
Local time: 13:34
English to Chinese
+ ...
Kenneth Woo wrote:
我平素翻譯十分認真，遇到不懂之處必定小心查證，或請教英美友人，雖然自問乃無名之輩，但譯文極少有硬傷，還遇到一部分譯社的客戶指定請我翻譯。
因校對者把我的譯文貶得一無是處，入行十三年來，最近破天荒第一次被翻譯公司扣稿費，開始要扣50%，經我據理力爭，結果仍扣25%，令人氣憤至極。
Kenneth，
我相信以上你对自己的评价。依我看，胡乱校对永无休止，不必太在意。胡乱校对有许多原因，我仅在此列出几种。
一是校对者确实水平比原译者要低。例如你所举的此例：
原文：most likely to be a celebrity musician
原譯：最有可能成為名人音樂家
校樣：最有可能是天生音樂家
“Celebrity musician”不就是指“名人音乐家”、“著名音乐家”吗？世界上有天才音乐家，但从来就没有什么“天生音乐家”！有谁一生下来就是音乐家？“天才音乐家”并不等于“天生音乐家”。
二是校对者觉得不作出一些修改会让翻译社觉得自己在偷懒、没干活。因此，即使原译文没什么毛病，校对者也要吹毛求疵，竭力挑出一些无中生有的瑕疵。
胡乱校对最恶劣的原因是某些校对者企图砸掉原译者的饭碗而取而代之。通常，校对的价格大致是翻译的三分之一到二分之一。在恶性竞争十分激烈的翻译界，许多人的翻译报酬只有$0.01/word。那么，校对的报酬是多少就可想而知。于是，某些品德恶劣的校对者好不容易拿到一个廉价项目，就会故意把原译文贬得一文不值，以便砸掉原译者的饭碗。我并非凭空想象，因为与你一样，我也当过裁判，见过这种情况。而且，我也遇到过几次自己的译文被人胡乱校对、而且被恶意乱评的情况。
那么，遇到自己的译文被人胡乱校对、恶意乱评的情况该怎么办？国外的翻译社大多没有懂中文的PM或译员。因此，你为自己译文申诉的“申冤书”多半还会落到那胡乱校对者手里，其结果就可想而知。在很少的情况下，翻译社才会另外花钱去找一位公正的“裁判”。当然，“申冤”还是要申的，否则就等于你默认了。你可以举出几处胡乱校对最离谱的例子，加以驳斥。你的“申冤书”不必写的太长，否则翻译社的PM连看都不会看。同时我也认为，你不必为此花费过多的时间与精力，对于“平反昭雪”也不要抱过多的希望。不过有一点，翻译社没有理由因此而扣你的稿酬，除非在你与翻译社事先签署的协议中有相应的明文规定。那翻译社有权不再用你，但不能以翻译质量不佳为借口而随意扣除稿酬。当然，那翻译社若硬要扣你的稿酬，你是被动的一方，你甚至无法去国外的法院告他，那就只好自认倒霉。但你可以采取主动的就是不再给那翻译社干活。遇到这种不规范的翻译社，你不再给他干活并非是你的损失，而是他的损失！这并非是阿Q精神，而是他从此失去了一位好翻译，而不得不去用那个品德恶劣、水平低下、胡乱校对的人充当翻译！那翻译社用这种人来充当翻译，早晚会吃到苦头！他们的苦头不只是损失几百美元、几千美元，而很可能是因此而失去一些主要的长期客户，甚至破产！
[Edited at 2022-05-03 22:05 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Kenneth Woo
China
Local time: 02:34
English to Chinese
TOPIC STARTER
謝謝Jim、Jianrong、孫前輩回應，尤其謝謝孫前輩長文分析，並介紹自己的經驗，不料您也遭遇過這種事。
入行十多年，翻譯界的亂象其實我也十分清楚，之所以寫出來，是因為不吐不快。
我一直認為，校對者的水平須比譯者高，至不濟也應旗鼓相當，但現實是，因為惡性競爭，譯社好用價低手快的譯者，初譯文字質量大多並不理想，以致許多高手不再從事�... See more 謝謝Jim、Jianrong、孫前輩回應，尤其謝謝孫前輩長文分析，並介紹自己的經驗，不料您也遭遇過這種事。
入行十多年，翻譯界的亂象其實我也十分清楚，之所以寫出來，是因為不吐不快。
我一直認為，校對者的水平須比譯者高，至不濟也應旗鼓相當，但現實是，因為惡性競爭，譯社好用價低手快的譯者，初譯文字質量大多並不理想，以致許多高手不再從事校對。校對工作，於是常常落在譯技平平的譯者手上，不出亂子才怪。但顯然，有時是操守方面的問題。
孫前輩說申冤書宜擇要辯駁，不宜太長，深以為然。我花三四個鐘頭，寫了那麼多，豈料那位項目經理根本不屑一看。我現在是心灰意冷的驚弓之鳥，都沒心思再做翻譯了。
原文：most likely to be a celebrity musician
原譯：最有可能成為名人音樂家
校樣：最有可能是天生音樂家
說到這個例子，“名人音樂家”似略嫌拗口，竊以為用“音樂名人”、“知名音樂人”好些，但不管怎樣，比校對者的譯文好多了。我真不懂校對者為什麼要這樣改，自己看都沒看懂，改別人的不心虛嗎？
就比如害得我被扣稿費的校對者和判官，兩人連“sales aid”、“collateral”的意思都沒弄明白，就敢改別人的譯文，判定別人的譯文錯誤？真是令人無語至極。
[Edited at 2022-05-04 14:22 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | ysun
United States
Local time: 13:34
English to Chinese
+ ...
Kenneth Woo wrote:
謝謝Jim、Jianrong、孫前輩回應，尤其謝謝孫前輩長文分析，並介紹自己的經驗，不料您也遭遇過這種事。
入行十多年，翻譯界的亂象其實我也十分清楚，之所以寫出來，是因為不吐不快。
小吴：
不必称我为前辈，叫我老孙即可。是啊，我也有过被人胡乱校对、恶意评论的遭遇，但次数不多。其实这很正常。凡是做过笔译的，一般都会遇到这种事，不必太在意。令人欣慰的是，在绝大部分项目上，我与校对者合作得都十分愉快。我自己一般不接校对项目。因为若遇到劣质译文，修改起来将比“清零”后自己重新翻译还费劲。通常只有在翻译者是我认识或我了解其水平的情况下，我才会接校对项目。实际上，尽管校对的费率比翻译低许多，但若遇到优质译文，单位时间内的收益会远高于翻译。
至于你举的那个 “celebrity musician”例子中，那校对者将原译改成“天生音乐家”，肯定是错误的。有些人也许是“celebrity musician”，但大器晚成，并非天生就是音乐家。即使是 "born musician"，也不宜译成“天生音乐家”。"A born musician" 是指“具有天赋的音乐家”、“天才音乐家”。
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/celebrity
celebrity
someone who is famous, especially in the entertainment business
美国德州大学奥斯汀分校约翰·班尼斯特·古迪纳夫教授（John Bannister Goodenough），于2019年97岁高龄时荣获诺贝尔化学奖。若称他为 celebrity，肯定是 Good enough 吧？但他并不是天生化学家。他小时侯甚至还患有阅读障碍症。
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Goodenough
中国有些电影演员大器晚成，到了50多岁、60多岁才成为 celebrity movie stars，但也显然不是“天生的电影明星”。
[Edited at 2022-05-05 20:15 GMT]
| | | | Jianrong Sun
China
Local time: 02:34
Member (2019)
English to Chinese
+ ...
我也遇到过类似的审核者，我采取的措施如下图。虽然比较耗时间，但却给“南郭先生”上了一堂课，结果是“南郭先生”走人。
No Source Translation Review Comment Ref.
1 OK xxxx
2 NG xxxxx
3 NG xxxx
4 NG xxxx
... See more 我也遇到过类似的审核者，我采取的措施如下图。虽然比较耗时间，但却给“南郭先生”上了一堂课，结果是“南郭先生”走人。
No Source Translation Review Comment Ref.
1 OK xxxx
2 NG xxxxx
3 NG xxxx
4 NG xxxx
[Edited at 2022-05-05 14:15 GMT]
No Source Translation Review Comment Ref.
1 OK xxxx
2 NG xxxxx
3 NG xxxx
4 NG xxxx
[Edited at 2022-05-05 14:17 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | pkchan
United States
Local time: 14:34
Member (2006)
English to Chinese
+ ...
celebrity musician=樂壇名家
celebrity movie stars=影壇明星
[Edited at 2022-05-05 19:28 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Kenneth Woo
China
Local time: 02:34
English to Chinese
TOPIC STARTER
小吴：
不必称我为前辈，叫我老孙即可。
好的。
我也遇到过类似的审核者，我采取的措施如下图。虽然比较耗时间，但却给“南郭先生”上了一堂课，结果是“南郭先生”走人。
此事有時需看運氣。就說我這次的遭遇，只要項目經理肯看一眼我開頭寫的幾則駁詞，就知道自己請的校對者和判官並不可靠。按理，譯者有權反駁，校對者和判官有義務回應。若其回應既無法證明自己的改動和結論合理，又無法推翻譯者的駁詞，就必須賠償譯者所浪費的時間和名譽上蒙受的損失。可現實是，校對者和判官只管下評論，根本不用回應譯者的駁詞。這樣的校對者和判官未免太好當。
celebrity musician=樂壇名家
celebrity movie stars=影壇明星
陳前輩出手不凡，佩服。中文的名家和英文的celebrity雖然內涵略異，但我我認為“樂壇名家”不失為一個很好的譯文，大可在語境確定的情況下使用。
中文“名家”一詞，語義很重，有兩層意思，第一層意思是知名，第二層意思是造詣極高，稱得上“家”，而英文“celebrity”僅指人很紅，廣為大眾熟知，至於相關造詣，並不涉及，所以若吹毛求疵，則“樂壇明星”似更貼近“celebrity musician”。
[Edited at 2022-05-06 04:01 GMT]
| | | | pkchan
United States
Local time: 14:34
Member (2006)
English to Chinese
+ ...
樂紅，樂壇紅人。不知馬友友是名家，明星，還是紅人，但他肯定是個 celebrity musician。
[Edited at 2022-05-06 20:43 GMT]
| | | |
中文/外文轉換領域之亂校亂譯本就是孿生兄弟，尤其是在Golden Standard不明確之時。依偶之淺見，最核心問題爲專案PM基本看不懂中文，無論簡體抑或繁體，更別提需要深厚專業背景知識的中文譯文了，因此往往依賴所謂“信任”，而不是本身過硬的語言與技術功底。有時候想想，為毛咱不能去應聘PM呢？為毛咱不能自己整個翻譯公司呢？
當然，要充任PM，英語口語要說得溜，因為客戶往往喜歡視頻溝通，口述比文字來得快。反正俺的短板在於口語聽力差，幾乎都丟光，原因無他，日常基本不用，用進廢退嘛。所以自從數次嘗試應聘PM折戟沉沙後，不再做這種無謂嘗試。畢竟口語聽力這能力并非一兩天能之功，筆譯則大有不同，多啃原文文獻即可迅速培養出可用之能力。
看來只有去落實整個翻譯公司的想法了。借鑒Jack Ma曾曰過的，俺也拋出一句：理想是要有一點的，萬一成功了呢？：P
若真成了，自己從CEO到PM到譯員兼審校一條龍：）。這樣，自己的地盤自己做主吧，當然，前提是公司能活下來，活得久。要不然，爽是爽了，但轉眼就沒了，又有什麽意義呢？
| | | | Kenneth Woo
China
Local time: 02:34
English to Chinese
TOPIC STARTER
Renquan Yang wrote:
中文/外文轉換領域之亂校亂譯本就是孿生兄弟，尤其是在Golden Standard不明確之時。依偶之淺見，最核心問題爲專案PM基本看不懂中文，無論簡體抑或繁體，更別提需要深厚專業背景知識的中文譯文了，因此往往依賴所謂“信任”，而不是本身過硬的語言與技術功底。有時候想想，為毛咱不能去應聘PM呢？為毛咱不能自己整個翻譯公司呢？
當然，要充任PM，英語口語要說得溜，因為客戶往往喜歡視頻溝通，口述比文字來得快。反正俺的短板在於口語聽力差，幾乎都丟光，原因無他，日常基本不用，用進廢退嘛。所以自從數次嘗試應聘PM折戟沉沙後，不再做這種無謂嘗試。畢竟口語聽力這能力并非一兩天能之功，筆譯則大有不同，多啃原文文獻即可迅速培養出可用之能力。
看來只有去落實整個翻譯公司的想法了。借鑒Jack Ma曾曰過的，俺也拋出一句：理想是要有一點的，萬一成功了呢？：P
若真成了，自己從CEO到PM到譯員兼審校一條龍：）。這樣，自己的地盤自己做主吧，當然，前提是公司能活下來，活得久。要不然，爽是爽了，但轉眼就沒了，又有什麽意義呢？
項目經理不懂中文是一大主因，雖有判官，但往往也只看判官履歷，履歷與能力是兩碼事。按理，校對判定他人譯文錯誤，除須指出其所認為之錯誤外，譯者發來駁詞，還須回應，證明自己所下論斷不謬。我未有幸收到校對者對我駁詞的回應，但很想知道他會如何回應。
有時這種事是操守問題。雖然我能指出對方的明顯錯誤（譬如把譯文裡的拉丁斜體去掉斜體格式、把"collateral"翻譯成“宣傳資料”、把表格說明（非引用其他文章名、書名、表格名）加上書名號），但觀對方指責我譯文的措辭，料也會斥我一派胡言，最後項目經理會只更加認定不僅我翻譯得垃圾，還善狡辯，而校對者則認真負責，水平更是頂呱呱。
| | |
|
|
|
Rita Pang
Canada
Local time: 14:34
Member (2011)
Chinese to English
+ ...
Moderator of this forum | Did they read themselves | Jun 25, 2022 |
I just saw the below and I did a double take:
Kenneth Woo wrote:
評1: The revised version adds book title mark, which complies with the Chinese specification better, but I think an English annotation should be added after the article name as a further revise.
I mean, when your remark as an editor/QA/proofreader is grammatically incorrect in itself, sorta hard to convince me that you're correct right?
And of course, as you have said Kenneth, many of this person's remark is just there for the sake of showing your client that they have put in the work as a proofreader ("look ma, I wrote stuff!").
A 25% cut is steep, but even more than that it puts your reputation on the line. I'd recommend you reiterate your concerns to the client and let them know that it's not necessarily about the money, but the fact that many of the edits are subjective and most importantly not necessarily correct (in fact they are sometimes incorrect).
There's been ONE instance in my 12 years of experience that i willingly accepted a cut. It was for a literary translation and for some strange reason, the PM's email never reaches my gmail inbox properly. Her and I kept playing email tag even though we both sent each other messages by gmail, by another email provider, and via Proz. She would miss my messages and I would miss hers. All that in addition to mistakes that I did make in the piece, I was the one who actually offered a discount to her because I was very apologetic. Then she became a non-payer until I informed the company that I'll leave a specific Blueboard review about them. All in all, one hell of a messy, unnecessarily complicated collaboration, for which I was happy to at least get some money out of it and cut all ties after.
Try your best to negotiate but if it doesn't work, you might unfortunately have to put your energy and focus on things that are worth your while instead. Sorry to hear about these challenges and I hope these get resolved soon.
| | | | Kenneth Woo
China
Local time: 02:34
English to Chinese
TOPIC STARTER | Deduction made, case closed | Jun 25, 2022 |
Thanks for your suggestion, Rita.
The proofreader made very harsh and unfair allegations against my translation but disappointingly introduced several mistakes by arbitrarily altering the original translation. The third-party assessor agreed with him/her on most of the changes, including all but one of the mistakes.
It was an exhausting, infuriating, and extremely stressful process. The project manager seemed convinced that my translation was total rubbish and probabl... See more Thanks for your suggestion, Rita.
The proofreader made very harsh and unfair allegations against my translation but disappointingly introduced several mistakes by arbitrarily altering the original translation. The third-party assessor agreed with him/her on most of the changes, including all but one of the mistakes.
It was an exhausting, infuriating, and extremely stressful process. The project manager seemed convinced that my translation was total rubbish and probably didn’t even read my comments on the proofreader’s changes or my counter-comments on the assessor’s feedback. She didn’t ask the proofreader or the assessor to respond to my comments either, although I made the request.
I spent at least 7 hours going through the checked copies, commenting on individual changes made and the assessor’s remarks, and writing to the PM. From the way things were going on, I knew there was no way I could change her mind so eventually I capitulated—I didn’t want to waste any more of my time. I thought of Blueboard but refrained from resorting to it because the agency is very old client of mine.
The result? Deduction made, case closed.
Anyway, it’s the worst experience I have ever had so far as a translator. It’s insane.
Kenneth Woo wrote:
評1: The revised version adds book title mark, which complies with the Chinese specification better, but I think an English annotation should be added after the article name as a further revise.
I mean, when your remark as an editor/QA/proofreader is grammatically incorrect in itself, sorta hard to convince me that you're correct right?
I didn't change a word of their comments. I did mention, though, after multiple email exchanges and when the PM's obstinacy had become obvious to me, the assessor's inability to write proper English. The PM refused to respond thereafter, probably thinking I was a difficult person.
[Edited at 2022-06-25 06:20 GMT]
[Edited at 2022-06-25 06:43 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » 同業擠兌何日休 — 論胡亂校對 | 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 » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
