This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Spanish to English translations [Non-PRO] Nutrition / Nutrition and sports
Spanish term or phrase:La alimentación
"La alimentación de acuerdo a las necesidades del organismo y su actividad"
It is a semi-specialised text about nutrition and sports. I have a problem with translating the title. I was considering to translate it as a 'Nutrition' or 'Food' or 'Feeding' but I couldn't find any reasonable translation so far. At the beginning 'Nutrition' was the best option in terms of context but there is also term 'nutrición' in the text.
How would you translate 'la alimentación' in this context?
Your comments have been a wake-up call for me. I've been on the site 11 years and it never occurred to me that non-Pro was for the benefit of the answerers. It makes sense, because the list of leaders doesn't include non-Pro answers in calculating the ranking and we are given the choice of only being notified of Pro questions. Which makes the distinction even less important. We can see by the header whether it's a term we want to spend time on, and I happen to think that any time spent to help a colleague should receive equal credit. The classification diminishes our contribution. I've often seen non-Pro questions turn out to be tricky. It's such a slippery slope.
I think we may have been at cross purposes, yes. At any rate, I don't disagree with the points you've been making about professionalism in general. We may disagree about how to rate a particular question, but that's a trivial matter really.
I don't know about insensitive. I suppose it's inevitable that a non-Pro vote will sometimes be taken as a put-down, as if the person shouldn't have needed to ask the question. I think we should vote honestly in spite of this, though my instinct is to err on the side of being charitable, I must admit, and to set the Pro bar fairly low.
I agree that the rules don't make sense as a mechanism to stop askers behaving unprofessionally, but I honestly don't think that's what they're designed to achieve, and I don't actually think being voted non-Pro would deter people who abuse the system. I think the object is simply to stop people getting Pro points for answering very easy questions, because it's not fair on people that earn them for answering very difficult ones.
the fact that an Asker hasn't taken the trouble to research his own question SHOULD have a bearing on the Non-Pro issue, especially since they are specifically asked to do so. Otherwise, what is the point in requiring Askers to do just this? If they don't take their own questions seriously, then why should they feel offended if others don't either?
What I'm trying to say is that I know what the rules are, that they make no sense as they stand, and that they need to be examined and rationalised by the powers-that-be.
And, no, I don't consider myself unprofessional on the grounds that I do occasionally have to ask a Non-Pro question. But it seems that there are those who do consider that their own professionalism has been questioned if anyone votes any of their questions Non-Pro. And that is what I thought you were talking about. Without trawling back over this long debate, I could swear that some stage you and others suggested that it was insensitive to vote down questions, although I suspect now that in some respects we may have been talking at cross purposes!
You previously said that translating into another language, not your native language, is "not generally considered a professional thing to do", which is why I said you consider yourself "not professional in those pairs", not that you consider yourself unprofessional in general.
"Non-PRO questions are those that can be answered by any bilingual person without the aid of a dictionary while PRO questions are those that are suitable for professional translators."
Prior research has no bearing whatever on whether a question is professional for these purposes; it only has a bearing on whether the asker has behaved professionally, and that is irrelevant: not unimportant, of course, but nothing to do with the Pro/non-Pro distinction as defined on this site.
Of course your rating such questions non-Pro doesn't mean that you don't consider yourself professional in general, but an asker's general professionalism is not the issue here. It makes no sense for you to rate a question non-Pro merely because it's you asking it; it must depend on the difficulty of the term. It is perfectly possible, indeed likely, that those questions are actually difficult and would cause difficulty to a professional working into his/her native language. If such a person asked such a question, no one would dispute the Pro rating, so why should it be different when you ask it? The problem for the answerers is the same.
I'm sorry to bang on about this, but we really must be clear about what we're supposed to be doing here.
but I don't see how you could argue that any question that hasn't been researched first can possibly be classed as professional! Also, as far as I'm concerned, classing some of my own questions as non-pro has no bearing on my view of my own professionalism. In fact, I'd consider it most unprofessional if I were to class a very easy question as Pro, and this would probably include anything from English into French or Spanish, in which I don't consider myself a professional translator, for the very reasons outlined by Marian above. And the Pro/Non-Pro classification concerns those questions only, having no bearing at all on an Asker's professional status in general or the perception thereof. The fact that I don't consider myself professional in some language pairs or in some fields by no means implies that I'm not professional elsewhere, in my own working pairs!
If you do that (rate your questions non-Pro when they are EN>SP or EN>FR, for example, on the grounds that you are not professional in those pairs), you are rating yourself, not the question, and that is not what we should be doing; in fact that's the very thing we should be avoiding, I think. What the site rules say about this is actually quite consistent: the distinction is exclusively a matter of the degree of difficulty of the translation problem posed by the question term: how difficult it is for answerers. In principle it has nothing to do with the professionalism of the asker.
Askers are supposed to do prior research, and so they should be, but nowhere in the site rules is the Pro/non-Pro distinction related to that point; there is no suggestion anywhere that a non-Pro question is one where the asker has not done his/her homework, or that "downgrading" questions is a way of enforcing the prior research requirement.
If askers abuse the system, one thing we can do is simply not touch their questions.
"the average bilingual person using a dictionary" instead of "the average bilingual person not using a dictionary", since they do ask us to use a dictionary before posting. This would make a little more sense, although I'd still argue that being bilingual does not make you into a professional - far from it! And of course a truly professional translator would only translate INTO their own native language and never out of it. On the few occasions when I do translate into another language - and only as an unpaid favour for a friend - I'd always class my questions as Non-Pro. Of course it's always harder to translate into a foreign language; that's why it's not generally considered a professional thing to do!
and the glossary is full of inconsistencies. I like many others have pointed this out, but of course it's much too late to revise it all, and anyway it is a joint effort by a very mixed bag (I don't mean to be derogatory) of translators and none of it is professionally moderated. Having said that, I think most of us serious users of the site consider it a useful resource if used wisely. All best - Chris.
OK Allegro, so how do you justify voting this non-
15:54 Jan 12, 2015
pro?
In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the criteria are self contradictory: being bilingual does NOT automatically qualify anyone as a professional translator (the craft/art of the professional translator involves a lot more than merely the ability to replace a SL word with another in the TL, which any bilingual person would by definition be capable of doing), and not checking with available resources before asking others for help is definitely not professional. Yet the rules as they stand would not allow any question to be voted down despite Askers being required to check the available resources before posting. This too is self contradictory. It seems to me that the whole thing has not been thought right through but rather that bits have been added here and there as they were thought of, leaving a totally incoherent whole.
The criteria is the average BILINGUAL person and ProZ asks that you detach yourself from your own background here. Well, many of us, despite being good translators, are not truly bilingual. Voting to re-classify a question is not an exact science to be sure, but I get the distinct impression that many users of the site who simply "push that there button" are simply thinking "that's dead easy" without even considering what "the average bilingual person not using a dictionary" would make of it.
@ Carol I've decided for the moment that I'll refrain from voting anything non-Pro though my finger is itching to do so on several extremely easy ones this morning. Really don't like the inconsistency and the fact that some answerers /askers seem to be immune from being downgraded. Are people too afraid of them whinging? I've always tried to be consistent in what I voted "non-pro" but now going to step away...
thanks Gallagy, for that still small voice of calm
11:44 Jan 12, 2015
and common sense; also for not being afraid to say what you think!
Perhaps, after all, it would be best to drop the Pro v. Non-Pro classification in order to spare the sensitivities of certain users, at least until a way can be devised that could never be open to misinterpretation. But would this ever be realistically possible when it seems that whatever one does or says can always be taken as an insult by some other person? Sometimes we just have to accept that we cannot be all things to all men all of the time, and not be afraid to say or do what we believe is right, just as long as it is intended in good faith.
There is indeed already a KudoZ forum that touches on all this. It also mentions several users who abuse the system by asking thousands of 'easy' or nonsensical questions (= machine translations?), thereby getting others to do their work for them for free and bypassing translators' fees. This cannot be in the interest of ANY genuine professional translator! And it is these askers who need, imo, to be discouraged from abusing the KudoZ system. I'd love to hear if anyone knows of any other way of achieving this. Any ideas?
I didn't want to get further involved in this discussion, which should be taking place in a forum, not here, but things have been said which are really not correct in my view. A professional translator should be translating into their native language from a source language they are very familiar with. This is not happening here. What is difficult about this word for either a Spaniard or English native with good Spanish? We all know the meaning so it's a matter of finding the best synonym by looking up dictionaries and choosing. Since I am translating only INTO my native language this is usually fairly straightforward. For me that is what being professional is all about: doing my own research and making my choices. Yes, on occasion I need other opinions and my questions might be seen as "easy" but since it's impossible to know what every idiom/term means in the source language I really don't care if my question is downgraded. No "damage" done! As for "targeting": I never target anyone, either asker or answerer. I've had many answers downgraded (some of which should not have been imho) while other people seem immune so agree "non-pro" is inconsistent. Drop it?
Marian Martin (X)
Spain
17:16 Jan 11, 2015
I have to agree with Charles and neilmac. Some native speakers seem to have little perception of the doubts and uncertainties that non native speakers may have when translating, which motivate posting a question. Something that is unpardonably easy for them, may be very tricky for the non native translator. Downgrading systematically is damaging for both the asker and the people who respond to questions. But what is worse is the glaring lack of objectivity in most cases. If one cares to compare the questions that get downgraded, to many others of a similar nature that do not, then one starts to wonder. Is it that just certain people are targeted for this practice? That would be troubling. This is not in the spirit of Proz.
... for expressing my feelings in a more reasoned, less affronted-and-ready-to-punch-someone tone than I can manage right now. I for one do "tend to take it as a reflection on my own professionalism". I reckon that most of the time the pooh-pooh people (those who vote MY queries non-pro) just don't get where I'm coming from (I often just want a straw poll or to share opinions with fellow translators). Or maybe they are right and I am indeed an idiot and should try my hand at basket-weaving or whatever... Seriously, I think they should have a GOOD look at the criteria before consigning people’s queries to the numpty bin. And get off their high horses.
We are asked quite clearly to research before post
00:49 Jan 9, 2015
ing, so it follows that checking dictionaries etc (or lack of) ought to be included in the Pro v. Non-pro criteria. But Muriel is quite right in that this discussion does belong in a separate forum. In fact I have touched on it in a kudoz forum somewhere. Night night zzzzzz
You're right; this is really a forum discussion. I don't think the non-Pro category works very well, but I very much doubt that the site administrators could be persuaded to abandon it, and as long as it exists there will always be disagreement about how it is applied.
There's no problem when the asker thinks it's non-Pro. The upset is caused when the asker thinks it's Pro and others don't.
You're right about some people not bothering with non-Pro questions. I presume this is because they can't get Pro points from answering them so they think it's not worth the trouble. Or perhaps it's simply that they think non-Pro questions are beneath them. Either way, I think it's a pity.
As things stand, the stated criteria for the Pro/Non-Pro distinction have nothing to do with the prior research requirement: it's not supposed to be about that. Perhaps it should be, as you suggest; perhaps there is something to be said for using the non-Pro vote to downgrade questions that have not been adequately researched in advance, but my impression is that this rarely if ever happens. It's nearly always to do with the inherent difficulty of the term: people think it's too easy to be rated Pro.
Perhaps this discussion belongs in a larger forum. I do think it's time to either tweak or eliminate the non-pro distinction. As it stands, it doesn't seem to me to be serving much purpose.
it's UNprofessional not to research your own questions before seeking help elsewhere. And, personally, when one of my own questions was voted non-pro, I did feel put out, not because I saw this as a reflection on my professionalism, but simply because the question then elicited fewer responses, as many users filter out non-pro questions and I was in a hurry with a rush job. On that occasion, one of the moderators managed to reverse the status before it was too late. But I really don't feel that asking the occasional non-pro question should be taken as demeaning in any way, as long as it has been researched and asked in good faith - and with context duly provided. And if downgrading certain questions results in more Askers doing proper prior research and not taking other users for granted, then surely that can't be a bad thing!
I share your misgivings about the distinction. I have always assumed that it is designed to stop people gaining PRO points for answers to "easy" questions. It does embarrass and annoy askers when their questions, posted as Pro, are then voted non-Pro; they tend to take it as a reflection on their own professionalism.
I think the Pro/Non-Pro distinction and the requirement to do your homework before asking questions are supposed to be separate issues. The fact that a question was not properly researched before being asked doesn't mean that it's a non-Pro question. I often see Pro questions, to which I don't know the answer "off the top of my head", but find the answer very quickly with minimal research, which the asker could and should have done.
The site doesn't wish to prevent people from asking easy (non-Pro) questions, and most non-Pro questions are rated as such by their askers. Sometimes, in fact, people ask very difficult questions that they rate non-Pro, perhaps out of modesty (not wishing to claim to be professionals). This is the other side of the coin, and reflects the same unfortunate confusion: what should be a rating of the question is taken as a rating of the asker.
It's also true that may "difficult" questions are posted which could have been resolved if the asker had done some basic searching on the Internet, so such questions don't meet the current criterion. IMO, the criterion should be eliminated and some other mechanism should be used to ensure that askers do their research--for example, a box that pops up when they are posting the question.
I think my main point is that the Non-Pro rules as they stand rather illogically imply that any bilingual person qualifies to be a professional translator, whereas we all know that translation takes a lot more than merely being able to substitute a word in one language with another word in another language - with or without a dictionary!
Both of you make good points. I'm wondering what purpose the distinction serves in the first place, other than to embarrass the asker and discourage people from asking questions that deserve a decent discussion.
this also illustrates the anomaly with the KudoZ requirement to research before posting a question.
They can't have it both ways! Being required to check all available resources before posting a question is hardly "off the top of one's head"! To me, that might be the linguistic level of a 1st degree or lower, but I'd hope that professional translators would have studied for a specific translation qualification and/or honed their professional skills over the years, thereby acquiring more than just a basic knowledge. Having said that, everyone - however professional - has their occasional off-days.
We clearly all have different ideas of what constitutes a professional level in translation. But personally, I don't know of anyone who thinks that simply knowing how to translate a word automatically makes it non-pro. This of course is where you have to be able to detach yourself…, etc., otherwise, as you say, everything would become non-pro. The bit I disagree with is "from the top of his/her head?", which makes even the simplest of terms into Pro questions. Surely, professional translators should expect to have to get out their thinking caps and unravel the occasional knotty problem.
I'm not saying this particular question is clearly Pro; it's a bit of a borderline case to my mind. All I'm saying, really, is that anyone can stick a pin into one of the options if the synonyms are equally suitable, but often they aren't, and there's one that just sounds right in that particular sentence, and thinking of that one is a skill that by no means everyone has: a professional skill. If you have it, it seems easy, and it's easy to assume that it's easy for others.
It's very difficult to imagine what it would be like if you didn't have the professional skill you have, particularly since that skill is largely unconscious much of the time, but that's what we're asked to do:
"Detach yourself from your own background/specialisation and think of a - hypothetical - randomly selected bilingual person. Is it likely that this person would be able to produce a good translation of the term or phrase in this question (and in the particular context shown) from the top of his/her head?"
even though I don't consider it hugely difficult, because Katarzyna has at least gone to the trouble of explaining her dilemma and also of setting out her thinking so far.
Reasonable though most of your argument may be (of course!).
As far as I'm concerned, a question does have to have a level of difficulty to qualify as pro. Otherwise, how would you decide that a question is non-pro? As I see it, having to select one out of multiple suitable solutions that could easily found - making the choice not much more involved than sticking a pin into one of the options - does not particularly involve professional skills, although the word "professional" is always debatable. And as for not needing a dictionary, in my opinion, this criterion makes a nonsense of the fact that Askers are requested to use a dictionary and any other resources before posting a question, and also to explain why they have rejected the options provided therein. Until KudoZ can sort this anomaly out, I shall continue to vote down questions that I consider to clearly go against this requirement. Of course, not every question is totally clear cut, so there will always be differences of opinion - which is where the Vote-Pro button comes in. And I also think we need to be a little lenient with New Posters
A basic skill of the translator is still a professional skill. The criterion is whether or not a bilingual person could answer it without a dictionary. If a bilingual person who is not a professional translator could not be relied on to make the right choice, then it's not non-Pro. I think that is probably the case here, though I admit it's not completely clear-cut and this is in any case a subjective issue.
A question doesn't have to be difficult (for us) in order to be Pro. I think some people say a question is non-Pro if they know the answer without having to look it up, or if it strikes them as (relatively) easy. But that's not the criterion. After all, if everything you, as a professional, already know is non-Pro, then how do you define professional knowledge?
What is so difficult about this? It's up to the translator to work out what the best option is from the various possibilities/synonyms. As Carol says, this is a "basic skill". And why is a native Pole translating from Spanish to English?
Hmmm - not so sure I agree that having a choice of reasonable options makes it any harder. Making these decisions is a basic skill of the translator. It's when you have to really delve around to find anything that might just be suitable or to choose between difficult options that the skill kicks in
That is the question. How can this query be considered non-pro? When there are so many options possible, I'd say that the ability to choose the Goldilocks version each time is definitely a professional skill. Perhaps I need a loftier horse?
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
3 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +9
Diet
Explanation: This is a standard term which I think would fit well here.