Will this be the shortest, or at least the most conclusive thread ever with everyone simply anwering ‘NO’ in contemptuous unison?
My full question is - are there any circumstances at all when using an online translator might be justified?
I do Spanish to English translations as part of my freelance work. I’m not professionally trained or qualified but I work very quickly and accurately, and have taken on specialised subject matters like building regulations and legal contracts, as well as documents in everyday language or professional jargon with which I’m more familiar.
I’m being offered work with a news service, involving the translation of short articles. The editor actively encourages his staff to use BabelFish. I was horrified and told him as much. I said that some of the content on the site is so bad it looks as if they just run the text through BabelFish, and now I know why. He looked at me as if I was some kind of colossal prude, and urged me to try it, saying that it saves time because it does the typing for you, and that of course you have to go over it and smooth out the errors.
Not a pro, but Babelfish is horrendous for translating English to Spanish and vice-versa. It’s a useful tool for looking up single words, and sometimes it’s good for colloquial phrases. It’s also good if you’re a manager who receives an email in Spanish and needs to get the gist of the message. But for republication? Ouch! It’s quicker just to translate it yourself, and you can better convey the meaning.
I’ve been wanting to ask for a while without opening a whole new thread, but I will: some time several years ago I came across a website that specifically addressed the difficulties in translation – human translation, not even machine. The examples were English and Spanish, but I think some type of Spanish-Spanish that may not have quite been Castillano. It went through an excerise to demonstrate the difficulty whereby a sentence was translated literally and then gradually refined so that all of the meaning and sense of the original English was conveyed in Spanish. I’ve searched Google, but what I’m looking for is just too specific. Any language mavens here have any idea what I’m talking about???
I agree that Babelfish is horrible at translating a sentence or paragraph, but I use it at times to look up a translation of a word. Even then, sometimes it is in error and should be taken with a grain of salt. Be careful of using Babelfish.
It saves time because it does the typing for you? The first question that springs to mind is “How slowly do his people type?”.
I’m with you on thinking that it’s appalling. Babelfish is far more trouble than it’s worth for anything more than individual words and occasional phrases.
As a professional who is constantly subjected to the attitude that translators are machines, so you might as well get a machine to do it for you anyway: I sympathize.
Unfortunately, in a lot of cases, clients/ employers don’t always care as much as they should about quality.
As someone who regularly works closely with translators to produce bilingual publications in English and Spanish, and has on occasion done translation myself, I concur wholeheartedly that an editor who “encourages” his staff to use Babelfish is a complete idiot and has no commitment whatsoever to quality or accuracy. While Babelfish may sometimes give you the general gist of a passage, many of the details are likely to be glaringly wrong, and Babelfish is very likely to cause misunderstanding of key passages.
If you need a translation of a single word, it is far better to look it up in a biliingual dictionary than to allow Babelfish to arbitrarily select one from what may be several different meanings. For anyone with any degree of knowledge of a language, it is likely to be far quicker to simply do a translation directly than to run it through Babelfish and correct the many errors of grammar and meaning.
The only circumstance in which I would use Babelfish is if I had absolutely no knowledge of a language at all, and wanted to get a general sense of the subject of a passage.
babelfish is useful for procure a sensation for the meaning of a words of foreign text, but I am not uniform an become fond of translator and I can see madness try to use it for destined material for the publication
Mrs. Bricker does free-lance translation as well – primarily English to Spanish for a monthly print magazine. She uses on-line dictionaries like the Royal Academy of Spain’s (http://www.rae.es/) as sources, as well as a number of print dictionaries. She would never use Babel; she’d be horrified at the idea.
Earlier this year, she got a huge project – a massive contract for a telecommunications company buyout in the D.R. Her first estimates for time needed were rejected by the client, who selected another translator that bragged about their use of automatic tools for translation.
After the “translated” contract was found to be gibberish, they returned to my wife and sheepishly accepted her time and terms.
I am not particularly linguistically gifted so if I happen across phrases in other languages I do use things like Babelfish. I would never advise using it for a professional translation though. It’s more to give a general idea of what is being said. Handy for the odd phrase in a book or computer game but not so much for anything actually important.
To be fair, that’s gone through Babelfish twice. A better test would be for a human to manually translate the original text correctly from English to Spanish, and then let Babelfish take it back. And for a control, one ought to get a different human translator to translate the same Spanish text back into English (which also won’t give the same as the the original). But yeah, the automated translation is almost always going to be significantly worse.
I have translated short stories from Portuguese to English and couldn’t possibly imagine ever using Babelfish.
Any translator worth his/her salt will have a rich enough vocabulary that the tool isn’t saving any time. One who translates often has a wide collection of dictionaries (I have a big fat Michaelis dictionary I brought back from Rio, along with a few specialized dictionaries such as technical terms, illustrations, and slang). Most of the words one has to look up will not show up in Babelfish.
Phrases are going to get you.
Imagine how Babelfish will do with “The whole nine yards” or “That dog won’t hunt…”
The other direction will have the same problem: “who doesn’t have a dog hunts with a cat” would be readily understandable if it came through, but there is no way one could ever figure out some more subtle reference such as the homosexual connotation of the number 24 in Brazil (deer == “fruit” or “queer”; a widespread illegal number game in Brazil uses animals for the numbers; the animal that represents number 24 is the deer).
The overall feel of the language will also get you. There’s a reason why I don’t try translating works from English into Portuguese: they will sound like perfectly-translated phrases that were unmistakably originally written in English. Sometimes one must make major changes in word and phrase order in order to fit the concept to the flow of the target language.
Very many thankyous (muchisimas gracias) for confirming that I’m not overreacting.
Bolding mine. I think I’ve heard something on those lines here too. To think that there are clients who are impressed by such nonsense - in the telecommunications industry too!
That sums it up for me. Never for publication, even with “corrections”. I did challenge the editor to a “race” where we tackle a short text, him with Babelfish, and me my usual way, but he took it as a joke and I didn’t push it.
My favourite - “fondos rotativos” was translated as “spinning bottoms”. :eek: The real translation would be “revolving funds” (it was a text about micro-credit).
Balthisar - there are articles online about the pitfalls of Spanish-English false cognates, and lists of the problematic words - try a search on those terms. There have even been threads about this on the SDMB, although probably not specifically about Spanish.
Thanks, but I wasn’t really referring to faux amis but the ins and outs of translating in general; the importance of color; and why translating isn’t something that can be done literally. I think minor7flat5’s 24 example is kind of what I meant.
While it’s perhaps unfair to run something through Babelfish twice, no human translator, even the most ignorant, would be likely make the kinds of errors shown in either one of the translations. In this particular instance, the first Babelfish translation from English to Spanish, for the most part at least, is moderately unintelligible. It is, however, still pretty bad - at best awkward, and in many places the grammar is just wrong. The final clause, however, pretty much amounts to gibberish even the first time through. Anyone who offered this kind of translation in a professional context would look like a fool.
I’m currently working on a large museum project which will have text in both English and Spanish, in which I am writing the original texts in English. I am, however, insisting that these must not be translated in the usual manner. To produce a good-quality text, the Spanish will essentially need to be written from scratch. Whoever produces the Spanish text must not translate my text as it stands, but instead read it and then produce an original Spanish text that conveys the same information. This is very hard to do - most bilingual texts clearly show evidence of which language was the original in their structure and phrasing.
I read a website from Iraq. Sometimes it is in Arabic. I was hoping a computer translator existed. So I can not expect to understand a daly log of an Iraqi?
I don’t have a web site for you, but there are good books on the subject. I have this one – clearly the fact that the author specializes in Brazilian Portuguese influenced my choice. Nevertheless, a good book on the issues encountered in translation will cover subjects such as the general tone or “color” of the translation as well as specifics such as how one might best translate profanity or heavily colloquial phrases. There are even sections discussing translation of lyrics and poetry.
If the translations read poorly, then you are not overreacting. If a human translator is needed to review the text anyway, any time and money saved by using Babelfish is marginal.
I work for a subtitling/translation/game localization company. If any of our translators used something like Babelfish, they’d be fired quickly. The only time we instruct people to use online resources is to look up official translations of movies, TV shows, and other media. This is done for consistency and not convenience.
The last time I was at the Alamo in San Antonio, it struck me as odd that some of the informational plaquards – all of which were bilingual – had the same basic information, but yet were completely different in how they portrayed the events. In some cases, there was even an obvious political bias in their differences.
Contrast this to visiting, say, the Ignacio Allende house museum in Mexico. Lots of American tourists, and the signs and plaquards in the museum are painstakingly translated literally and lose a lot of their meaning and elegance compared to the Spanish versions. You’d think with all of the American retirees one of 'em would lend a hand.
How about spotting gaffes in movie and TV subtitles?
I’ve translated texts which sound fine in Spanish but if treated too literally are very gushing and flowery in English. This is one of the cases when some degree of rewrite is needed. I wouldn’t even dream of tackling a literary text. That’s a much more specialised skill, or art even.
Ditto for menus in restaurants in tourist areas, unless they are specifically intended to entertain.
Having said that, I was once enticed into a shop in a Middle Eastern bazaar because the vendor said “I don’t want to sell you anything - I was hoping you could help me write a sign in correct English”.
