| Страниц в теме: < [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] > | Ten common myths about translation quality
|
|---|
| | Lincoln Hui 
Гонконг
Local time: 09:08
Член ProZ.com
китайский => английский
+ ...
| Defining "native" | Jul 25, 2013 |
@Bernhard Sulzer
I believe - or at least hope - that we are both talking about "functionally native", describing a state of understanding of the language, rather than being born into one since infancy.
This is not, however, a distinction that people not highly familiar with languages are capable of making. To the layman - which includes the vast majority of clients and administrative personnel in agencies - native means "mother tongue" in the strictest sense of the word, the f... See more @Bernhard Sulzer
I believe - or at least hope - that we are both talking about "functionally native", describing a state of understanding of the language, rather than being born into one since infancy.
This is not, however, a distinction that people not highly familiar with languages are capable of making. To the layman - which includes the vast majority of clients and administrative personnel in agencies - native means "mother tongue" in the strictest sense of the word, the first language you learn and speak everyday since infancy, which is certainly not the case for me in English. Many cannot even comprehend the concept of bilingual households, much less multi-language native speakers. This is especially true for the US and UK with their significantly monolingual populations, where some have told me that they find bilingualism to be remarkable.
This situation may be rarer for European languages, but it is an extremely fluid issue with Chinese. Some first-generation Chinese Americans find that they are better at English than Chinese after twenty to thirty years living in the US, yet by the public definition they are "native" speakers in Chinese and not native speakers in English.
The situation is even murkier for second and third-generation Chinese Americans. How do you characterize someone who speaks exclusively Chinese at home and exclusively English at school? Their studies in English may start at the age of 3 or 4, which is certainly not late, but it is not their "first" language - and the vast majority of second-or-later-generation Chinese Americans are far better at English than Chinese. It gets better: there are Chinese Americans whose spoken Chinese are absolutely florid and can pass for a Hong Kong or Beijing/Shanghai native, wherever their parents came from, yet they cannot write a word of Chinese. I myself can vouch to that my reading and writing skills were almost fully established (at native level) by the time I returned to Hong Kong at age 13, but I did not develop native speaking and listening skills until my time in the US.
You may say that none of these things apply to translators, but the market consists of laymen, and laymen will apply laymen standards even to professionals, especially a profession that they don't understand well. To laymen native language is absolutely exclusive of all others, and implicity a product of nature rather than nurture. And if translators begin to draw this line - even if they themselves have no intention of doing so at all - the layman will jump on it before you could blink and set up barriers that exclude a significant portion of the best translators, to the general detriment of quality.
This is why, by the way, that I actually signed up for ProZ. If ProZ had only one native language option, I would not even have bothered to register; when I was still in the market for a regular job, I frequently read newspaper adverts demanded "native English speakers" - Hong Kongers, afterall, are some of the most snobbish people in the world - and I don't bother to apply, figuring that it's their loss, not mine.
(Sidenote: Other than true International Schools, English language schools in Hong Kong are like left-handed catchers' gloves - before companies started producing them in recent years, of course. I recall having some English classes conducted in Chinese. Ugh.)
(Sidenote 2: This is also partially a race issue. I would be shocked if I told somebody that I was a native English speaker and they accepted it immediately without at least several minutes of conversation with me, and I could well have been a third-generation Chinese American)
[Edited at 2013-07-25 17:00 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | I absolutely agree with Lincoln | Jul 25, 2013 |
Most non-linguists, including many outsourcers and agency personnel, have absolutely no idea what native is, although this term itself is really vary vague, and there should be a better word for it -- like a dominant language, or something like that. In fact the term is not that often used in the U, and interpreters, or lawyers, are forbidden from asking anything about anyone's native language in any formal circumstances -- you can only ask which language the person is most comfortable with, or ... See more Most non-linguists, including many outsourcers and agency personnel, have absolutely no idea what native is, although this term itself is really vary vague, and there should be a better word for it -- like a dominant language, or something like that. In fact the term is not that often used in the U, and interpreters, or lawyers, are forbidden from asking anything about anyone's native language in any formal circumstances -- you can only ask which language the person is most comfortable with, or understands the best. They imagine that if someone spoke X from their birth through a part of their childhood or even later, there will always be some imaginary original mental text in this language that the person will be translating from, even after having lived most of their life in another linguistic environment. Many people have absolutely no clue what it means to be multilingual.
The competence of a multilingual person is much different form the one of a monolingual individual-- you can often find some traces of language interference in their writing, or speech, in any of the languages they speak, which does not mean, however, that they are not native. They sometimes understand one language better than another, have a better accent in a third language, and are able to express most of their ideas in yet another language. Many people seem to somehow neglect language attrition and the fact that concepts feel native in the language in which you learned them. So, if all your university education is in English, your are not native really in the things you learned at the university level in your childhood language, unless you re-learned the things in that language later.
[Edited at 2013-07-25 19:35 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Native language speakers will have to have learned the language like their fellow NS | Jul 25, 2013 |
Lincoln Hui wrote:
@Bernhard Sulzer
I believe - or at least hope - that we are both talking about "functionally native", describing a state of understanding of the language, rather than being born into one since infancy.
Native language is a language that you learned and used, either from infancy or during your childhood, over a significant period of time, just (in) the same way other speakers of that native language have, within a cultural environment in which this language is the one or one of the official languages. You therefore will be recognized by other native speakers of that language as a native speaker if you have a conversation with them.
To be recognized as a native speaker by another native speaker if you are in fact not a native speaker, is highly unlikely. Most colleagues will tell you that it is impossible to become a native speaker if you haven't learned and used the language for a significant period of time as a child, and they will also confirm it to be impossible to acquire a "native language" once you are an adult or have passed the age by which you would have had to experience that native language as typical native speakers have done up to that age.
As a native language translator you have, in most cases, a clear advantage when translating into that language over a comparable non-native language translator who translates into that same language.
B
| | | | | native language is not a vague concept in our profession | Jul 25, 2013 |
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
Most non-linguists, including many outsourcers and agency personnel have absolutely no idea what native is, although this term itself is really vary vague, and there should be a better word for it -- like a dominant language, or something like that. In fact the term is not that often used in the USm,and interpreters are forbidden from asking anything about anyone's native language in any formal circumstances -- you can only ask which language are you most comfortable with, or understand the best. They imagine that if someone spoke X from their birth through a part of their childhood or even later, there will always be some imaginary original mental text in this language that the person will be translating from, even after having lived most of their life in another linguistic environment. Many people have absolutely no clue what it means to be multilingual.
There is nothing vague about one's native language. See my entries. It is not true that you are not allowed to ask a translator what his native language is. This we actually put on our profiles so outsourcers and direct clients can see it. We WANT to tell it.
The term "native speaker" is used, in the US, to my knowledge very often, and it's used on this website for professional translators as well.
Any professional in any business who is seeking a translator asking you about your CV, resume, etc. will expect you to show education, experience, and what your native language or mother tongue is.
If you keep using your native language, and that's what most translators here do, you don't lose that native language, you probably get even better as far as certain "proficiency" aspects are concerned.
But you don't lose that feel or as you call it "original mental text" (and there's nothing imaginary about it).
Now, if you don't use your native language anymore, you might lose some or maybe even a lot of what you knew but I venture into saying that you will never completely lose it as long as you were exposed to it during childhood the way other native speakers were. If you begin using it again, you will regain most or all of what you lost because that strong mental text has never left you.
Multilinguism is completely different. You can speak and write several languages, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are a native speaker in all of them.
And please, don't make the average person out to be ignorant of such concepts.
Let's see if anyone else agrees with me. It seems some of them are too busy reading this thread which is a good thing if they're working.
B
[Edited at 2013-07-25 22:56 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Deleted
[Edited at 2013-07-25 21:26 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
Великобритания
Local time: 01:08
иврит => английский
| Somewhat inaccurate | Jul 25, 2013 |
Lincoln Hui wrote:
Many cannot even comprehend the concept of bilingual households, much less multi-language native speakers. This is especially true for the US and UK with their significantly monolingual populations, where some have told me that they find bilingualism to be remarkable.
I'm sorry, this simply isn't true. The UK has its fair share of bilingual households. Bilingualism is a fact of life in Wales for example, as well as in the main cities and industrialized counties of England where immigration has ensured pretty much every child is fully aware of the realities of bilingual households. If you've grown up in England in the last 40 years you will have grown up with friends speaking more than one language. Bilingualism simply isn't that exotic to us, really.
| | | | Lincoln Hui
Гонконг
Local time: 09:08
Член ProZ.com
китайский => английский
+ ...
| Again, the point is : | Jul 26, 2013 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Lincoln Hui wrote:
@Bernhard Sulzer
I believe - or at least hope - that we are both talking about "functionally native", describing a state of understanding of the language, rather than being born into one since infancy.
Native language is a language that you learned and used, either from infancy or during your childhood, over a significant period of time, just (in) the same way other speakers of that native language have, within a cultural environment in which this language is the one or one of the official languages. You therefore will be recognized by other native speakers of that language as a native speaker if you have a conversation with them.
I must say I doubt that most people are capable of stating this definition or be aware of it, and I suspect many hold beliefs that you can only be native in your "birth language" - i.e. recognizing ONLY the infancy stage, not the childhood/teenage stage.
From the experience of my evil doppelganger as a musician and historian, I must say that the odds of one outside a certain professional fully understanding the concepts and definitions used within that profession are extremely low; typically it is a bastardized understanding, and partial understanding is worse than no understanding at all, because one with partial understanding often speaks as though he or she was an expert, as this author demonstrated in the post referenced by the quote below. Heck, many music majors and almost all freshmen music majors cannot tell accurately the definition of a time signature. Why should language be any different?
I will also point out that speaking, writing and reading are very different skills, and one can absolutely be a native speaker and be illiterate in the same language. Again, this is of course not common in translators, but you cannot expect the average person to make his assumptions based on the proficiency of translators.
At the end of the day, the problem is not so much what "native language" is; it is that native proficiency must be determined by testing, not by assumption, and most prefer to assume rather than test.
-------
On the topic of speaking vs writing: contamination of writing by spoken language is a real issue that has already surfaced in American universities, where too significant a portion of students have grown into the habit of using the word "like" like every other like word, not just in like conversations but also in like actual academic like writing for their like classes. Of course, one could like argue that this is like bad speaking practice to begin with, and like it should be like eliminated from the spoken language as well.
This has also been a problem with Cantonese, which is a spoken dialect that differs significantly from written Chinese. One is supposed to write in proper written Chinese, but far too many have grown used to writing transcriptive Cantonese on the internet, and this pseudo-written language has taken a foothold in all major Chinese newspapers. It has evolved to the extent that I refuse to accept a native Cantonese speaker who has spent all his life in Chinese-language schools as a native Chinese writer until I actually see him write - again, assumption vs testing. Come to think of it, I don't necessarily accept some of my college peers as native English writers either......
Ty Kendall wrote:
I'm sorry, this simply isn't true. The UK has its fair share of bilingual households. Bilingualism is a fact of life in Wales for example, as well as in the main cities and industrialized counties of England where immigration has ensured pretty much every child is fully aware of the realities of bilingual households. If you've grown up in England in the last 40 years you will have grown up with friends speaking more than one language. Bilingualism simply isn't that exotic to us, really.
I stand corrected then.
Nevertheless, the experiences in urban and rural areas differ significantly, and you will certainly have more cosmopolitan exposure in cities than in smaller towns and villages. This is especially true for the US, where your familiarity with bilingualism in Los Angeles or New York would be in a completely different dimension compared to one coming from, say, rural Delaware.
| | | | | two native language claims are questionable when real NS think so | Jul 26, 2013 |
Lincoln Hui wrote:
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Lincoln Hui wrote:
@Bernhard Sulzer
I believe - or at least hope - that we are both talking about "functionally native", describing a state of understanding of the language, rather than being born into one since infancy.
Native language is a language that you learned and used, either from infancy or during your childhood, over a significant period of time, just (in) the same way other speakers of that native language have, within a cultural environment in which this language is the one or one of the official languages. You therefore will be recognized by other native speakers of that language as a native speaker if you have a conversation with them.
I must say I doubt that most people are capable of stating this definition or be aware of it, and I suspect many hold beliefs that you can only be native in your "birth language" - i.e. recognizing ONLY the infancy stage, not the childhood/teenage stage.
Most people will correctly assume that a person has one native language when they stem from a country where only one language is the official language. If you come from a country with more than one official language, I believe most people will understand that someone can have more than one native language.
Coming up with a definition for native language is one thing, speaking it another.
What do you consider your native language to be and why?
As I said, if a language is not your native language, it will usually show, no matter what your speaking or writing level is. It's about how you put sentences together and which idiomatically correct phrases you use or not use.
Your next two sentences for example are rather unusual, idiomatically speaking, although one thing just seems to be a typo:
Lincoln Hui wrote:
From the experience of my evil doppelganger as a musician and historian, I must say that the odds of one outside a certain professional fully understanding the concepts and definitions used within that profession are extremely low; typically it is a bastardized understanding, and partial understanding is worse than no understanding at all, because one with partial understanding often speaks as though he or she was an expert, as this author demonstrated in the post referenced by the quote below.
I don't agree with your conclusion:
Lincoln Hui wrote:
I will also point out that speaking, writing and reading are very different skills, and one can absolutely be a native speaker and be illiterate in the same language. Again, this is of course not common in translators, but you cannot expect the average person to make his assumptions based on the proficiency of translators.
Well, if we are to "test" one's native language, we certainly won't expect a very uneducated or illiterate person to come to that test. I don't see why we have to be concerned about illiterate native speakers. But let them come too.
We would definitely expect those who claim two languages on their profile pages and whose command of one or even both of these languages seems to indicate to most real native speakers of that language/those languages that they are not native speakers.
Lincoln Hui wrote:
At the end of the day, the problem is not so much what "native language" is; it is that native proficiency must be determined by testing, not by assumption, and most prefer to assume rather than test.
Who do you mean by "most"? The translators? The clients?
I have no problem with being tested. But believe me, my background does suggest one thing: I am a native speaker of German. This is also fairly obvious with most native speaker translators here who claim only one native language, like I do.
The problem to me is indeed not "what native language is." The problem is people who claim two native languages and one or both of their claims are very very questionable when you visit their profile pages or read their CVs and resumes.
Lincoln Hui wrote:
On the topic of speaking vs writing: contamination of writing by spoken language is a real issue that has already surfaced in American universities, where too significant a portion of students have grown into the habit of using the word "like" like every other like word, not just in like conversations but also in like actual academic like writing for their like classes. Of course, one could like argue that this is like bad speaking practice to begin with, and like it should be like eliminated from the spoken language as well.
Well, it's not an acceptable writing style at the university where I teach.
B
[Edited at 2013-07-26 03:32 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
Индия
Local time: 06:38
Член ProZ.com c 2006
английский => хинди
+ ...
ЛОКАЛИЗАТОР САЙТА
Lincoln Hui wrote:
@Bernhard Sulzer
I believe - or at least hope - that we are both talking about "functionally native", describing a state of understanding of the language, rather than being born into one since infancy.
This is not, however, a distinction that people not highly familiar with languages are capable of making. To the layman - which includes the vast majority of clients and administrative personnel in agencies - native means "mother tongue" in the strictest sense of the word, the first language you learn and speak everyday since infancy, which is certainly not the case for me in English. Many cannot even comprehend the concept of bilingual households, much less multi-language native speakers. This is especially true for the US and UK with their significantly monolingual populations, where some have told me that they find bilingualism to be remarkable.
This situation may be rarer for European languages, but it is an extremely fluid issue with Chinese. Some first-generation Chinese Americans find that they are better at English than Chinese after twenty to thirty years living in the US, yet by the public definition they are "native" speakers in Chinese and not native speakers in English.
The situation is even murkier for second and third-generation Chinese Americans. How do you characterize someone who speaks exclusively Chinese at home and exclusively English at school? Their studies in English may start at the age of 3 or 4, which is certainly not late, but it is not their "first" language - and the vast majority of second-or-later-generation Chinese Americans are far better at English than Chinese. It gets better: there are Chinese Americans whose spoken Chinese are absolutely florid and can pass for a Hong Kong or Beijing/Shanghai native, wherever their parents came from, yet they cannot write a word of Chinese. I myself can vouch to that my reading and writing skills were almost fully established (at native level) by the time I returned to Hong Kong at age 13, but I did not develop native speaking and listening skills until my time in the US.
You may say that none of these things apply to translators, but the market consists of laymen, and laymen will apply laymen standards even to professionals, especially a profession that they don't understand well. To laymen native language is absolutely exclusive of all others, and implicity a product of nature rather than nurture. And if translators begin to draw this line - even if they themselves have no intention of doing so at all - the layman will jump on it before you could blink and set up barriers that exclude a significant portion of the best translators, to the general detriment of quality.
This is why, by the way, that I actually signed up for ProZ. If ProZ had only one native language option, I would not even have bothered to register; when I was still in the market for a regular job, I frequently read newspaper adverts demanded "native English speakers" - Hong Kongers, afterall, are some of the most snobbish people in the world - and I don't bother to apply, figuring that it's their loss, not mine.
(Sidenote: Other than true International Schools, English language schools in Hong Kong are like left-handed catchers' gloves - before companies started producing them in recent years, of course. I recall having some English classes conducted in Chinese. Ugh.)
(Sidenote 2: This is also partially a race issue. I would be shocked if I told somebody that I was a native English speaker and they accepted it immediately without at least several minutes of conversation with me, and I could well have been a third-generation Chinese American)
I agree with you completely.
Most Europeans and Americans coming from mono-lingual backgrounds simply are unable to understand the linguistic diversity of places like India. They try to impose their mono-lingual understanding of language acquisition on people from multi-lingual backgrounds.
It is futile to argue with them, for they cannot comprehend what they have not experienced. For example, the multilingualism that Ty talks about of his English towns is a far cry from what you have in India. And in India this is not a phenomena created by recent migration, it is the norm, which has been there since thousands of years. Both rural and urban areas in India are multi-lingual, and people routinely grow up speaking several languages, even those who have never seen the inside of schools.
Another thing that many people cannot understand is the historical affects of Europeans moving across the continents in the colonial and imperial era. This has left educational institutions in their languages scattered across the globe and products of these institutions sometimes beat the natives at the language game. It is galling for them to accept this, which is why they resort to pedantic postures about the fictional importance of native languages.
Many are unable to come to terms with inconvenient truths like attrition of native language when one moves out of the area of the native language. It is routinely observed in India and I can vouch for it from my own experience. My proficiency in Tamil and Malayalam two of the languages I was exposed to at native level are not the same as my proficiency in the other two - Hindi and English, because I moved out of Tamil and Malayalam speaking areas in early childhood. Even though we continued to use these languages at home, watched movies, TV, and read newspapers and books in these languages, that has not prevented the attrition of my knowledge of these languages.
You are very right when you say that laymen simply don't understand the complex issues when we talk of native language, and as you say, little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.
I also completely agree with your observation:
You may say that none of these things apply to translators, but the market consists of laymen, and laymen will apply laymen standards even to professionals, especially a profession that they don't understand well. To laymen native language is absolutely exclusive of all others, and implicity a product of nature rather than nurture. And if translators begin to draw this line - even if they themselves have no intention of doing so at all - the layman will jump on it before you could blink and set up barriers that exclude a significant portion of the best translators, to the general detriment of quality.
Yes this does contribute to the general detriment of quality of the translation sector. Had this not been so, I would have simply ignored this issue and agreed with polyglot45's peeve that why break our heads against this brick wall and why not get on with our lives.
The thing is, it so fundamentally touches on our work that it would be dangerous to let this myth of native-only translation survive any further.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
Индия
Local time: 06:38
Член ProZ.com c 2006
английский => хинди
+ ...
ЛОКАЛИЗАТОР САЙТА | The problem is many influential people are not aware of this | Jul 26, 2013 |
polyglot45 wrote:
Isn't it time we stopped this sterile debate on the subject?
We all know who thinks what but repeating the arguments over and over again like a stuck record isn't going to do any good.
I am a great believer in native speakers working into their native language BUT I am also aware that there are exceptions to that rule.Isn't it time we stopped this sterile debate on the subject?
We all know who thinks what but repeating the arguments over and over again like a stuck record isn't going to do any good.
I am a great believer in native speakers working into their native language BUT I am also aware that there are exceptions to that rule.
What worries me much more is that, on the strength of very little language knowledge, there are a lot of people out there who claim to be translators, offer shoddy work, charge low rates (just as well, given their standard) and generally bring the profession into disrepute.
But, my saying this on repeated occasions isn't going to change things one little bit. SO, I'll stop bashing my head against a brick wall and get on with my life.
The problem, polyglot45, is that while you may be aware of this, many influential players of our sector, such as this very site, are not, and they build elaborate structures based on this flawed concept to exclude the exceptions to the rule from acquiring legitimate business.
And that is why we need to bash our heads against the brick wall, in the hope that eventually, if sufficient number of heads applied to this task, it would be the wall that would break, not the heads.
| | | | | Myth?! With Europeans and other folks it is futile to argue | Jul 26, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Most Europeans and Americans coming from mono-lingual backgrounds simply are unable to understand the linguistic diversity of places like India. They try to impose their mono-lingual understanding of language acquisition on people from multi-lingual backgrounds.
Whoever said that people in India couldn't possibly speak more than one language or, going further, could possibly have more than one native language?
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
It is futile to argue with them, for they cannot comprehend what they have not experienced. ...
Wow, we must be complete imbeciles.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Another thing that many people cannot understand is the historical affects of Europeans moving across the continents in the colonial and imperial era. This has left educational institutions in their languages scattered across the globe and products of these institutions sometimes beat the natives at the language game. It is galling for them to accept this, which is why they resort to pedantic postures about the fictional importance of native languages.
You mean historical effects? And how uneducated do you think we are?
"Pedantic postures about the fictional importance of native languages?"
What are you talking about?
"Fictional importance of native languages?"
Can't agree.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Many are unable to come to terms with inconvenient truths like attrition of native language when one moves out of the area of the native language. It is routinely observed in India and I can vouch for it from my own experience. My proficiency in Tamil and Malayalam two of the languages I was exposed to at native level are not the same as my proficiency in the other two - Hindi and English, because I moved out of Tamil and Malayalam speaking areas in early childhood. Even though we continued to use these languages at home, watched movies, TV, and read newspapers and books in these languages, that has not prevented the attrition of my knowledge of these languages.
Please don't generalize your own personal experience and accuse others of "being unable to come to terms with inconvenient truths like attrition of native language" because it is your personal opinion that this attrition is what must have happened to others as well.
If others have different experiences and have proved their skills, accept it please.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
I also completely agree with your observation:
Lincoln Hui wrote:
You may say that none of these things apply to translators, but the market consists of laymen, and laymen will apply laymen standards even to professionals, especially a profession that they don't understand well. ...
Many clients put their trust in agencies, expecting a professional service, and professional agencies will make sure they get it. Not that I want to be a spokesman for agencies.
And please, don't underestimate the "laymen" who get in touch with translators directly. Those clients who are interested in quality services will look at many aspects of a translator's service, native language being the one that might clinch the deal.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The thing is, it so fundamentally touches on our work that it would be dangerous to let this myth of native-only translation survive any further.
I never argued against translators working into their non-native language. But it might not be advisable in most cases.
What I criticize in particular is translators claiming a language as their native language when it's not.
B
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
Великобритания
Local time: 01:08
португальский => английский
+ ...
| @ Mr Balasubramaniam | Jul 26, 2013 |
As I understand, you believe that people in Europe and the U.S. are:
a) Largely monolingual
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Many cannot even comprehend the concept of bilingual households, much less multi-language native speakers. This is especially true for the US and UK with their significantly monolingual populations
b) Speak a poor version of our own language when compared to the inhabitants of the former European colonies
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Another thing that many people cannot understand is the historical affects of Europeans moving across the continents in the colonial and imperial era. This has left educational institutions in their languages scattered across the globe and products of these institutions sometimes beat the natives at the language game.
Really???
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
Индия
Local time: 06:38
Член ProZ.com c 2006
английский => хинди
+ ...
ЛОКАЛИЗАТОР САЙТА
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
As I understand, you believe that people in Europe and the U.S. are:
a) Largely monolingual
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Many cannot even comprehend the concept of bilingual households, much less multi-language native speakers. This is especially true for the US and UK with their significantly monolingual populations
b) Speak a poor version of our own language when compared to the inhabitants of the former European colonies
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Another thing that many people cannot understand is the historical affects of Europeans moving across the continents in the colonial and imperial era. This has left educational institutions in their languages scattered across the globe and products of these institutions sometimes beat the natives at the language game.
Really???
Lisa, you have confused me for someone else. The first quote a) you give above is by Lincoln, not me.
Regarding b), yes some of you really would speak a poor version of your language when compared to some inhabitants of the former colonies.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
Индия
Local time: 06:38
Член ProZ.com c 2006
английский => хинди
+ ...
ЛОКАЛИЗАТОР САЙТА
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Most Europeans and Americans coming from mono-lingual backgrounds simply are unable to understand the linguistic diversity of places like India. They try to impose their mono-lingual understanding of language acquisition on people from multi-lingual backgrounds.
Whoever said that people in India couldn't possibly speak more than one language or, going further, could possibly have more than one native language?
For according to a previous post of yours, to you it is extremely suspicious for a person to have two native languages.
| | | | | two or more native languages are possible but often highly unlikely | Jul 26, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
For according to a previous post of yours, to you it is extremely suspicious for a person to have two native languages.
Maybe suspicious but that doesn't mean I can't accept it when proven.
Where is that quote, B.?
| | | | | Страниц в теме: < [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] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Ten common myths about translation quality | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
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 
Translation news
