Philosophy Now Forum

Most translations used in the humanities are poor, and even the best still have major flaws.

In most cases this is true, but it also depends on the translator. I think contemporary translations are mainly influenced by clients, they only pretend low costs and fast works, regardless of quality.
Even CAT tools greatly reduce quality translations, nowadays clients ask you just to have been experiencing in WordFast, babel's, and so on. No machine translations are an optional.

David Handeye wrote:In most cases this is true, but it also depends on the translator. I think contemporary translations are mainly influenced by clients, they only pretend low costs and fast works, regardless of quality.
Even CAT tools greatly reduce quality translations, nowadays clients ask you just to have been experiencing in WordFast, babel's, and so on. No machine translations are an optional.

What do you mean by 'clients' and 'CAT tools'? I am talking about translations for publishers.

Aren't publishers clients? For CAT tools I mean Computer Assisted Translation Tools, I know SDL Trados and Wordfast.

Even in traditional environments, a CAT tool can increase your production. With a tool pre-translating from a reasonably-stocked translation memory, you could finish twice as much work in the same time.

David Handeye wrote:Aren't publishers clients? For CAT tools I mean Computer Assisted Translation Tools, I know SDL Trados and Wordfast.

Even in traditional environments, a CAT tool can increase your production. With a tool pre-translating from a reasonably-stocked translation memory, you could finish twice as much work in the same time.

That's not the same thing. Publishers are not the same as clients for private translation services. Also, I have no idea how any kind of 'tool' could assist me in my translation work. It calls for thinking above all.

.



Questo è quello che ho pensato che volevi dire;


La maggior parte delle traduzioni utilizzati nelle discipline umanistiche sono grandi, e anche il peggiore avere maggiore valore positivo.






.

Melchior wrote:

David Handeye wrote:Aren't publishers clients? For CAT tools I mean Computer Assisted Translation Tools, I know SDL Trados and Wordfast.

Even in traditional environments, a CAT tool can increase your production. With a tool pre-translating from a reasonably-stocked translation memory, you could finish twice as much work in the same time.

That's not the same thing. Publishers are not the same as clients for private translation services. Also, I have no idea how any kind of 'tool' could assist me in my translation work. It calls for thinking above all.

Ciao Melchior,
may I ask you, are you a professional translator? Is it your main occupation?
I have occasionally worked as freelance translator, CAT tools are very popular in such framework, unfortunately I'd say. CAT tools are thought to be quite indispensable, actually I don't like working in this way.
Honestly, here we have not such difference between publishers and private clients. Could you explain the difference?

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



Questo è quello che ho pensato che volevi dire;


La maggior parte delle traduzioni utilizzati nelle discipline umanistiche sono grandi, e anche il peggiore avere maggiore valore positivo.






.

Great job, Bill!
(The Italian job )

.


Stavo pensando a te.




.

David Handeye wrote:

Melchior wrote:

David Handeye wrote:Aren't publishers clients? For CAT tools I mean Computer Assisted Translation Tools, I know SDL Trados and Wordfast.

Even in traditional environments, a CAT tool can increase your production. With a tool pre-translating from a reasonably-stocked translation memory, you could finish twice as much work in the same time.

That's not the same thing. Publishers are not the same as clients for private translation services. Also, I have no idea how any kind of 'tool' could assist me in my translation work. It calls for thinking above all.

Ciao Melchior,
may I ask you, are you a professional translator? Is it your main occupation?
I have occasionally worked as freelance translator, CAT tools are very popular in such framework, unfortunately I'd say. CAT tools are thought to be quite indispensable, actually I don't like working in this way.
Honestly, here we have not such difference between publishers and private clients. Could you explain the difference?

No.

Melchior wrote:That's not the same thing. Publishers are not the same as clients for private translation services. Also, I have no idea how any kind of 'tool' could assist me in my translation work. It calls for thinking above all.

David Handeye wrote:Ciao Melchior,
may I ask you, are you a professional translator? Is it your main occupation?
I have occasionally worked as freelance translator, CAT tools are very popular in such framework, unfortunately I'd say. CAT tools are thought to be quite indispensable, actually I don't like working in this way.
Honestly, here we have not such difference between publishers and private clients. Could you explain the difference?

No.

so why quoting my post? If you don't, you don't, period

David Handeye wrote:

Melchior wrote:That's not the same thing. Publishers are not the same as clients for private translation services. Also, I have no idea how any kind of 'tool' could assist me in my translation work. It calls for thinking above all.

David Handeye wrote:Ciao Melchior,
may I ask you, are you a professional translator? Is it your main occupation?
I have occasionally worked as freelance translator, CAT tools are very popular in such framework, unfortunately I'd say. CAT tools are thought to be quite indispensable, actually I don't like working in this way.
Honestly, here we have not such difference between publishers and private clients. Could you explain the difference?

No.

so why quoting my post? If you don't, you don't, period

So that everyone knows the reference. I am talking about translations of the Western Canon and similar literature, not commercial translation.