Sometimes it can be surprisingly fun and
engaging to read what people say about your translation work in that it has
supposedly erred in places.
Every so often after I submit a translation task, the client / agency eventually gets back in touch asking me to have another look at something; as far as they’re concerned, they’re not 100% happy with what I did for them from the word go. I’ve gotten used to it, and I can usually accept it with grace. I don’t believe that the knee-jerk reaction of virulently defending my work is a good way to go. But for one project I once did (names and trademarks undisclosed here), I did specifically announce that I was defending my work.
After I submitted my original translation of the project in question, I received an email that went like this:
“Hi George
I received a negative fedback from the client about this translation.
please see below his words and attached the corrected file bu their revisor with trackchanges.
please comment on the changes they did.
looking forward to hearing from you,
Denise [not her real name]”
When I looked at the file, I found it hard to believe that just about everything had been altered (recorded with track changes) in a project that had only 687 words in the original. But I was prepared to stand up for what I did do – my response email contained these words:
“I can see that the client would have me believe that he's apt at rewriting English translations of things in such a way that they don't look like translations, and on some level, he is. But is it really appropriate to call this "negative" feedback? I was proud of that work, even if I'm not surprised to see a few things re-worded here and there. Now, I don't want to spend ages arguing over all the individual changes. But I defend my own work.”
What follows is a list of some the things I wrote in my original translation of the project accompanied by what the client suggested as their corrections, with my own response to the latter. I included it in my email to “Denise.”
My version: "Roof, antique floors and windows have also been restored, or, if necessary, rebuilt in such a way that they retain the original features."
Their version: "The roofs, old floors and windows have been restored, or where necessary reproduced in a way that maintains, unchanged, their original features."
The roofs, antique floors and windows maintain their original features as a result of this particular way. The particular way doesn't retain their individual features as such.
My version: "Currently, two homes are being sold."
Their version: "Two apartments still available."
He can call them what he likes, but it shouldn't come as a surprise that the client knows more about the fine aspects of his work then I do.
My version: "Dr. XXX aims to build houses and flats..."
Their version: "Dr. XXX builds houses and apartments..."
You can't just build houses and apartments "just like that." And think of all the things that can get in the way of that sort of thing. Like force majeure fare.
My version: "Highlights the special consideration attributed to environmental issues"
Their version: "Demonstrate the particular attention that has been paid to "environmental issues"
I think my version better implies that the attention paid to environmental issues still continues, as opposed to "has been paid." And isn't a demonstration always a matter of someone deliberately resolving to do something at their own accord?
I won’t hide how I finished off my response email:
“…I do agree with him on certain things. I should have written "the most beautiful house in Engadine" rather than "prettiest". And "eye-catcher" is probably too casual here, so go ahead and say that the building in question "stands out". The client has shown some qualities of a decent translator here.”
And how did “Denise” react? Well, she was contented enough to write, “thank you for your feedback, I will send your comment to my client.”, so I guess I handled the whole thing pretty well.
Every so often after I submit a translation task, the client / agency eventually gets back in touch asking me to have another look at something; as far as they’re concerned, they’re not 100% happy with what I did for them from the word go. I’ve gotten used to it, and I can usually accept it with grace. I don’t believe that the knee-jerk reaction of virulently defending my work is a good way to go. But for one project I once did (names and trademarks undisclosed here), I did specifically announce that I was defending my work.
After I submitted my original translation of the project in question, I received an email that went like this:
“Hi George
I received a negative fedback from the client about this translation.
please see below his words and attached the corrected file bu their revisor with trackchanges.
please comment on the changes they did.
looking forward to hearing from you,
Denise [not her real name]”
When I looked at the file, I found it hard to believe that just about everything had been altered (recorded with track changes) in a project that had only 687 words in the original. But I was prepared to stand up for what I did do – my response email contained these words:
“I can see that the client would have me believe that he's apt at rewriting English translations of things in such a way that they don't look like translations, and on some level, he is. But is it really appropriate to call this "negative" feedback? I was proud of that work, even if I'm not surprised to see a few things re-worded here and there. Now, I don't want to spend ages arguing over all the individual changes. But I defend my own work.”
What follows is a list of some the things I wrote in my original translation of the project accompanied by what the client suggested as their corrections, with my own response to the latter. I included it in my email to “Denise.”
My version: "Roof, antique floors and windows have also been restored, or, if necessary, rebuilt in such a way that they retain the original features."
Their version: "The roofs, old floors and windows have been restored, or where necessary reproduced in a way that maintains, unchanged, their original features."
The roofs, antique floors and windows maintain their original features as a result of this particular way. The particular way doesn't retain their individual features as such.
My version: "Currently, two homes are being sold."
Their version: "Two apartments still available."
He can call them what he likes, but it shouldn't come as a surprise that the client knows more about the fine aspects of his work then I do.
My version: "Dr. XXX aims to build houses and flats..."
Their version: "Dr. XXX builds houses and apartments..."
You can't just build houses and apartments "just like that." And think of all the things that can get in the way of that sort of thing. Like force majeure fare.
My version: "Highlights the special consideration attributed to environmental issues"
Their version: "Demonstrate the particular attention that has been paid to "environmental issues"
I think my version better implies that the attention paid to environmental issues still continues, as opposed to "has been paid." And isn't a demonstration always a matter of someone deliberately resolving to do something at their own accord?
I won’t hide how I finished off my response email:
“…I do agree with him on certain things. I should have written "the most beautiful house in Engadine" rather than "prettiest". And "eye-catcher" is probably too casual here, so go ahead and say that the building in question "stands out". The client has shown some qualities of a decent translator here.”
And how did “Denise” react? Well, she was contented enough to write, “thank you for your feedback, I will send your comment to my client.”, so I guess I handled the whole thing pretty well.
