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.
NB Under this topic I am also going to include the following, a comment I originally posted elsewhere on 11th August 2012:
ReplyDeleteIt’s fair to say that, when you do translation work for someone, if they get back to you and ask you to have a look at something, there’s a fair chance that they want you to correct is not the mere actual wording; they need more convincing that you actually know what you’re talking about. In one recent document I did there was a bit where the author said a little bit about health measures, and in my translation I wrote that something “decreases susceptibility to infection.” Now, I could have put “decreases chance of infection” and it would have worked equally well, but I believe that there is a specific subtle reason why the former phrase “is better” than the latter. The latter can sound too generic and vague, whereas when you look at the former you are reminded that the chance of you being infected by something depends specifically on how susceptible to infection you are.
Another piece of work I recently did – a test – was some business marketing; original language: German. A bit of it in the original read “Fortlaufend investieren wir einen hohen Umsatzanteil in aktuellste Labortechnik und die Weiterentwicklung unserer Mitarbeiter, um permanent auf Basis neuester wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse arbeiten zu können.“, which I translated as, “We continuously invest a high portion of our turnover in the most up-to-date laboratory technology and the further development of our staff, thus ensuring that we always work on the basis of the latest scientific knowledge.”. In retrospect, I think that I should have written, “We continue to invest a high portion of our turnover…” i.e. “we have done it before, and we continue to do it today, for a reason which we believe we have made evident here”; to me, this hypothetical viewpoint would reveal conviction, and customers respond well to any business that shows signs of conviction, don’t they? I think that “We continue to invest” would have been more likely to enhance the company’s credibility in its claims compared to “We continuously invest…”, and having said that I can’t imagine why the company would reveal details of its economic policies to everyone who wants to know them and everyone who doesn’t. Also, when you’re doing business and pursuing customer satisfaction and income, and you have to deal with the concept that “anything can happen”, wouldn’t you appreciate your company being flexible as far as its spending is concerned? “We continuously invest…”… so this company spends a high portion of its turnover in the most up-to-date laboratory technology and the further development of its staff and for a reason that is not slow to explain, which is all very well, but does “We continuously invest…” suggest that they are determined to do this come what may? Surely they would soon choose to review their spending policies if something like a force majeure circumstance happened?