TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Bad translations? From:Jim Aikens <jaikens -at- ZOOMIT -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:15:42 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Hart (by way of "Eric J. Ray" <ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com>)
<ght -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>
>I think the important point here is that you need both a translation
>and a quality-control (editing and review) phase. Translation alone
>is not enough to guarantee a good result.
As an aside, I have found that translation provides a very special kind
of quality control that otherwise might not be applied: it makes you
ask, when you look at the original, "What exactly does this mean?" And
sometimes in very plaintive tones.
Far too often, familiarity blinds us to the use of meaningless "buzz
words" and phrases that add an impressive touch of expertise to a text
without actually saying anything -- especially, but certainly not
exclusively, in marketing writing and consultant's reports. Not to
mention some of my own manuals. Being confronted with the task of
translating them, or reviewing a translation, makes their hollowness
ring out loudly, if not always clearly.
