Re: Bad translations?

[Bill Burns <BillDB -at- ILE -dot- COM>]

Leonard writes:

> Internationalization means to, as much as possible, prepare a text for
> loca=
> lization: to remove colloquialism, culturally specific jargon and
> metaphors=
> , and to edit the prose into a fully grammatical form (as opposed to
> somet=
> hing like journalistic English that, among other things, omits commas and
> w=
> ords like "that".
>
In part, yes, but internationalization also means designing your documents,
help, software, or other so localization can take place more effectively.
This might mean using the autogeneration and cross-reference features of a
DTP application in a specific way, or refraining from the use of K link
macros in WinHelp, or avoiding concatenation in software and JavaScript text
strings. It's an approach that takes into consideration the cultural
differences in numeric formats, syntax, character sets, and other
cultural-specific conventions.

Steven writes:

> >  as well as software localization (which I personally haven't had to
> > deal with yet).
>
>      This is also called "internationalization", often with a funky
> abbreviation involving a numeral 8 for reasons I cannot fathom.
>
I don't catch what you mean about internationalization/software
localization. They're two different steps to the process. The former
describes an approach to source development. The latter describes the
reengineering and translation part of the process. The abbreviation is I18N
for internationalization ("I," then 18 letters, then "N"). Localization is
L10N.

<ASIDE>I've been arguing that our branch of ILE should be referred to as the
D8T wing since we deal with English source development. A-and we sometimes
refer to each other using this convention--B1B for Bob, B2L for Bill--so we
have a tendency to run things into the ground. </ASIDE>

> > For example, I recently had a piece that contained the term
> > "corporate watchdog".  This required quite a bit of work to get the
> > translation to say the right thing - generally using a different
> > metaphor, but with a similar meaning. However, some translators
> > don't understand this.
>
It's not about the translator understanding the metaphor; it's about having
a parallel metaphor in the target language. The point in I18N is to avoid
such constructions because they have to be completely reconceived for each
culture. Instead of using something like "corporate watchdog," the writer
should use an official title with a clear description of the role. Metaphors
and idioms don't translate. Instead, a translator has to come up with a
parallel metaphor or simply translate the meaning to the best of their
ability without using a metaphor or idiom.

Some may consider such rework as minor, and it may be if you have few
instances in a text and you're only localizing into only one or two
languages. However, if you're covering a large language set, and you have
multiple translators for each language working on each piece, and you have a
tight schedule, you're going to increase the management time necessary to
coordinate the translation of those metaphors consistently. (Can't have
different interpretations of a single metaphor in one work, right?)

BTW, the localization requirements for MarCom and ad copy would probably be
different than for technical documentation.

Bill  Burns - Eccentric Technology Consultant
ILE Communications Group
billdb -at- ile -dot- com
Call me fishmeal.

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=