tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2477329189905907968.post1143956802131346751..comments2023-05-31T11:46:50.421+02:00Comments on Financial Translation Blog: How to Be Much Smarter Than Your Dumbest Competitor: Warren Buffett, Commodities, and TranslationMiguel Llorens M.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06617102771655076833noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2477329189905907968.post-88190053681967649072012-07-05T15:09:32.512+02:002012-07-05T15:09:32.512+02:00Either translation is a commodity or not,still it ...Either translation is a commodity or not,still it gives me a very good living. Translation is an intellect with passion.Cassyhttp://www.language-translation-service.net/translation-services-houston-texas-a-215.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2477329189905907968.post-5664870580966092592012-07-02T18:43:43.342+02:002012-07-02T18:43:43.342+02:00one itsy bitsy boring comment: in Proz the wheat c...one itsy bitsy boring comment: in Proz the wheat can be separated from the chaff by selecting from among Certified members.<br /><br />Elizabeth Hill<br />Ata Certified It – En Translator<br />Legal, Financial, Archaeology, Oenology<br />Proz. Com CertifiedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2477329189905907968.post-2574069308357400752012-06-24T23:53:01.804+02:002012-06-24T23:53:01.804+02:00I'm up against a deadline so won't get int...I'm up against a deadline so won't get into this conversation right now except to say that the *French* title of the brochure Kevin mentions is a lot better than the English. <br />It reads "Les mots au kilo ?" <br />That's "Words by the kilo?" (note the question mark). <br />Has a nice swing (mots-au-ki-lo, get it?).<br />Since the non-commodity argument is made in the opening paragraphs of the brochure itself (and reasonably well, I think), I agree with Kevin (for the reasons he explains) that we really should be looking for a new title. <br />Since there hasn't been a print run, we can make the change easily.<br />Suggestions, anyone?<br />(Miguel, sorry, will get back to comment on the content of your post once the crunch is off)Chris Durbanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07899425548621554695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2477329189905907968.post-36595401444173474542012-06-23T23:01:21.102+02:002012-06-23T23:01:21.102+02:00Ask yourself this: What is the purpose of the text...Ask yourself this: What is the purpose of the text?<br /><br />If it’s a technical text on the physics of high-temperature superconductivity, for example, you’ll get no argument from me on “non-integer” or non-anything in a quantitative sense, so I agree with you here. I translated a journal in this field for well over a decade, and the target audience there was leading-edge research scientists. There are fewer things that drive me more insane than somebody suggesting that a translation cannot be right or wrong, in the manner of a bank statement.<br /><br />On whether people who claim such things get called on it, we’ll see. There’s a conference going on in Paris right now where the author of a popular book on translation who claimed such nonsense is about to get called on it, and in public.<br /><br />Anyway, the purpose of the ATA document on translation being a “non-commodity” is to persuade and encourage the reader – a member of the public – to consider the proposition that translation is not a commodity. The process of persuasion is in many ways an art form – the fact that it cannot be reasonably quantified does not invalidate this reality – and in any process of persuasion that relates to a person’s place in the world, you must deal with the mechanisms people use to make sense out of the world.<br /><br />Our brains make sense out of the world by deploying a massive, sophisticated and interlinked cognitive filtering network that runs constantly in the foreground of our sentient reality (what we call “ourselves” actually runs in the background). The best way to penetrate this network with your message about something not being a commodity is to hop on the back of words and ideas and concepts that the reader recognizes and ride those through the network and into the conscious mind.<br /><br />In this scenario, you are best served by focusing on what the reader recognizes – the frequency of the terms in the common lexicon – and that carry the most force in that reader’s mind. If you don’t choose wisely here, each person’s cognitive network will overrule you, pick and pluck the meaning that the reader wants from the words you are using.<br /><br />So this will backfire every time.<br /><br />For example, when you called my original message “well worded,” (thanks!) you really weren’t talking about the individual words, or even how they fit together. You were talking about the collective impact of the ideas those words represented on you and your own version of that cognitive network.<br /><br />I’ve spent a great deal of my adult life speaking to non-translators (the public) about translation. For the last 12 years I was ATA's national media spokesman, and in that capacity spoke to 200+ million people. I learned long ago that any public outreach on this subject that has any hope of success must rest on the bedrock of the mind of the people you are talking to. The fastest way to cause non-translators to nod off and fall into a deep slumber – or to click away, or look over your shoulder, or check their watch or otherwise try to get the hell away from you – is to talk like a translator.Kevin Hendzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13134174901029466746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2477329189905907968.post-13408922125467949192012-06-23T17:05:07.196+02:002012-06-23T17:05:07.196+02:00Why should we drop that word? Quite the contrary. ...Why should we drop that word? Quite the contrary. The negative prefix "non" takes the shortest time to process because of perceptual proximity. <br /><br />And Kevin's argument about the average reader shows a serious disrespect of anyone's capacity for thinking - it's pretty much the same as saying that since "non-finite" is all too similar to "finite", students should henceforth not be taught the "problematic" word with the negative prefix - it should be replaced by a new one with a more marketable ring to it that'll stick. Chapeau! It does take an enterprising spirit to do away with the usefulness of the negative prefix in the English language with a stroke of a pen, as even the dumbest among us know that the prefix non- is used to create a word that describes the complete opposite of its non-negative form. In other words, a non-conformist is someone who absolutely does not conform. Uncomformist and inconformist wouldn’t have the same sense. By what other name should one call a non-word? Or a non-integer? I am sorry, but I will not take seriously any argument that begins with rubbish, however well worded it may be.Verbehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06259880238103010118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2477329189905907968.post-70062431596500063152012-06-22T06:22:47.074+02:002012-06-22T06:22:47.074+02:00While I think all accomplished professional transl...While I think all accomplished professional translators would emphatically agree that translation is not a commodity, can we please drop the term “non-commodity?” There is a cost in using it. For example, I find the title of Chris’ ATA publication, Translation: Standards for Buying a Non-Commodity to be worrisome and very likely counterproductive, in the sense that the two ideas any reader will come away with after reading that title are surely “translation” and “commodity.” The reason, of course, is that the term “non-commodity” has a vanishingly small frequency in the common English lexicon, particularly compared to a high-frequency term like “commodity.” The human mind, as we all know, is very stubborn and intransigent about recognizing the familiar – often in a flash, and quite intuitively – and rejecting the unfamiliar, meaning that clients, potential clients and the public will simply never even see that “non-” part. <br /><br />What they will see is “translation” + “commodity.”<br /><br />So let’s stop that (and change the title). I think Chris would agree with me on that.<br /><br />[Note to self – don’t grumble about how ATA missed the boat on a LANGUAGE issue large enough to accommodate a nuclear aircraft carrier with enough open sea on both sides to easily fit two dozen Iranian fast attack boats. Yikes!]<br /><br />Anyway, I’m of mixed minds on what to say about invoking Buffet and Berkshire to challenge or invalidate or humiliate the commodity model, as much as it deserves deep humiliation, as you so rightly note. On the one hand, Berkshire currently holds in its portfolio such companies as Walmart, Dollar General and Costco, which are the ultimate in price-driven discount retailing wrought large. If there were any companies in retailing that shared deep conceptual and philosophical roots with the MT-centric, technology-infatuated and hysterical price-driven crowd in the translation market, surely these three companies would be at the very top. <br /><br />And Warren Buffet owns them.<br /><br />On the other hand, they surely collectively constitute one mean effective monopoly. <br /><br />So perhaps what Buffet would advise is to avoid commodity companies unless you can ruthlessly strangle competition by beating the hell out of them through aggressive pricing, position leveraging and stringent cost-control via massive volume purchases from deep offshore sources.<br /><br />Yes, now that sounds familiar. Even in our industry.Kevin Hendzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13134174901029466746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2477329189905907968.post-19230952717599091972012-06-19T02:45:45.050+02:002012-06-19T02:45:45.050+02:00"..frequent reader Gueibor..."
Woo hoo, ...<i>"..frequent reader Gueibor..."</i><br />Woo hoo, I'm innuhnetz famous!!<br /><br />(Sorry about that, I'm sorry, won't happen again, I promise)<br /><br />Mr. Grunwald seems like a good sport, whatever his views on this industry. He shouldn't be wasting time on Proz - maybe that would lift his spirits.<br /><br />From the comments on his blog, I can't help noticing how Proz seems to keep letting everybody down no matter how hard they try. To outsourcers, they're "anti-agency and pro-translator", and to translators - what can I possibly ad to the miles of diatribes already written?<br /><br />It saddens me a bit - I'm not a Proz hater. I found the site enormously useful when I was getting started, but I'm afraid "getting started" is pretty much where its upper limit of usefulness is located. Once you've built the tiniest customer base, it becomes more of an annoyance than anything else if you've bought into the notion that you can get real actual <i>work</i> out of your membership.<br /><br />I've since gone back to the free version and I've yet to notice the difference. If I'm anywhere near a typical case, that can't be good from Proz's viewpoint.Gueiborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15790682443057783467noreply@blogger.com