Difference between Nordic languages

Not our specialty, but this is very interesting: Difference between Nordic languages

Why can’t qualified subject specialists work on your project?

The biggest challenge for production staff these days is not finding qualified linguists.

There are many very qualified translators with very specialist capabilities who would have no difficulty with even complex content. However, in many cases they cannot be used on a project because they are not equipped with the particular flavor of new TM tool that is demanded by the client.

Most professional linguists at least have Trados, but, as we know, most of the industry is attempting to break away from using this TM tool. This has led to a dizzying grab bag of emerging translation tool systems that linguists must invest in and then be trained in.

The requirement that linguists use one of these new tools vastly limits the linguists who can undertake a project.

The overlay of processes, systems, specific software, on-line registrations and procedures by translation buyers is ensuring that the pool of translators available in our oversized cottage industry is considerably limited.

These systems are sold with the promise that the company will have its own unique process management and QA tools that will guarantee consistency and a perfect translation every time.

But down at the production level where the work is actually being produced, such tools waste time and have the opposite effect of creating quality. They instead ensure that the subject specialist resources who would be the very best translators for the job can no longer be used because they do not have the tool.

What is the “right” term?

In Southeast Asian languages, you can get a generalized idea of what is the standard or what is “right,” but this is from the middle- to upper-class trained linguists that would tend to make a living as translators. This is usually based on the “official” usage.

However, this “right” term might not be commonly used, commonly understood, or colloquially acceptable depending on the client. This is because the official terms in many Southeast Asian languages are set by bureaucrats and these terms have no relation to how the language is actually used.

So clients who insist on official terms often face howls of protest when they find their customers or workers are unable to understand the translated material.

For this sort of issue we find that the best resource is often the client salesperson. This is the person who interfaces with the buyer of the product being localized. The salesperson is the person who gives the sales presentations and thus has to understand the expectations of the industry. That means the input he can bring to an issue like this is often far superior to anything a linguists can—even though the linguist is an expert and doing things in the “correct” and “proper” way.

It may be that the expected correct terms in a certain business segment is far different that the generally accepted standard or the “proper” standards being promoted by a government organization.

It is not uncommon that when a linguist employs “standard” or “accepted” terminology or other standards in a work these can be totally rejected by the client as these might not be the commonly understood terminology of their very narrow industry.

Getting this input from sales is an excellent feedback loop to create as the ultimate intent of all localization is to enable a client to sell. Bringing this issue to the client is also a good way of demonstrating consultative knowledge and expertise that the client should recognize as a way to produce a better outcome for their project.

Thank you!

Humblebragging

We all laughed about this. We all do a lot of humblebragging in this industry. :) 

Beware of Humblebragging About Yourself

...For example, “humblebragging” is a common way to respond to interview questions such as “What’s your greatest weakness?” (“I’m bad at saying no, so I end up helping other people too often.”)...