Re. Inferior translations

[Geoff Hart <geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>]

     Mark Margolin reported an experience with a big-name translation
     agency that "got the words right but missed the ideas". I'll assume
     that your English original is easy to comprehend, because if it isn't,
     then the fault lies at least partially with the original. (This is
     based on several years of my own experience as a translator: if you
     translate gibberish, you'll get gibberish.) If the original is fine
     (based on your audience's perception, not yours), then the problem is
     likely incompetent translation... you could do just as well with a
     $200 machine translation package. (A competent translator will
     translate the idea, not just the words.) If the words don't
     communicate the right idea, then they're the wrong words... no matter
     what the dictionary says or the translator claims.

     For your next translation, try two things: (1) explain the specific
     problem (quote the audience) and what you expect the translator to do
     about it, (2) make an "audience approval" part of the written
     conditions of payment. That is, remind the translator that the object
     isn't just to produce a string of words, but rather to explain a
     concept in language the audience can understand, and get a written
     commitment to do this; if they can't meet this criterion, they simply
     haven't honored the terms of the contract, and you shouldn't feel
     obliged to pay them. Note: If the company is a large, reputable firm,
     explain your problem to them. Odds are you'll get at least some
     satisfaction (e.g., a rewrite or a partial refund).

     --Geoff Hart    @8^{)}
     geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca

     Disclaimer: If I didn't commit it in print in one of
     our reports, it don't represent FERIC's opinion.