tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3518334.post6578385131343712302..comments2024-02-26T03:12:14.514-07:00Comments on About Translation: CAT tools and translation styleRiccardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08033214185364578008noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3518334.post-69706051974498749782018-10-10T08:09:48.405-06:002018-10-10T08:09:48.405-06:00According to Jinglin’s comment on the blog of CAT ...According to Jinglin’s comment on the blog of CAT tools and translation style, she believed that CAT tools, such as SDL Trados and MemoQ, are effective for improving the processes of translation works, such as birth certificates or literary translation. From my perspective, I totally agree with Jinglin’s standpoint, CAT tools as assistance tools not only shorten the duration of translation but also develop the quality of the translation. It will get half the result with twice the effort if translators utilize these tools for their translation works.<br /><br />GabrielAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15761269925127434711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3518334.post-52636597150844903802018-10-09T06:54:38.081-06:002018-10-09T06:54:38.081-06:00This is a quite interesting topic to ponder when i...This is a quite interesting topic to ponder when it comes to computer-assisted translation (CAT) tools for translation. Thanks for sharing such useful tips for creative translating, in the practical way of balancing between writing style and CAT tool application. Such a post can also be complementary to the application of CAT tools (Chan).<br /><br />Admittedly, some senior and experienced literature translators oppose against the use of computer tools. They prefer the old-school style of using pen and paper, especially for literary translation. I can see the point that they would like to insist on: the faithful adherence to source texts. However, I firmly believe that CAT tools are powerful and advantageous in modern translation sitting. They play a crucial role in efficiency and consistency when handling and processing excessive workload (QIAN Duoxiu & TENG Xiong), even for translating creative texts. <br /><br />From the given flow chat, it clearly indicates that how much CAT tools can assist. On the one hand, in a scientific or technical domain, such as birth certificates or legal contracts, translation can be generated and finalised within CAT tools throughout because of a significant number of repetitions involved. By updating and enriching personal translation memory (TM), the efficiency of translation can be improved remarkably. It saves a great deal of time and energy for a translator. Thanks to modern translation technology, it also comes up with ever-expandable TM to supplement to limited human memory (Pym).<br /><br />On the other hand, CAT tools are not useless or worthless in the domain of literature when we consider the translation consistency within a piece of work or comparing with others’ translation. CAT tools effectively help translators with translation-project management and fast-tracking during the translation process apart from purely translating segments. Surely, I have to keep in mind that the tools are just ‘machine assistants’, human post-editing, proofreading and finalising should never be neglected for a good translation (Gouadec). <br /><br />As per Pym suggested, it is interesting to see CAT tools, both Trados and MemoQ, from my perspective, can be encouraged to translate literature by breaking the pre-set segment-by-segment method for a more cohesive entity by their segment joining function. Such computerised tool assistance does level up the translation process to make the latter fit in the 21st century, in my opinion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17292258171348362017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3518334.post-58028610785544115752016-04-16T10:13:49.959-06:002016-04-16T10:13:49.959-06:00Yes, paragraph-level segmentation does reduce your...Yes, paragraph-level segmentation does reduce your chances of fuzzy matching to near zero, but then if you use such segmentation only for creative kinds of text, the chances of fuzzy matches being useful are pretty low to begin with. <br /><br />For "normal" texts, where repetitions and fuzzy matches are likely, of course normal segmenation is to be preferred.<br /><br />Interesting that you work with Omega-T: originally it used paragraph segmentation by default, and sentence-level segmentation became default only later.Riccardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08033214185364578008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3518334.post-40437449219746967502016-04-16T02:50:18.251-06:002016-04-16T02:50:18.251-06:00A useful discussion, thanks for sharing. I'm i...A useful discussion, thanks for sharing. I'm impressed by your resolution to keep as much of the work as possible within the CAT tool. I do use a CAT tool (OmegaT) for all my translations, and like you, I do worry about the source-in-target structure that inevitably ensues, though it should be noted that this isn't necessarily a bad thing for the client who would like to compare the two versions. And at base, CAT tools are the best way of avoiding errors of omission (skipping a sentence or term) that would otherwise inevitably occur from time to time in a busy workflow.<br /><br />I then treat the output of the CAT tool as a inter-language document, don an editorial cap emblazoned "skopos" and, thinking "What has this bizarre translator written for me now?", revise most freely. This seems to work. I do check back against the CAT version if I think my editor is diverging too far from the source author's actual intention, but I don't worry too much about subsequent re-alignment: for me it's either a 100% rep, or something that's probably going to need a tweak later anyway.<br /><br />And a question: doesn't selecting paragraph-level segmentation reduce your chances of subsequent fuzzy matching to near zero?Douglas Carnall, @juliuzbeezerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13563159368217318352noreply@blogger.com