| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | Should “native language” claims be verified? Thread poster: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
Phil Hand 
China
Local time: 21:23
Chinese to English
I'm keen to stick to my "keep it simple, Samuel" rule. For me this is a working definition (strictly, an operationalisation). I didn't want to go there at all, but there are a significant number of people who do, thus...
On the specific points you raise, I think it's reasonable to exclude them:
Samuel Murray wrote:
In addition, I'd refine the definition as follows: A language that you were fluent in during your childhood and that you still speak fluently today.
Children, as a general rule, don't speak languages non-fluently. They either speak it or they don't - they don't have the same pressures as us. So I don't think it's necessary to add fluent to the first part; and in the second part, I'd say it's irrelevant unless you're testing, and if you're testing you're inevitably going to be looking for fluency, whether we write it in or not.
You may need to define "childhood" a little more clearly -- does it mean "before the age of 5", "before the age of 8-10" or "before the age of 15-18"? Or perhaps you are satisfied with this ambiguity in the definition...? Remember, a definition can be simple even if it is qualified in explanatory comments that supplement the definition, so you don't have to build this distinction right into the definition. I simply point to it because I suspect it would be an issue for some.
This question is way too hard for us to solve here. Personally, my understanding would be that the limit should be put at 5, but I know know some people disagree with that, and no-one here has the expertise to win such an argument.
So I would much prefer to keep it as is, and ask those who would like a more detailed definition to be understanding. The less we specify, the more potential consensus we can achieve.
...
I've just seen Ty's suggestion, that we make it 12. I would be happy to go with that. Let's say this: if anyone thinks that 12 is too low, then please speak now, otherwise we'll go with 12. If you think that 12 is too high, then please be understanding, because there are a lot of different viewpoints on this.
| | | | rjlChile (X)
Local time: 10:24
BeaDeer wrote:
@Ty and Robin - You have misread my post
Errr.... I don't recall having responded to any of your posts, so how do you know I even read them - let alone 'misread' them?
BeaDeer wrote (with my emphasis):
(...) We are all educated linguists here (...)
That is not at all evident in view of some of the 'linguistic' arguments to be found in this thread.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:24
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | No objection | Sep 15, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
We agreed that a usable working definition of "native language" could be this:
A language which you spoke during your childhood and still speak today.
It's still very flexible (which I like), but it does put just a little bit of meat on the bones, and points the way towards what potential tests and factors for exclusion could be (information about your history; test of your ability to speak it today).
Does anyone have any major objections to proposing this as a working definition? Anything to add?
Since this is the definition that was proposed on page 1 of this thread http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/227485-should_“native_language”_claims_be_verified.html#1966525
| | | | | no such thing as an equivalent to native speaker (IMO) | Sep 15, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
If I understood it correctly, you'd consider a native someone who was born in X-land, lived and studied there until the age of, say, 12-16. Then the entire family moved to Z-land, but they kept speaking X-ese every day at home. The person went on studying in Z-ese, of course speaking it every day everywhere, later at work, and so on.
IMHO that person's command of X-ese will be somewhat limited to household matters and to their youth in terms of intellectual level, unless they studied X-ese in some local 'XSL' school, used it at work, etc. etc. If they didn't, I wouldn't expect them to be able to translate into X-ese for any business purposes.
I wouldn't expect that person to be a translator into X (or even from X) if he/she didn't continue using X into adulthood reading books, watching TV and "practicing" translating or didn't otherwise continue to expand their vocabulary, or, in a second scenario, didn't reacqaint her/himself with language X later in life reading books, watching TV and "practicing" translating or didn't otherwise "review" and expand their vocabulary BEFORE they ever became a translator using X.
Now, once they did that and show up here (or elsewhere) claiming they are native speaker translators, why should I not believe them?
The worst (very unlikely) situation I can think of is that such a person did not use language X from say age 16-30 and then one day says to him/herself, well, I think I become a translator, my native language is X, so I will state so and get good jobs and do a good job. Why she/he would do such a thing is another question, but ..
... not that she/he isn't a native speaker of X (even if she/he hasn't used it for many years). She/he is just not going to cut it as a translator right away.
But we're talking about people whose native language has never been X, and who claim it as a native language nonetheless. If you didn't learn it as a child, you are not a native speaker of that language and never will (IMO). Being fluent in it might land you a translation job into that language, but it doesn't make you a native speaker.
And when you argue it doesn't matter that only "technically" you're not a native speaker, I don't agree; it does because it always shows, more or less, and it's not true that you are a native speaker.
And just because there are non-native translators who speak X very well, we can't just say, oh well, we'll accept them into the "native" club. Tomorrow, another one will knock on the door, speaking it slightly less fluently wanting in, and the next day another, until the line between true natives and non-natives has completely disappeared.
We wouldn't let just any native speaker into the native speaker translator club, but admittance to the "native speaker club" is indeed possible for any native speaker, no matter how bad they are (grammatically or with respect to vocabulary).
But non-natives can't be admitted into either.
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
Worst of it, if that person went back to X-land, say, four decades later (and I happen know such a case), they'll most likely be taken for an X-land 'classical theater' actor/actress.
All I can tell you is that in this day and age with internet and high-tech devices, it is getting harder and harder to "lose" one's native language because even far from home, you can easily watch TV in your native language as many hours as you want (as long as you have access).
And no, I don't believe you can acquire a native language like that when you are beyond your formative years (through watching TV that is).
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
My view is that if a person from Z-land, whatever their personal history may be, from their delivery in speech and writing in Y-ese is taken by native residents of Y-land as one of them, that person is entitled to say ther are (equivalent to) a native speaker of Y-ese.
Well, in general, yes, but not "equivalent to native".
And because our profession deals with a fairly complex use of language in particular, I wouldn't just ask anyone who can't even spell right (there are native speakers like that). They might say that you sound like them, but they wouldn't be able to judge your written output correctly, in terms of correct grammar or "nativeness"!!!
So let's just ask native speakers of X who are also in the translation profession.
And, yes, go ahead and meet with them and get "verified" as a true native speaker.
But without verification, I can only refer you to Phil's and others' statements on this page.
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
If Proz doesn't have an "equivalent to native" label, I can't help it. This is where we differ.
I won't agree that someone can call him/herself an "equivalent to native" speaker, not even "for the purpose of translating". You either are a native speaker or you are not. (IMO)
My thoughts.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-15 17:17 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| I understand your point , Bernhard, and I agree with it to a certain degree | Sep 15, 2012 |
A person's L1 is their L1 -- there is no way to change it, but this does not mean that this person's command of that language is on the level sufficient to translate into it, or even from it, as you said. Native language is really a more vague concept than L1 -- it does not necessarily require the early childhood acquisition based on some definitions of it. I think this term is outdated and vague for translation purposes and should be replaced with something else, or ignored. With English gainin... See more A person's L1 is their L1 -- there is no way to change it, but this does not mean that this person's command of that language is on the level sufficient to translate into it, or even from it, as you said. Native language is really a more vague concept than L1 -- it does not necessarily require the early childhood acquisition based on some definitions of it. I think this term is outdated and vague for translation purposes and should be replaced with something else, or ignored. With English gaining the position of lingua franca, the linguistic reality of the world is changing. Many young people from the former Eastern European Block learn a different language at home in their early childhood, then they move somewhere, or even go to study to England, or to another European country where the university courses are offered in English, and their L1 becomes neglected and definitely less developed than their English. So, I really believe the term does not serve its purpose in the translation, or other employment related, field anymore. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 15:24
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Not quite the same as Tom's, but quite close | Sep 15, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: Phil Hand wrote:
We agreed that a usable working definition of "native language" could be this:
A language which you spoke during your childhood and still speak today. Since this is the definition that was proposed on page 1 of this thread.
To be true, Tom's definition to which you refer implies that the language must have been in continued daily use since childhood, whereas Phil's definition does not have that requirement. Phil's definition does not mind a hiatus, as long as the language is currently used. Also, since Phil does not want to include fluency in the language, Phil's definition covers occasional use in contrast to Tom's "daily use". Because proving continued daily use would be difficult, in practice, Phil's freer definition suffices nonetheless.
| | | | rjlChile (X)
Local time: 10:24
| All-pass/Stop-nothing filter | Sep 15, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
(...) we would like Proz to consider using this working definition of a native language: "A native language is a language which you spoke during your childhood and still speak today."
I really do not see how that definition will stop non-natives of English, FOR EXAMPLE*, from claiming English as 'their' or 'a' native language when it is not.
Taking it at face value, I could claim French as a native language - although I never even set foot in any French-speaking country before age 21 and I speak (and write) it far better now than I did then.
The definition does not preclude me from making that unjustified claim so, were I so inclined, I could cheat with a clear conscience, just the same way many folk do here already.
The definition makes no distinction between natural and acquired aquisition of the supposed language; in that respect it is fundamentally flawed.
Over and above that failing, the all-pass/stop nothing filter proposed by Phil and apparently supported by others is far more relaxed than the definition already applied by most honest translators when they determine their own native language(s) in terms of – as Proz rules put it – “their own definition”.
I’d go further and say that the proposed definition is an open invitation to make false claims, to an extent that the current “by your own definition” rule isn’t. Under the current system, most principled professional translators are properly self-regulating; but some, on the margin of that system but held in rein for fear of finding themselves uncomfortable with their own decisions, might be tempted to stretch their own principles if they can do so and clearly remain within the site’s own, more relaxed, rules as per the proposed all-pass/stop nothing definition. Consider this, if you will:
User with a troubled conscience under the present scheme, on seeing the new ultra-liberal definition of ‘native language’, wrote:
I remember singing “Frère Jaques” at nursery school in London. Therefore, French is a language I spoke (sort of…) during my childhood. Ipso facto I am a native speaker of French according to the new Proz definition! Ah! – and I remember sitting on my aunt’s knee – she was a French teacher, by the way – and she’d hold up her fountain-pen and ask “Qu’est-ce que c’est ?” And I’d dutifully reply: “C’est la plume de ma tante !”
Hmmmm…. As this thread performs a final(?) pirouette and disappears up its own bac…. I sincerely believe that the proposed definition will make matters very considerably worse, not better.
With the current Proz policy of auto-definition and self-determination, and if (big IF) the associated finger-pointing system were operational, Proz would need to assess each contested claim to nativeness according to two distinct, personal, definitions: one, proffered by ‘the plaintiff’, falling on one side of the ‘facts’, the other, from ‘the defendant’, on the other. With the single ubiquitous and utterly laxist definition now being proposed, everyone (or as close as makes no difference) would end up on the ‘right’ side of the only definition on the table. No contest – heads fraudster wins, tails honesty loses!
We need a system, a definition, a ‘line drawn in the sand’ that determines that Lisa, Phil and myself (for example, among others) are without doubt true native English-speakers; that says with equal certitude that José (native PTBR), Bala (native Hindi) and Samuel (native Afrikaans) are not native English-speakers (as per their own statements in this thread) but they’re English is so bl…y good that they’re welcome on-board as long as they promise to play fair and not pretend to be what they’re not; and that fraudsters like (no names mentioned – we all know who I mean) are not, never have been, and cannot possibly become, native English speakers.
To that end, the current Proz policy of auto-definition and self-determination is probably the only tenable policy, especially considering the site’s business model, resources and function within our profession. But like any policy, it needs to be ‘policed’ properly, by setting up the long promised, long awaited and desperately lacking scheme to weed out the most pretentious liars and cheats, on the basis of properly documented denouncements.
Implementation of a properly functioning policing scheme to support Proz.com’s declared policy should, I suggest, be the sole purpose of any petition.
Robin
*emphasis for Bala's benefit
[Edited at 2012-09-15 22:53 GMT]
| | | | | A new point was proven here | Sep 15, 2012 |
Bernhard, I won't repeat all your arguments here, however granting that they are all valid and true, they collectively lead me to one unavoidable conclusion:
As long as there are clear and definite criteria to determine whether an individual is a native speaker of a certain language, such attribute will have relatively little relevance in determining their competence as a translator into that language.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Now, once they did that and show up here (or elsewhere) claiming they are native speaker translators, why should I not believe them?
Well, many come up here and there saying they are translators, and from the way they do it, I am not that gullible to believe they are indeed. However this is certainly an extremely important to consider in assessing translator competence.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
... my native language is X, so I will state so and get good jobs and do a good job.
This assumption will no longer be useful, if 'being native' in the target language is no longer so important as a decisive criterion. Actually a great translator is prone to do a much better job into a non-native language than a thoroughly native nincompoop
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
But we're talking about people whose native language has never been X, and who claim it as a native language nonetheless. If you didn't learn it as a child, you are not a native speaker of that language and never will (IMO). Being fluent in it might land you a translation job into that language, but it doesn't make you a native speaker.
Sure! From the conclusion above, being a native speaker is just an attribute one gets in early life. Coincidences may turn that into a useful skill for translation... or not.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
And just because there are non-native translators who speak X very well, we can't just say, oh well, we'll accept them into the "native" club. Tomorrow, another one will knock on the door, speaking it slightly less fluently wanting in, and the next day another, until the line between true natives and non-natives has completely disappeared.
That's correct. Native speakers from now on will form a sealed club for each language, irrespective of variants, as translation is no longer an issue. They'll have native luncheons, celebrate their nativeness, and that's all. If some of them are translators, it's all right, others will be physicians, lawyers, engineers, dentists, waiters, handymen, janitors, garbage collectors, hobos, thieves, but all native speakers
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
Worst of it, if that person went back to X-land, say, four decades later (and I happen know such a case), they'll most likely be taken for an X-land 'classical theater' actor/actress.
All I can tell you is that in this day and age with internet and high-tech devices, it is getting harder and harder to "lose" one's native language because even far from home, you can easily watch TV in your native language as many hours as you want (as long as you have access). And no, I don't believe you can acquire a native language like that when you are beyond your formative years (through watching TV that is).
Aha! You are correct again. I see many people driving cars everywhere and, by the way some do it, I feel sure these took driving lessons and got their driver's license via Internet.
So it would be quite possible nowadays for someone really "plugged" to the web since an early age to be virtually a native of some other place. They could live, say, physically in India, and virtually in Germany. Go everywhere via Google Maps, interact with people over Skype, watch classes via webcam... They would be virtual natives before ever having been "there".
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
My view is that if a person from Z-land, whatever their personal history may be, from their delivery in speech and writing in Y-ese is taken by native residents of Y-land as one of them, that person is entitled to say ther are (equivalent to) a native speaker of Y-ese.
Well, in general, yes, but not " equivalent to native".
At least yes for translation purposes, which is all Proz is/should be about. Not for other purposes. The equivalent-to-natives won't be allowed into the club.
As a Brazilian equivalent-to-native speater of EN-US, I'll go on celebrating my independence on Sept. 7th; July 4th will be just a regular day for me. While I may join the Wal-Mart Sam's Club, I wont be allowed into Uncle Sam's club. This is how it is, and so it should remain.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
And because our profession deals with a fairly complex use of language in particular, I wouldn't just ask anyone who can't even spell right (there are native speakers like that). They might say that you sound like them, but they wouldn't be able to judge your written output correctly, in terms of correct grammar or "nativeness"!!!
I'd go beyond that. Those who can't spell properly can use a spellchecker. However those who can't write properly and with adequate style in a language, should not translate into it, regardless if they are native or not. Here is where you drove my initial conclusion above home, got it in, and locked the door!
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
If Proz doesn't have an "equivalent to native" label, I can't help it. This is where we differ. I won't agree that someone can call him/herself an "equivalent to native" speaker, not even "for the purpose of translating". You either are a native speaker or you are not. (IMO) My thoughts.
Definitely! The best thing to do is to have Proz wipe out any organized, formal reference to a translator's native language. It's misleading in translator selection. In the personal profile, they can mention their membership to the X-ese native speakers' club, Sam's Club, Diners Club, whatever they want.
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 06:24
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
Phil Hand wrote:
This question is way too hard for us to solve here. Personally, my understanding would be that the limit should be put at 5, but I know know some people disagree with that, and no-one here has the expertise to win such an argument.
Five is far too young. Based on my personal observations and my study of the research literature, I would say that about 13 seems to be the upper limit, a year or two more if nativeness of pronunciation is not taken into account.
[Edited at 2012-09-15 19:49 GMT]
| | | | | doesn't make you a native speaker | Sep 15, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
I'd go beyond that. Those who can't spell properly can use a spellchecker. However those who can't write properly and with adequate style in a language, should not translate into it, regardless if they are native or not. Here is where you drove my initial conclusion above home, got it in, and locked the door!
Which is??? That you qualify as a native speaker??
B
| | | |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
I'd go beyond that. Those who can't spell properly can use a spellchecker. However those who can't write properly and with adequate style in a language, should not translate into it, regardless if they are native or not. Here is where you drove my initial conclusion above home, got it in, and locked the door! Which is??? That you qualify as a native speaker?? B
The conclusion was:
As long as there are clear and definite criteria to determine whether an individual is a native speaker of a certain language, such attribute will have relatively little relevance in determining their competence as a translator into that language.
Only two - not just one - Acts of God would make me a truly native speaker of any language other than my present PT-BR: death and resurrection elsewhere. And then I wouldn't be a native speaker of PT-BR any more.
However for translation purposes (which, as I said, is all that Proz is/should be about), I'd rank amongst English native speakers... better than some of them in some subject areas... worse than some of them in other subject areas... making my nativeness or lack of it often irrelevant as a selection criterion.
Conversely, as most people should be native speakers of some language, many of them are simply not skilled to translate into any language whatsoever.
| | | | | a native speaker translator is a translator AND native speaker | Sep 15, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
Which is??? That you qualify as a native speaker??
B
The conclusion was:
As long as there are clear and definite criteria to determine whether an individual is a native speaker of a certain language, such attribute will have relatively little relevance in determining their competence as a translator into that language.
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
Only two - not just one - Acts of God would make me a truly native speaker of any language other than my present PT-BR: death and resurrection elsewhere. And then I wouldn't be a native speaker of PT-BR any more.
However for translation purposes (which, as I said, is all that Proz is/should be about), I'd rank amongst English native speakers... better than some of them in some subject areas... worse than some of them in other subject areas... making my nativeness or lack of it often irrelevant as a selection criterion.
Conversely, as most people should be native speakers of some language, many of them are simply not skilled to translate into any language whatsoever.
I am not really inclined to argue my point for another 100 pages.
This thread is about people who are listed as translators on this site and falsely claim native languages.
Native speakers on Proz.com:
There are two groups, those who are indeed native speakers (and sorry, José, there is only one kind of native speaker) and those who are not but claim to be.
Yes, it is possible for a person to reach a level of command of a non-native language that is very advanced. And he/she might even claim to be able to furnish a translation that is on par with certain native speakers AND translators in certain fields of expertise. And I would not even subscribe to that, for the majority of people.
But they can't be on par as native speakers.
And if someone says to me today that they are a native speaker of German and on par with all the German native speaker translators out there -- with regard to the use of native language -- even though they didn't grow up in a German-speaking environment, then I am not going to accept it. It always shows.
And you can put your conclusion in bold as many times as you want, the average non-native speaker in our profession will always lack behind a native one, in terms of idiomatic use of and thinking in their native language, and among translators, that difference is in many cases absolutely important. Why you don't accept that, I have no idea.
There is no definition for "native language for translation purposes" other than what it always means: that the person must be a native speaker.
Competence in translating is another aspect, yes, but it is never detached from the native language concept, not in the translation business.
And if a client wants you, he wouldn't choose you for your claimed or real native language ALONE; the existence of competence in a field of expertise is assumed because why else would you be here advertising your services.
Those who lie about their native language don't do it because they are good translators. In your case, you have defined an "equivalent to native speaker" category to fit your objective which seems to be (to me) to get a job for a native speaker.
A job for a native speaker means the client wants expertise in a certain field combined with the idiomatic abilities unique to native speakers (a gift to all NS, really, of having been able to grow up with a particular language). You believe it's not a gift, well, technically speaking, you would say it is.
I think the major difference between the two of us is that I would never claim to be a native speaker of English, not technically and not otherwise. I accept the fact that I will never use English in a way a native speaker does. I can try to reach it and in many respects, I will succeed, but you are always going to find proof that my English is a bit different than that of native speakers. What's wrong with that??? The better you speak it, the greater the achievement.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-15 21:02 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| early age is key | Sep 15, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
So it would be quite possible nowadays for someone really "plugged" to the web since an early age to be virtually a native of some other place. They could live, say, physically in India, and virtually in Germany. Go everywhere via Google Maps, interact with people over Skype, watch classes via webcam... They would be virtual natives before ever having been "there".
Well, I never claimed that a child who would start that way couldn't theoretically become a native speaker of X but why would they do that if they already live in a real environment of X.
I would however think that there is more to "acquiring" a native language than "virtual" experience. But that's another topic.
What I wouldn't accept and never have is that something like that could be achieved as an adult.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-15 21:19 GMT]
| | | | | The problem is not ours: classifications are missing | Sep 15, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Native speakers on Proz.com:
There are two groups, those who are indeed native speakers (and sorry, José, there is only one kind of native speaker) and those who are not but claim to be.
Yes, it is possible for a person to reach a level of command of a non-native language that is very advanced. And he/she might even claim to be able to furnish a translation that is on par with certain native speakers AND translators in certain fields of expertise. And I would not even subscribe to that, for the majority of people.
But they can't be on par as native speakers.
If I got a form, typically from the US government, asking to state my race, they'd expect me to choose "Caucasian" from the options available.
That, IMHO, is as much of a lie as saying that I am a native EN speaker. I am a first-generation Brazilian, and my entire ancestry was born in Krakow, Southern Poland, between 1750 (perhaps before - that's how far I got in my research) and the early 20th Century. That's a bit far away from the Caucasus shown on this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caucasus-political_en.svg
But there is no other valid choice for me on that form.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
And you can put your conclusion in bold as many times as you want, the average non-native speaker in our profession will always lack behind a native one, in terms of idiomatic use of and thinking in their native language, and among translators, that difference is in many cases absolutely important. Why you don't accept that, I have no idea.
I do accept that, however my clients don't. I tell them that I am a native Brazilian speaker and, when I see the job they show me calls for a true native, I refer them promptly to one. Though I gain nothing other than goodwill from doing it, I consider good referrals as part of my professional reliability. Yet if they want me - and nobody else - to do it, I'll do it, provided all the relevant caveats have been duly acknowledged.
My knowledge of German is gar nichts. Yet I translated one page DE > EN once in my life. The subject was my #1 specialty. I used Google Translate, fixed it as needed and, AFAIK it's still being used in California, checked later by a German native, US citizen, PhD degrees in both countries... and unedited. Don't worry, this happened once in my life, and that was enough for me. I'm not a competitor of yours.
I won't rummage my mailbox searching for all the other messages saying similar things I receive, I'll keep it to one American translation agency manager's from NYC who wrote me yesterday, which I will quote verbatim (typos included):
Speaking of which, where did you learn to speak English so well. AND, keep it up. It's very idomatic, and flows better than a lot of the students I teach in college.
If the client is king, I let them rule.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I think the major difference between the two of us is that I would never claim to be a native speaker of English, not technically and not otherwise. I accept the fact that I will never use English in a way a native speaker does. I can try to reach it and in many respects, I will succeed, but you are always going to find proof that my English is a bit different than that of native speakers. What's wrong with that??? The better you speak it, the greater the achievement.
I really wish there were more suitable categories. While there aren't, I'll go on being a native EN speaker from the Caucasus.
| | | | | classification | Sep 15, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
The problem is not ours: classifications are missing
As far as I'm concerned:
There is only one classification for native speaker (jobs): native speaker (jobs)
And you argue it's right to call oneself a NS because the category 75% native speaker (job) is missing?
There is no such thing. One category is native, the other non-native.
A non-native can be highly fluent in a language and be appreciated for it by native speakers which you say you are.
But all that doesn't make it right to claim to be a native. And if you think you have to "educate" the clients about what they need, namely a non-native instead of native, then that's your thinking, not mine.
I don't believe in re-classifying native jobs. But I don't apply for jobs here anyway.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-15 22:24 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should “native language” claims be verified? | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
