企业标语的诞生

方莺吟
董事
译力双语服务私人有限公司

记得2000年开始在新加坡当翻译员的时候，我的老板兼师父说了一则香港国泰航空企业标语的故事。当时，国泰的英文标语是‘Arrive in Better Shape’。顾名思义，当你乘坐国泰航空，下机时准不会让灰头土脸。可是这样一句很‘英文’的标语，如何以几个中文字将整个形象表达出来，而又不失文采呢？

这当然不是件容易的事，不然国泰航空也不会重金征集佳句了。后来一位老先生以一句‘航行万里，神采飞扬’捧走丰厚奖金。相信他在领取奖金的时候，肯定也神采飞扬，笑不拢嘴。

成功的企业标语不但深入人心，而且寥寥数字所展现的神韵，确实能为企业形象起着画龙点睛的加分效用。

跨国公司，尤其是以消费群众为诉求对象的企业，不但在选用企业标语时要慎重其事，费尽心思（甚至是大洒金子），而且还要找一个能跟英文版匹配的中文标语，才能旗鼓相当，互映生辉。比如汇丰银行的‘The World’s Local Bank’，中文版为‘环球金融，地方智慧’，堪称是这几年较为知名的精彩译文标语经典。

有些人会说，哇，才想几个字就能赚这么多钱，很好赚哦！其实好标语都得惜字如金，既要简单明了，又要耐看耐读，而且要做到‘说得更少，寓意更深’，如同大师挥毫一样，寥寥数笔就能把一个人物的形和神跃然纸上，真的很考功夫呀！如果一个不小心翻得不好，对企业来说可谓得不偿失。企业的品牌价值，何止千金。想一想，如果我们把花旗银行的‘Citi Never Sleep’翻成‘花旗不睡觉’，肯定会让人笑到喷饭。当然，这种事也不太可能发生（正确答案是：花旗从不歇息）。

以前当个看热闹的门外汉，读到一些经典的企业标语，总觉得：嘿，这么简单，我也可以翻得出来嘛。所以在3年前创立译力双语服务公司的时候，就拿自己的公司来开刀，想了一个自认为不错的标语：‘译出飞扬神采，展现企业魅力’，刚好把‘译力’两字镶在头尾，将创立语言服务的使命放在中间。

自从听闻那一则国泰航空的标语故事后，整整过了7年，才终于让我有机会为一家本地银行的企业标语抄刀。这家在新加坡拥有超过百年历史的银行，要展现一种‘始终在您身边’的亲切老邻居形象。当时他们的英文标语是‘Your Bank and More’。但是自己的功夫还是不到家，墨水也不够，所以绞尽脑汁也没法交出佳句。后来，还是客户自己想出一个相当不错的标语‘伴您成长，与您相随’。

看到最后出炉的标语时，坦白说，我真的心服口服。虽然中英两句并排放在一起，只有‘您’字对得上号，而More字则大有文章。它包含着‘陪伴’和‘相随’，既亲切又诚恳，完全是一种柔性而没有傲气的诉求。搭配这个标语的，是一个身穿金色制服且笑容可掬的年轻女职员，完全契合该银行的‘邻里银行’定位。

丢失了第一个机会，第二个机会来得比我想象中还快。半年之后，这家银行又换了第二个标语：Neighbour First, Banker Second。直译起来，就变成‘邻里第一，银行第二。’当然，这种口号式而老套的标语，根本不会被看上眼。有了前车之鉴，我基本上也大致摸清客户的诉求和风格。
在当时呈上的文案中，有一些是自己不甚满意，但也只能拿来凑数的几个标语。

邻里优先，银行为次。----- 意思最接近，但没有很强的Feel。
心系邻里，服务优先。----- 缺少感动人的元素。
邻里优先，贴近您心。----- 这些词都有点老了。

一个月后，偶然间到该银行办事，随手拿起最新的宣传册，打开一看，当初的其中一个标语就静静地列在左下角 – 深耕邻里，伴您同行。那一种成就感，我到现在还记得。

Corporate Blog of Elite - Professional Translation Services serving ASEAN & East Asia

Which Bible Translation?

Corporate Blog of Elite - Professional Translation Services serving ASEAN & East Asia

Many issues divide the Body of Christ today. Baptism, communion, pre-tribulation rapture verses post-tribulation and more all cause division in the Church as satan loves to divide and conquer; it’s sad we fight among ourselves instead of the real enemy.
One of satan’s strategies from early in Genesis becomes casting doubt on God’s word. Recall in the garden satan’s words “Has God really said?” confusing Eve and causing her to sin. Satan realizes casting doubt on what God actually says can be a winning strategy for him — what could cause more confusion than casting doubt the Bible in your lap isn’t the exact Word of God?
This article available in Adobe PDF format. Visit our download area for this and more!
This strategy continues today with the Bible translation debate. Is the King James really the best translation? What about the old language? Shouldn’t newer translations be used? As usual many views exist, and unfortunately some people involved become rather militant. We’ve been told if you’re witnessing to someone and they become saved, but you didn’t use King James Version it didn’t count. That’s absurd.
However, in view of satan’s strategy of creating doubt in God’s word the translation and preservation of the Bible becomes critically important; you can’t dismiss the concept and use whatever translation you pick off the shelf. Balance is required; getting that balance requires effort on your part — you need to do some homework. Fortunately acquiring a basic familiarity with the issues can be done briefly, paying dividends in your Bible Study.
Anyone translating between languages quickly understands one thing, it’s impossible to completely and accurately translate between languages. The translator must always choose different wording to convey the original idea; sometimes it’s impossible to express the idea of one language in another. As such, the original always surpasses the copy for accuracy; translation forces a compromise of sorts, subject to the personal ideas of the translator (which explains why we must understand the personal ideas of the translator).
The idea a perfect translation exists quickly disappears — they all have problems; understanding which translations have which problems is important. In the following discussion, we’ll take a brief and summary look at issues affecting translation, and how those issues impact the various translations. You must understand these issues to understand the advantages and disadvantages of the translation in your lap.
Issues Affecting Translation
When considering Bible translation, many issues arise but for simplicity we’ll stick to two; these main issues concern you as a Christian trying to understand the Bible translation debate.
What you’re translating from. Two main lines of Greek texts exist with differences between them (section 2.1). You also must consider if what we have today was handed down to us faithfully accurate to the originals (section 2.1.1).
How you translate what you’ve got. In other words, do you attempt to translate literally, or use more paraphrasing? We’ll cover this in section 2.2.
Textual Issues
Preservation of the Bible
Written 2,000 years ago, do we have correct and accurate copies of the original New Testament? A quick glance of the following chart[1] illustrates the accuracy of the New Testament passed down to us, compared to other ancient writings.
Document
Date
Copies
% Purity
Homer’s Iliad
800 BC
643
95
Herodotus
480 BC
8
?
Plato’s Tetralogies
427 BC
7
?
Caesar’s Gallic Wars
44 BC
10
?
New Testament
50–95 AD
25,366
>99.5
If we don’t accept the validity and accuracy of the Bible, we must throw out much more than the Bible. Do we doubt writings with considerably less sources? The existence of George Washington? With considerable manuscript evidence, the Bible stands apart from other ancient writings.
Norman Geisler, a world renowned Bible scholar echoed this when he states: “Only 400 words of the NT are in doubt, whereas 764 lines of the Iliad are questioned. This five percent textual corruption (in the Iliad) compares with one-half of one percent of similar emendations in the New Testament”[2]
So the Bible has been preserved through the centuries for us as originally written; we can be confident of the accuracy of our copies as many of the differences exist in spelling or other minor issues.
Textual History
Two main lines of Greek texts exist, diverging in minor but important ways. The text used almost exclusively until the 1800’s was Textus Receptus. However, manuscript discoveries in Alexandria changed some scholars views. But are those manuscripts reliable?
In 1525, Erasmus compiled the first Greek text using texts from Byzantium, which had been in use previously for centuries, forming the basis for what would later be called Textus Receptus,[3] and the main text the KJV translators used. Although they had the other Alexandrian texts available (Codex Siniaticus, etc), they obviously felt the Alexandrian text base (later to become Westcott-Hort) was unsuitable.
Westcott and Hort compiled a Greek New Testament starting in 1853 and finished 28 years later, relying heavily on the Alexandrian Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus, changing the traditional Greek in over 8,000 places[4]. We’ll treat all these Alexandrian texts similarly and refer to them collectively as Westcott-Hort (not technically correct, but for our purposes it’s close enough). How they edited the text, the reasons why and their background becomes critical to understanding the newer translations derived from Westcott-Hort’s work.
Only two modern translations use the Textus Receptus Greek text (KJV, NKJV); all the others (NASB, NIV, etc) use Westcott-Hort or Alexandrian texts. After studying these a bit (which we’ll get to), it becomes apparent they’ve all been edited for theological reasons; the influence of early Gnostic heresy runs through Westcott-Hort’s text.
For ease of discussion we’re grouping various families of texts, which although not entirely accurate, proves sufficient for our purposes. For our uses, Byzantine, Textus Receptus and the Majority Text will be treated as equivalent, and simply called Textus Receptus, while Westcott-Hort, UBS, and Nestle-Aland will be treated as the Alexandrian line and referred to as Westcott and Hort or Alexandrian.
Gnostic Influence — Westcott and Hort
Early in church history a heretical group sprang up called the Gnostics, accepting the Greek idea of dualism between spirit and matter.[5] All matter in Gnostic teaching was evil; since all matter is evil, Jesus really didn’t have a physical body and no physical resurrection occurred. The Gnostics also believed they had special knowledge, leading to spiritual elitism in the early church.
The Gnostic’s teaching on the evilness of material leads to two errors. On one side was a form of asceticism — the path to heaven comes by denying yourself (the extreme puritanical view). On the other side, your body (since it is evil) doesn’t matter. If you use drugs or party it really doesn’t matter since your body is evil anyway.
The Gnostic heresy Jesus didn’t have a body denies His death, physical resurrection, and thus His atonement for our sins. The apostle John wrote his first letter (1 John) in part to combat Gnostic heresy. John writes he saw and handled Jesus — Jesus had a physical body. Even more, John warned anyone stating Jesus did not come in the flesh is not of God.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John 4:2–3 KJV)
John’s one statement debunks all of Gnostic heresy. Why then is academia so enamored by it? Why would Westcott-Hort follow such heresy when it so obviously contradicts Biblical teaching? Why have we allowed people who obviously rejected Biblical teaching to edit God’s Word?
Westcott and Hort edited the original Greek as they compiled their edition, but as we shall see, Gnostic philosophy heavily influenced both men. The Greek texts they used appear footnoted in your Bible as “the oldest and best manuscripts”. Yes, they’re the oldest, but are they the best? Westcott and Hort held strange theological views — do we trust them with God’s Word? Consider the words of Westcott and Hort themselves.
But the book which has engaged me most is Darwin ... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable.[6]
No one now I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history--I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did.[7]
Christians are themselves in a true sense “Christs”.[8]
I am inclined to think that no such state as Eden (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam’s fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants.[9]
These are their views. They’re entitled to them, of course, but do they agree with your Bible reading? In light of John’s warning about Gnostic heresy, can we trust these men to compile an accurate Greek text? As we’ll see in the examples, they allowed their un-orthodox views to influence their compilation of the Holy Scriptures — in some ways that simply make no sense.
The Bible must be considered an integrated message to be used as whole and complete. As soon as editing begins, contradictions and other problems arise, as we’ll see in the examples section. No way exists for Westcott-Hort (or anyone else) to edit the Biblical text and keep it consistent.
Go back and re-read the previous paragraph and make sure it sinks in. If the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, any internal inconsistencies in a manuscript cause the rejection of that manuscript. No need to spend hours in the library on archaeological and historical records, if the manuscript contains internal errors it must be rejected.
Translational Issues
Once you decide on the textual base (Textus Receptus or Westcott-Hort), you must decide exactly how to translate — literal or paraphrase? Both have pros and cons, but mostly you want to know where on the scale your translation lies. If you’ve ever picked up a Greek-English interlinear you know it can be difficult to read, as this example shows.
so For loved God the world, so as the Son of Him, the Only-begotten, He gave, that everyone believing into Him not may perish, but have life everlasting. (John 3:16 Interlinear Greek-English NT, 3rd Edition, Jay P. Green)
So the question isn’t quite literal vs. paraphrase, but how much paraphrasing does the translator perform? A translator trying to remain literal will do the minimum required to put the sentence into grammatically correct English and no more, while a paraphrase tries to convey the idea of the original without using the exact wording of the original and may take into account cultural or other differences.
Weights and measures provide one easy example. How many people know what a cubit is? Or that 4 cubits make one fathom? Or 1 firkin is about 9 gallons? In a literal translation, these quantities translate as-is, and it’s up to you to understand what they are. In more of a paraphrase translation, these appear in modern measures.
It’s easiest to show this issue with examples, so we’ll move right to it.
Examples
Literal vs Paraphrase
Consider 2 Timothy 2:15 in two translations and examine how the literal verses paraphrase problem presents itself.
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV)
“Rightly divide” translates the Greek word orthotomeo (from orthos) — you might recognize as similar to the math term orthogonal meaning a right angle. So the KJV is literal. But do you know what it means? If you have a math background you understand orthogonal as precise, an exact right angle, as the KJV accurately and literally translates the Greek. Now consider the NIV.
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth (NIV)
“Correctly handles” is not literal, but for many people brings the truth of the verse out better. But notice instead of “Study” the NIV uses “Do your best” which completely changes the meaning making it less clear. Study implies dedication or devotion, while just doing your best can mean a lot less. John chapter seven provides another example.
His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, show thyself to the world. (John 7:3–4 KJV)
You might miss Jesus’ brothers picking on Him a little; since they didn’t believe Jesus was God, they’re actually baiting Him to show His stuff. Now compare the New Living Translation.
Jesus’ brothers urged him to go to Judea for the celebration. “Go where your followers can see your miracles!” they scoffed. “You can’t become a public figure if you hide like this! If you can do such wonderful things, prove it to the world!” (John 7:3–4 NLT)
In these two examples you can see both the advantages and disadvantages of literal and paraphrase translation. Most of the time literal translation proves the most beneficial, but sometimes referring to a paraphrase proves advantageous.
Textual
For these, we’re using KJV and NKJV as examples of Textus Receptus, and as a representative of Westcott-Hort, the NIV (and also the NASB or the New American Standard Bible). Westcott-Hort influence most “modern” translations, even if they don’t follow exactly the full changes Westcott-Hort made (NIV more, NASB less). Some translations include the changes in footnotes, others include in the main text.
(Matthew 18:11 NKJV) For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.
(Matthew 18:11 KJV) For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
(Matthew 18:11 NIV) deleted
NIV deletes entirely, while NASB brackets it as probably not in original text. Why delete this verse? Perhaps if you believe (as Westcott) we’re all true Christs and don’t have need of salvation.
(Matthew 25:13 NKJV) Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.
(Matthew 25:13 KJV) Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
(Matthew 25:13 NIV) Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.
That’s a bizarre one. Why would I keep watch if I don’t know what time it was? But it’s not the time, it’s the time of Jesus’ return you don’t know. Jesus taught to always be on the lookout for His return — it can come anytime.
(Mark 2:17 NKJV) When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
(Mark 2:17 KJV) When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
(Mark 2:17 NIV) On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Another fun one. Jesus didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners. For what? An invitation to dinner? To Saturday’s football game? (NASB contains similar edit to NIV).
(Acts 8:37 NKJV) Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
(Acts 8:37 KJV) And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
(Acts 8:37 NIV) deleted
If you didn’t believe Jesus was God, you certainly wouldn’t want it in your text so you delete it. NASB brackets as not in original text.
(Ephesians 3:9 NKJV) and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;
(Ephesians 3:9 KJV) And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
(Ephesians 3:9 NIV) and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
NIV has God creating all things, NOT Jesus — which you wouldn’t want to say if you accept Gnostic heresy. Here Westcott-Hort directly contradict Paul in Colossians 1:16-17 who attributes creation to Jesus. In Colossians 1:17, Paul even states Jesus holds the atoms of the universe together. (NASB contains similar edit to NIV).
(1 Peter 4:1 NKJV) Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,
(1 Peter 4:1 KJV) Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
(1 Peter 4:1 NIV) Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin.
Jesus didn’t just suffer, he suffered and died for us. NASB with similar edit to NIV.
(Revelation 11:17 NKJV) saying: “We give You thanks, O Lord God Almighty, The One who is and who was and who is to come, Because You have taken Your great power and reigned.
(Revelation 11:17 KJV) Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
(Revelation 11:17 NIV) saying: “We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and have begun to reign.
Denying the return of Jesus. (NASB similar to NIV).
In these few examples, you can see how Westcott-Hort personal theology (or lack thereof) influenced their compilation of the Greek text. Some of these changes contradict other areas of the Bible, while others make no sense at all. Since the inerrant Word of God contains no errors, it must be Westcott-Hort making the mistakes.
King James Version
King James Only
Some claim the KJV as the only true Bible, claiming the translators of the KJV were divinely inspired just as Peter, Paul and John were. Unfortunately, no basis for this exists. They claim the KJV as the “perfect” Bible in English and put in on par with the original Greek! But as anyone who ever translated anything soon finds, it’s impossible to accurately translate one language to another. Even worse, Greek is one of the most rich languages, with English one of the worst.
My father tells me a story of someone who was KJV-Only and said when he finished reading another translation, he just tossed it on the coffee table. But when he finished reading the KJV, he reverently and gently placed it back from whence it came. That’s idolatry.
We could continue to debate the KJV-only crowd, but most people don’t hold such a view, and as such it isn’t worth the time to continue the discussion. Just be aware some people hold this view, and from time to time you will encounter them.
The KJV ranks as one of the best translations, although it’s not the only translation that has use.
Olde English
Some would throw away the KJV due to it’s old English. Certainly that can be a valid reason, but shouldn’t preclude your use of it; when studying any technical subject (math or science), certain terminology must be learned. The KJV is no different. Remember you’re reading text 2,000 years old from a different culture — it’s going to be different.
The first problem pops up with archaic words. Dictionaries exist if you need help, but you’ll quickly become accustomed to the vocabulary. But the bigger issue arises from words you think you know, but changed meaning over time; unless you’re aware of them you’ll definitely have problems reading the KJV.
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. (1 Thessalonians 4:15 KJV)
Any new translation translates “prevent” as “precede”; the word prevent changed meaning between 1611 and now and if you didn’t know this verse makes no sense.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. (2 Thessalonians 2:7 KJV)
“Let” changed meaning to “hinder”. Again, any recent translation correctly translates this verse (both of these verses change in the NKJV as well). A note for people who do like the KJV over other translations, the New Scofield Bible (1967 edition) gives you these notations so you’ll understand with outdated word changes made right in the text. If you’re a KJV person, get a copy of Scofield’s 1967 edition.
The other problem with old English arises from all the thees and thous in the KJV. However, a reason does exist for these in the text; it’s to differentiate singular and plural. Consider the following chart:[10]
NOM
OBJ
POSS
1st Singular
I
Me
My
1st Plural
We
Us
Our
2nd Singular
Thou
Thee
Thy
2nd Plural
Ye
You
Your
3rd Singular
He
Him
His
3rd Plural
They
Them
Their
NOM = nominative, case of the subjectOBJ = objective, case of the object of the verbPOSS = possessive, case of possessing.
Why is this important? Consider Luke 22:31–32.
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. (Luke 22:31–32 KJV)
Here you can easily see Satan asked for much more than Peter — perhaps the entire group! However, Jesus prays for Peter himself. The distinction easily missed in other translations (including NKJV) the KJV makes abundantly clear (a similar situation also occurs in Exodus 4:15).
Comparison of Translations
So how do we rate the various translations? The following chart provides a guide for modern translations, showing which textual base they follow and a rough guide of how literally they translate the original Greek.
Translation
Text Base
Literal Scale
KJV
TR
1
NKJV
TR
1
NASB
WH
1-2
NIV
WH
4
NLT
WH
6
The Message
?
9
TR = Textus ReceptusWH = Westcott-HortLiteral scale runs from 0 (a perfect literal much like a Greek-English interlinear) to 10 (a complete paraphrase — the translator reads a paragraph and the translates it without trying to be literal).
It’s important to know just because the newer translations are marked as Westcott-Hort does not necessarily imply they follow all of Westcott-Hort; each translation has different ways of handling it. Some footnote, some delete, some ignore Westcott-Hort changes in some areas.
Recommendations
The preferred translation is the NKJV, useful for both teaching and personal study. The KJV appears in the majority of writings for a simple reason: no copyright issues (look at the first few pages of any other translation to see a list of rules of how you can quote it).
Use the New King James for primary use, study, and reading as it comes from the preferred Textus Receptus Greek Text. However, referring to a New Living Paraphrase in some cases will help you with meaning. These two translations provide a solid foundation for Bible Study.
Most importantly, understand all translations have problems. It’s important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the Bible translation you use. In the event you’re using another translation, it does not mean to throw it out or stop using it.
Conclusion
You must have balance — no translation is 100% perfect, they all have problems. This does not mean errors or inconsistencies exist in the Bible, only translation can never be perfect. It’s important to understand how your translation came to be, and what methods were used in its creation. Most importantly, you are encouraged to study on your own.
Bibliography and Notes
This article available as Adobe PDF download. Visit our download area for this and more!
Missler, Chuck "How we got Our Bible" (2 Tapes with notes) http://khouse.org
"Nelsons New Illustrated Bible Dictionary"
Smith, Chuck "The Foundation of the Word" (2 Tapes) http://www.thewordfortoday.org/kjv/html/sermons.cfm
Zodiahates "The Complete Word Study New Testament"
Passages marked KJV are from the King James Version of the Bible.
Passages marked NKJV taken from the New King James Version of the Bible copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Passages marked NIV taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION, Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan publishing House. All rights reserved.The "NIV" and "New International Version" trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by International Bible Society. Use of either trademark requires the permission of International Bible Society.
Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. All rights reserved.

Which Bible Translation?

Corporate Blog of Elite - Professional Translation Services serving ASEAN & East Asia

Many issues divide the Body of Christ today. Baptism, communion, pre-tribulation rapture verses post-tribulation and more all cause division in the Church as satan loves to divide and conquer; it’s sad we fight among ourselves instead of the real enemy.
One of satan’s strategies from early in Genesis becomes casting doubt on God’s word. Recall in the garden satan’s words “Has God really said?” confusing Eve and causing her to sin. Satan realizes casting doubt on what God actually says can be a winning strategy for him — what could cause more confusion than casting doubt the Bible in your lap isn’t the exact Word of God?
This article available in Adobe PDF format. Visit our download area for this and more!
This strategy continues today with the Bible translation debate. Is the King James really the best translation? What about the old language? Shouldn’t newer translations be used? As usual many views exist, and unfortunately some people involved become rather militant. We’ve been told if you’re witnessing to someone and they become saved, but you didn’t use King James Version it didn’t count. That’s absurd.
However, in view of satan’s strategy of creating doubt in God’s word the translation and preservation of the Bible becomes critically important; you can’t dismiss the concept and use whatever translation you pick off the shelf. Balance is required; getting that balance requires effort on your part — you need to do some homework. Fortunately acquiring a basic familiarity with the issues can be done briefly, paying dividends in your Bible Study.
Anyone translating between languages quickly understands one thing, it’s impossible to completely and accurately translate between languages. The translator must always choose different wording to convey the original idea; sometimes it’s impossible to express the idea of one language in another. As such, the original always surpasses the copy for accuracy; translation forces a compromise of sorts, subject to the personal ideas of the translator (which explains why we must understand the personal ideas of the translator).
The idea a perfect translation exists quickly disappears — they all have problems; understanding which translations have which problems is important. In the following discussion, we’ll take a brief and summary look at issues affecting translation, and how those issues impact the various translations. You must understand these issues to understand the advantages and disadvantages of the translation in your lap.
Issues Affecting Translation
When considering Bible translation, many issues arise but for simplicity we’ll stick to two; these main issues concern you as a Christian trying to understand the Bible translation debate.
What you’re translating from. Two main lines of Greek texts exist with differences between them (section 2.1). You also must consider if what we have today was handed down to us faithfully accurate to the originals (section 2.1.1).
How you translate what you’ve got. In other words, do you attempt to translate literally, or use more paraphrasing? We’ll cover this in section 2.2.
Textual Issues
Preservation of the Bible
Written 2,000 years ago, do we have correct and accurate copies of the original New Testament? A quick glance of the following chart[1] illustrates the accuracy of the New Testament passed down to us, compared to other ancient writings.
Document
Date
Copies
% Purity
Homer’s Iliad
800 BC
643
95
Herodotus
480 BC
8
?
Plato’s Tetralogies
427 BC
7
?
Caesar’s Gallic Wars
44 BC
10
?
New Testament
50–95 AD
25,366
>99.5
If we don’t accept the validity and accuracy of the Bible, we must throw out much more than the Bible. Do we doubt writings with considerably less sources? The existence of George Washington? With considerable manuscript evidence, the Bible stands apart from other ancient writings.
Norman Geisler, a world renowned Bible scholar echoed this when he states: “Only 400 words of the NT are in doubt, whereas 764 lines of the Iliad are questioned. This five percent textual corruption (in the Iliad) compares with one-half of one percent of similar emendations in the New Testament”[2]
So the Bible has been preserved through the centuries for us as originally written; we can be confident of the accuracy of our copies as many of the differences exist in spelling or other minor issues.
Textual History
Two main lines of Greek texts exist, diverging in minor but important ways. The text used almost exclusively until the 1800’s was Textus Receptus. However, manuscript discoveries in Alexandria changed some scholars views. But are those manuscripts reliable?
In 1525, Erasmus compiled the first Greek text using texts from Byzantium, which had been in use previously for centuries, forming the basis for what would later be called Textus Receptus,[3] and the main text the KJV translators used. Although they had the other Alexandrian texts available (Codex Siniaticus, etc), they obviously felt the Alexandrian text base (later to become Westcott-Hort) was unsuitable.
Westcott and Hort compiled a Greek New Testament starting in 1853 and finished 28 years later, relying heavily on the Alexandrian Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus, changing the traditional Greek in over 8,000 places[4]. We’ll treat all these Alexandrian texts similarly and refer to them collectively as Westcott-Hort (not technically correct, but for our purposes it’s close enough). How they edited the text, the reasons why and their background becomes critical to understanding the newer translations derived from Westcott-Hort’s work.
Only two modern translations use the Textus Receptus Greek text (KJV, NKJV); all the others (NASB, NIV, etc) use Westcott-Hort or Alexandrian texts. After studying these a bit (which we’ll get to), it becomes apparent they’ve all been edited for theological reasons; the influence of early Gnostic heresy runs through Westcott-Hort’s text.
For ease of discussion we’re grouping various families of texts, which although not entirely accurate, proves sufficient for our purposes. For our uses, Byzantine, Textus Receptus and the Majority Text will be treated as equivalent, and simply called Textus Receptus, while Westcott-Hort, UBS, and Nestle-Aland will be treated as the Alexandrian line and referred to as Westcott and Hort or Alexandrian.
Gnostic Influence — Westcott and Hort
Early in church history a heretical group sprang up called the Gnostics, accepting the Greek idea of dualism between spirit and matter.[5] All matter in Gnostic teaching was evil; since all matter is evil, Jesus really didn’t have a physical body and no physical resurrection occurred. The Gnostics also believed they had special knowledge, leading to spiritual elitism in the early church.
The Gnostic’s teaching on the evilness of material leads to two errors. On one side was a form of asceticism — the path to heaven comes by denying yourself (the extreme puritanical view). On the other side, your body (since it is evil) doesn’t matter. If you use drugs or party it really doesn’t matter since your body is evil anyway.
The Gnostic heresy Jesus didn’t have a body denies His death, physical resurrection, and thus His atonement for our sins. The apostle John wrote his first letter (1 John) in part to combat Gnostic heresy. John writes he saw and handled Jesus — Jesus had a physical body. Even more, John warned anyone stating Jesus did not come in the flesh is not of God.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John 4:2–3 KJV)
John’s one statement debunks all of Gnostic heresy. Why then is academia so enamored by it? Why would Westcott-Hort follow such heresy when it so obviously contradicts Biblical teaching? Why have we allowed people who obviously rejected Biblical teaching to edit God’s Word?
Westcott and Hort edited the original Greek as they compiled their edition, but as we shall see, Gnostic philosophy heavily influenced both men. The Greek texts they used appear footnoted in your Bible as “the oldest and best manuscripts”. Yes, they’re the oldest, but are they the best? Westcott and Hort held strange theological views — do we trust them with God’s Word? Consider the words of Westcott and Hort themselves.
But the book which has engaged me most is Darwin ... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable.[6]
No one now I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history--I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did.[7]
Christians are themselves in a true sense “Christs”.[8]
I am inclined to think that no such state as Eden (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam’s fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants.[9]
These are their views. They’re entitled to them, of course, but do they agree with your Bible reading? In light of John’s warning about Gnostic heresy, can we trust these men to compile an accurate Greek text? As we’ll see in the examples, they allowed their un-orthodox views to influence their compilation of the Holy Scriptures — in some ways that simply make no sense.
The Bible must be considered an integrated message to be used as whole and complete. As soon as editing begins, contradictions and other problems arise, as we’ll see in the examples section. No way exists for Westcott-Hort (or anyone else) to edit the Biblical text and keep it consistent.
Go back and re-read the previous paragraph and make sure it sinks in. If the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, any internal inconsistencies in a manuscript cause the rejection of that manuscript. No need to spend hours in the library on archaeological and historical records, if the manuscript contains internal errors it must be rejected.
Translational Issues
Once you decide on the textual base (Textus Receptus or Westcott-Hort), you must decide exactly how to translate — literal or paraphrase? Both have pros and cons, but mostly you want to know where on the scale your translation lies. If you’ve ever picked up a Greek-English interlinear you know it can be difficult to read, as this example shows.
so For loved God the world, so as the Son of Him, the Only-begotten, He gave, that everyone believing into Him not may perish, but have life everlasting. (John 3:16 Interlinear Greek-English NT, 3rd Edition, Jay P. Green)
So the question isn’t quite literal vs. paraphrase, but how much paraphrasing does the translator perform? A translator trying to remain literal will do the minimum required to put the sentence into grammatically correct English and no more, while a paraphrase tries to convey the idea of the original without using the exact wording of the original and may take into account cultural or other differences.
Weights and measures provide one easy example. How many people know what a cubit is? Or that 4 cubits make one fathom? Or 1 firkin is about 9 gallons? In a literal translation, these quantities translate as-is, and it’s up to you to understand what they are. In more of a paraphrase translation, these appear in modern measures.
It’s easiest to show this issue with examples, so we’ll move right to it.
Examples
Literal vs Paraphrase
Consider 2 Timothy 2:15 in two translations and examine how the literal verses paraphrase problem presents itself.
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV)
“Rightly divide” translates the Greek word orthotomeo (from orthos) — you might recognize as similar to the math term orthogonal meaning a right angle. So the KJV is literal. But do you know what it means? If you have a math background you understand orthogonal as precise, an exact right angle, as the KJV accurately and literally translates the Greek. Now consider the NIV.
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth (NIV)
“Correctly handles” is not literal, but for many people brings the truth of the verse out better. But notice instead of “Study” the NIV uses “Do your best” which completely changes the meaning making it less clear. Study implies dedication or devotion, while just doing your best can mean a lot less. John chapter seven provides another example.
His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, show thyself to the world. (John 7:3–4 KJV)
You might miss Jesus’ brothers picking on Him a little; since they didn’t believe Jesus was God, they’re actually baiting Him to show His stuff. Now compare the New Living Translation.
Jesus’ brothers urged him to go to Judea for the celebration. “Go where your followers can see your miracles!” they scoffed. “You can’t become a public figure if you hide like this! If you can do such wonderful things, prove it to the world!” (John 7:3–4 NLT)
In these two examples you can see both the advantages and disadvantages of literal and paraphrase translation. Most of the time literal translation proves the most beneficial, but sometimes referring to a paraphrase proves advantageous.
Textual
For these, we’re using KJV and NKJV as examples of Textus Receptus, and as a representative of Westcott-Hort, the NIV (and also the NASB or the New American Standard Bible). Westcott-Hort influence most “modern” translations, even if they don’t follow exactly the full changes Westcott-Hort made (NIV more, NASB less). Some translations include the changes in footnotes, others include in the main text.
(Matthew 18:11 NKJV) For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.
(Matthew 18:11 KJV) For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
(Matthew 18:11 NIV) deleted
NIV deletes entirely, while NASB brackets it as probably not in original text. Why delete this verse? Perhaps if you believe (as Westcott) we’re all true Christs and don’t have need of salvation.
(Matthew 25:13 NKJV) Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.
(Matthew 25:13 KJV) Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
(Matthew 25:13 NIV) Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.
That’s a bizarre one. Why would I keep watch if I don’t know what time it was? But it’s not the time, it’s the time of Jesus’ return you don’t know. Jesus taught to always be on the lookout for His return — it can come anytime.
(Mark 2:17 NKJV) When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
(Mark 2:17 KJV) When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
(Mark 2:17 NIV) On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Another fun one. Jesus didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners. For what? An invitation to dinner? To Saturday’s football game? (NASB contains similar edit to NIV).
(Acts 8:37 NKJV) Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
(Acts 8:37 KJV) And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
(Acts 8:37 NIV) deleted
If you didn’t believe Jesus was God, you certainly wouldn’t want it in your text so you delete it. NASB brackets as not in original text.
(Ephesians 3:9 NKJV) and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;
(Ephesians 3:9 KJV) And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
(Ephesians 3:9 NIV) and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
NIV has God creating all things, NOT Jesus — which you wouldn’t want to say if you accept Gnostic heresy. Here Westcott-Hort directly contradict Paul in Colossians 1:16-17 who attributes creation to Jesus. In Colossians 1:17, Paul even states Jesus holds the atoms of the universe together. (NASB contains similar edit to NIV).
(1 Peter 4:1 NKJV) Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,
(1 Peter 4:1 KJV) Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
(1 Peter 4:1 NIV) Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin.
Jesus didn’t just suffer, he suffered and died for us. NASB with similar edit to NIV.
(Revelation 11:17 NKJV) saying: “We give You thanks, O Lord God Almighty, The One who is and who was and who is to come, Because You have taken Your great power and reigned.
(Revelation 11:17 KJV) Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
(Revelation 11:17 NIV) saying: “We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and have begun to reign.
Denying the return of Jesus. (NASB similar to NIV).
In these few examples, you can see how Westcott-Hort personal theology (or lack thereof) influenced their compilation of the Greek text. Some of these changes contradict other areas of the Bible, while others make no sense at all. Since the inerrant Word of God contains no errors, it must be Westcott-Hort making the mistakes.
King James Version
King James Only
Some claim the KJV as the only true Bible, claiming the translators of the KJV were divinely inspired just as Peter, Paul and John were. Unfortunately, no basis for this exists. They claim the KJV as the “perfect” Bible in English and put in on par with the original Greek! But as anyone who ever translated anything soon finds, it’s impossible to accurately translate one language to another. Even worse, Greek is one of the most rich languages, with English one of the worst.
My father tells me a story of someone who was KJV-Only and said when he finished reading another translation, he just tossed it on the coffee table. But when he finished reading the KJV, he reverently and gently placed it back from whence it came. That’s idolatry.
We could continue to debate the KJV-only crowd, but most people don’t hold such a view, and as such it isn’t worth the time to continue the discussion. Just be aware some people hold this view, and from time to time you will encounter them.
The KJV ranks as one of the best translations, although it’s not the only translation that has use.
Olde English
Some would throw away the KJV due to it’s old English. Certainly that can be a valid reason, but shouldn’t preclude your use of it; when studying any technical subject (math or science), certain terminology must be learned. The KJV is no different. Remember you’re reading text 2,000 years old from a different culture — it’s going to be different.
The first problem pops up with archaic words. Dictionaries exist if you need help, but you’ll quickly become accustomed to the vocabulary. But the bigger issue arises from words you think you know, but changed meaning over time; unless you’re aware of them you’ll definitely have problems reading the KJV.
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. (1 Thessalonians 4:15 KJV)
Any new translation translates “prevent” as “precede”; the word prevent changed meaning between 1611 and now and if you didn’t know this verse makes no sense.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. (2 Thessalonians 2:7 KJV)
“Let” changed meaning to “hinder”. Again, any recent translation correctly translates this verse (both of these verses change in the NKJV as well). A note for people who do like the KJV over other translations, the New Scofield Bible (1967 edition) gives you these notations so you’ll understand with outdated word changes made right in the text. If you’re a KJV person, get a copy of Scofield’s 1967 edition.
The other problem with old English arises from all the thees and thous in the KJV. However, a reason does exist for these in the text; it’s to differentiate singular and plural. Consider the following chart:[10]
NOM
OBJ
POSS
1st Singular
I
Me
My
1st Plural
We
Us
Our
2nd Singular
Thou
Thee
Thy
2nd Plural
Ye
You
Your
3rd Singular
He
Him
His
3rd Plural
They
Them
Their
NOM = nominative, case of the subjectOBJ = objective, case of the object of the verbPOSS = possessive, case of possessing.
Why is this important? Consider Luke 22:31–32.
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. (Luke 22:31–32 KJV)
Here you can easily see Satan asked for much more than Peter — perhaps the entire group! However, Jesus prays for Peter himself. The distinction easily missed in other translations (including NKJV) the KJV makes abundantly clear (a similar situation also occurs in Exodus 4:15).
Comparison of Translations
So how do we rate the various translations? The following chart provides a guide for modern translations, showing which textual base they follow and a rough guide of how literally they translate the original Greek.
Translation
Text Base
Literal Scale
KJV
TR
1
NKJV
TR
1
NASB
WH
1-2
NIV
WH
4
NLT
WH
6
The Message
?
9
TR = Textus ReceptusWH = Westcott-HortLiteral scale runs from 0 (a perfect literal much like a Greek-English interlinear) to 10 (a complete paraphrase — the translator reads a paragraph and the translates it without trying to be literal).
It’s important to know just because the newer translations are marked as Westcott-Hort does not necessarily imply they follow all of Westcott-Hort; each translation has different ways of handling it. Some footnote, some delete, some ignore Westcott-Hort changes in some areas.
Recommendations
The preferred translation is the NKJV, useful for both teaching and personal study. The KJV appears in the majority of writings for a simple reason: no copyright issues (look at the first few pages of any other translation to see a list of rules of how you can quote it).
Use the New King James for primary use, study, and reading as it comes from the preferred Textus Receptus Greek Text. However, referring to a New Living Paraphrase in some cases will help you with meaning. These two translations provide a solid foundation for Bible Study.
Most importantly, understand all translations have problems. It’s important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the Bible translation you use. In the event you’re using another translation, it does not mean to throw it out or stop using it.
Conclusion
You must have balance — no translation is 100% perfect, they all have problems. This does not mean errors or inconsistencies exist in the Bible, only translation can never be perfect. It’s important to understand how your translation came to be, and what methods were used in its creation. Most importantly, you are encouraged to study on your own.
Bibliography and Notes
This article available as Adobe PDF download. Visit our download area for this and more!
Missler, Chuck "How we got Our Bible" (2 Tapes with notes) http://khouse.org
"Nelsons New Illustrated Bible Dictionary"
Smith, Chuck "The Foundation of the Word" (2 Tapes) http://www.thewordfortoday.org/kjv/html/sermons.cfm
Zodiahates "The Complete Word Study New Testament"
Passages marked KJV are from the King James Version of the Bible.
Passages marked NKJV taken from the New King James Version of the Bible copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Passages marked NIV taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION, Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan publishing House. All rights reserved.The "NIV" and "New International Version" trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by International Bible Society. Use of either trademark requires the permission of International Bible Society.
Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. All rights reserved.

ISO 9002, do you know about it ?

Corporate Blog of Elite - Professional Translation Services serving ASEAN & East Asia

Translators may be aware of the ISO 9002 standard often used in the quality assurance of translation work. However, several questions need to be asked in the analysis of this standard within the field of translation:

1.Is this standard necessary?
2.Does this standard cover all the intricacies of translation?
3.Can quality in any way be assured (and measured)?
To (very) briefly summarise, the standard (also ISO 9001 2008) sets out the requirements for quality management in a variety of systems, not only translation therefore it is, by its very nature, a general set of requirements. The ISO revolves around the need to create a Quality Management System which enables people in an organisation to control, monitor and improve quality in the entire process. In order to achieve this, every organisation must see to it that the relevant documentation is in place which controls the quality management system. The process begins with the establishment of customer requirements and the general quality policy of the organisation through the establishment of quality objectives.

Although the above summary is (necessarily) brief it shows the very general nature of the ISO. To answer the first question, yes, quality standards are necessary for the translation process and product as they are for every field. The second question: does this standard cover all the intricacies of translation? Due to the fact that the ISO is so general it could in theory cover all the delicacies of the translation process, although it must be clear that the ISO suits better the work of translation agencies and companies rather than the individual freelancer working from home. The final question: can quality in any way be assured (and measured)? A previous post also dealt with this subject. The answer most certainly lies in the affirmative, although this is both a difficult and burdensome process as any quality assurance manager in any field may tell you.

It might be interesting for the translator and translation quality manager to consider two other methods of quality assurance/improvement that could be useful in the process of self-betterment:

Kaizen, a Japanese methodology/philosphy which is in essence the striving for continual improvement through the elimination of wasteful working practices and an openness to experimentation and change.

PDCA, essentially the Scientific Method as developed by Francis Bacon but revolving around quality improvement through the following stages: plan, do, check, act.

Although all of these are valuable tools for the translator, translator trainer and transltion quality manager, one cannot fail to take into consideration Katharina Reiss’ 1971 opus: Translation Criticism – The Potentials and Limitations. In it, Reiss formulates what is essential for Translation Quality Assessment. Even though this is not a ‘prefect’ solution it does go a long way in defining the problem. Perhaps, one possible solution for translation quality assessment would be to harness all the above methods in order to form one approach.

Arnold Lost in Translation

Corporate Blog of Elite - Professional Translation Services serving ASEAN & East Asia

I hope you enjoy this complete collection of 30 Arnold commercials for Japan. It only gets better so watch the whole thing. Never knew Arnold did these commercials. The whole video is about 10 minutes but it's worth it.

P.S. Click on the title "Arnold Lost in Translation" to view

Translation Prices: Cost of Translation and Localization Services

by: Argos Multilingual

No, it doesn’t start with an "S” or an "F” and there is no "Q” in it. This word in our industry is ‘cena’ and it is the Polish word for"price”. Translation prices is exactly what we’ll be examining here. Price is usually, as anyone and everyone knows, the defining factor for customers on whether to purchase, and the defining factor for producers on how to target their products to the client base.

What horrible secrets about Eastern European translation pricing will be revealed in this article? Probably nothing too revolutionary. Hopefully this article will expose some common sense responses to issues with pricing, and probably address several universal problems shared by all translation companies and localization service providers in the rest of the world.

1. ROI – ‘Don’t bother localizing if you can’t make a profit’

There is plenty of talk about localization ROI and how it affects pricing. The decision of whether it pays to localize something before you decide to enter a market sounds obvious. Why then do we see companies complaining about localization costs in the context of their ROI?

The underlying issue here is that companies are complaining about their products’ lack of competitiveness. It happens, there’s no shame in that. No matter how you slice it, it comes down to money. And if there is not enough demand backed by money for a product, then localization, in the eyes of management, doesn’t seem to pay off. If an application is designed for Eastern European end users, then it either has to be relatively inexpensive or should be tailored to a specific niche market where lower sales volumes give an acceptable return. The Eastern European software market will not usually generate huge sales based on its size alone anyway.

As such, localization decisions are often put on a back burner, and investment decisions are based on poor information about the market. The result - a company finds itself in Eastern Europe before it has properly estimated sales potential. Then, normal business processes come into play; managers are pressed to make a profit, and we see the localization problem handed over to the local distributor.

All of a sudden, a company that specializes in software distribution is responsible for the software publisher’s image and quality in the local market. Local distributors are often very small, with little infrastructure, inadequate resources and small translation budgets (coming out of their own small pockets). Nonetheless, localization responsibility for the product is suddenly literally dumped upon them. This imposes additional problems on the distributors not only associated with added incurred translation costs, but also the problem with answering questions such as: ‘how to localize’, ‘what agency to hire’, ‘how to go about adapting the product to this region’…

It all boils down to one simple fact, distributors usually lack the experience in localization, and that lack of experience will further result in declining sales numbers and added costs.

Software publishers fool themselves into thinking that it is so much in the distributor’s interest to do a great job localizing the product (ergo, the distributor will have an easier time selling the product) that they, themselves, don’t need to worry about it. However, distributors usually don’t understand the complex issues connected with localization. Even if a distributor does recognize what’s involved, the "simple, low-value added service” attitude toward localization services prevails. The real world consequences are poor-quality localization and serious harm to the software publisher’s image and brand.

2. What’s going on among the bigger buyers of translation/localization services?

What are the organizational structures of larger buyers of localization services, and how do they affect the price of translation? It seems as if Microsoft is getting its act together by limiting the number of vendors and giving the remaining more work. IBM and Oracle also seem to be well-organized in this respect. Unfortunately, there are other large buyers of translation and localization services that have not addressed the issue of centralizing or streamlining costs.

It is quite remarkable how some large buyers deal with this problem. Our translation company, Argos Translations, works with one particular client directly through two different offices and indirectly through three other localization companies. Of course, we are paid different rates, negotiated completely independently with each of these channels. And now the punch line: the rates we receive working through one localization company are 50% higher than what we receive working directly for the client. So where are the client savings? Where is the streamlining? What about consistent terminology? The value of working through a limited number of MLVs is understandable, but what is the point of doing it a little this way and a little that way?

How the biggest clients deal with their translation and localization is only one issue. Another question is how far these companies are willing to go to lower localization costs. Last year, our company was in negotiations with a very large global company to take over a large portion of their Slovak localization work. I am not going to name any names here, but suffice it to say that this is one of the elite, with over $50 billion in annual global sales. Since this was a large, long-term client, and there were significant volumes involved (mostly documentation), we decided to quote this client the extraordinary attractive localization / translation price (at that time) of Euro 0.12 per source word.

The company got back in touch with us to tell us that they really liked our experience and wanted to choose us, but they had an issue: price. We asked whether it was a question of 1 or 2 Euro cents, and they made it clear that the price would have to be "significantly” lower. It was obvious that we weren’t even close to their price expectations. They were looking for Euro 0.07-0.08! How is it possible that the rates being paid by this particular global giant were so low? How does this reflect upon our industry? The only answer I can offer is that such clients receive low translation prices at the expense of similarly low level of quality that they obtain.

3. Quality: does anybody really care?

I was recently dozing through a translation conference as one of the speakers, a professor of linguistics, was discussing the ethical importance of a high-quality translation. I was suddenly jolted awake by a statement he made along the lines of "it is the translation vendor’s ethical responsibility to ensure the highest-quality translation.” When question time arrived, I duly asked what we should do if our client does not give us enough time to do the job in an "ethically responsible” manner. The gentleman told me that it was our moral responsibility to ask for more time.

As good and applicable as his reasoning is, unfortunately it almost never applies in the real world. I tried to imagine the response that I’d receive if I were to call my client and suggest, "Listen, I know this is a 1.2 million-word project, but you really should have met your development schedule. And I know that your priority was to ship FIGS first, but this was delayed. And now, on top of all that, you want us to use this outdated TM software because this is what your previous version was in, yet the TM database we have received is full of inconsistencies that need to be removed before we start translating the new version. What it really comes down to is that we are only going to have time to do the translation and have it reviewed independently TWICE. This won’t be enough to maintain our ethical language standards.”

Unfortunately, the truth is (maybe I shouldn’t be saying this too loudly) that our business is full of concessions. It is a humorous concept, really, when you take into consideration that we are supposed to offer incredibly high-quality, incredibly fast turnaround times at incredibly low rates. Obviously, something has to give here, and I believe that the way localization services providers handle this contradiction is by diminishing the definition of excellence in our industry.

The best companies in our industry are the ones that have the best systems in place to provide the highest quality possible while trying to maintain costs at a level that does not hinder such quality, according to "real world” business conditions. Otherwise, we’re all familiar with the concept of ‘garbage in, garbage out’. It is that simple, really.

Corporate Blog of Elite - Professional Translation Services serving ASEAN & East Asia

To Be a Good Translator

By Leila Razmjou
BA in English Translation
MA in Applied Linguistics (TEFL )
Iran
leilarazmjou@yahoo.com

Source: Translation Directory

Paper presented at the Second International Conference on "Critical Discourse Analysis: the Message of the Medium" in Yemen, Hodeidah University, October, 2003

In addition to being a member of our country, we are members of the world community, and this gives us a global identity. Therefore, it is quite natural for us to think about world affairs and cooperate in solving the world's problems. To do so, the first and most important tool is "language," which is socially determined. Our beliefs and ideologies are always reflected in our way of talking, although the connections are hidden and only "critical language study" reveals these hidden connections in discourse.

Furthermore, we know that a nation's culture flourishes by interacting with other cultures. Cultural variety opens our eyes to human rights, but cultural variety can only be recognized through discussions, which leads us back to the major tool for discussion: "language."

The role of language in the developing world is materialized through "translating," and since critical language study is concerned with the processes of producing and interpreting texts and with the way these cognitive processes are socially shaped, it can be considered as an alternative approach to translation studies.

The world is becoming smaller and smaller as the systems of communication and information are developing and becoming more and more sophisticated. In the process of such a rapid exchange of information and for the purpose of improving cultural contacts, one thing is inevitable, and that is "translating." This is why there is a need for competent translators and interpreters.

As mentioned earlier, the whole world is undergoing complex changes in different areas such as technology and education. These changes necessarily have an important bearing on systems of higher education, including translator training programs.

According to Shahvali (1997), theoretical knowledge and practical skills alone are not adequate to prepare students to face the developments in the field. There is a need for ability to adapt; therefore, it is necessary to focus on students' self-updating and to develop their relevant mental, communicative, and planning skills.

Training translators is an important task which should be given a high priority. The service that translators render to enhance cultures and nurture languages has been significant throughout history. Translators are the agents for transferring messages from one language to another, while preserving the underlying cultural and discoursal ideas and values (Azabdaftary, 1996).

The translator's task is to create conditions under which the source language author and the target language reader can interact with one another (Lotfipour, 1997). The translator uses the core meaning present in the source text to create a new whole, namely, the target text (Farahzad, 1998).

Bearing these facts in mind, the question is: what skills are needed to promote translating ability? And how can one become a good translator?

The first step is extensive reading of different translations of different kinds of texts, since translating requires active knowledge, while analyzing and evaluating different translations requires passive knowledge. Therefore, receptive skills should be developed before the productive ones; i.e. by reinforcing their passive knowledge, students will eventually improve their active knowledge. Receptive skills improve the students' language intuition and make them ready for actual translating.

A good translator is someone who has a comprehensive knowledge of both source and target languages. Students should read different genres in both source and target languages including modern literature, contemporary prose, newspapers, magazines, advertisements, announcements, instructions, etc. Being familiar with all these genres is important, since they implicitly transfer culture-specific aspects of a language. Specialized readings are also suggested: reading recently published articles and journals on theoretical and practical aspects of translation. The articles will not only improve the students' reading skill in general, but also give them insights which will subconsciously be applied when actually translating.

"Writing" skills, i.e. the ability to write smoothly and correctly in both source and target languages, are also important. Writing is in fact the main job of a translator. Students should become familiar with different styles of writing and techniques and principles of editing and punctuation in both source and target languages. Editing and punctuation improve the quality and readability of the translation (Razmjou, 2002).

Moreover, translation trainees should have a good ear for both source and target languages; i.e. they should be alert to pick up various expressions, idioms, and specific vocabulary and their uses, and store them in their minds to be used later. This is in fact what we call improving one's "intuition." Intuition is not something to be developed in a vacuum; rather, it needs practice and a solid background. It needs both the support of theory and the experience of practice. Language intuition is a must for a competent translator.

One of the most important points to consider in the act of translating is understanding the value of the source text within the framework of the source-language discourse. To develop this understanding, the translator must be aware of the cultural differences and the various discoursal strategies in the source and target languages. Therefore, the hidden structure of the source text should be discovered through the use of various discoursal strategies by the translator.

A good translator should be familiar with the culture, customs, and social settings of the source and target language speakers. She should also be familiar with different registers, styles of speaking, and social stratification of both languages. This socio-cultural awareness, can improve the quality of the students' translations to a great extent. According to Hatim and Mason (1990), the social context in translating a text is probably a more important variable than its genre. The act of translating takes place in the socio-cultural context. Consequently, it is important to judge translating activity only within a social context.

After developing a good competence in both source and target languages, actual translating may begin. But there is a middle stage between the competence-developing stage and actual translating: becoming aware of various information-providing sources and learning how to use them. These sources include: different monolingual and bilingual dictionaries, encyclopedias, and the Internet.

Using dictionaries is a technical skill in itself. Not all students know how to use dictionaries appropriately. Words have different meanings in different contexts, and usually monolingual dictionaries are of utmost value in this regard. Students need a great deal of practice to find the intended meaning of words in a particular context, using monolingual dictionaries.

Translation trainees also need to be familiar with the syntax of indirect speech and various figures of speech in the source language such as hyperbole, irony, meiosis, and implicatures. Awareness of these figures of speech will reinforce students' creativity and change their passive knowledge into active skill.

While there is a strong emphasis on developing source and target language competencies, the ways in which students can develop them should not be neglected. Group work and cooperation with peers can always lead the translating process to better results. Students who practice translation with their peers will be able to solve problems more easily and will also more rapidly develop self-confidence and decision-making techniques (Razmjou, 2002). Although there is a possibility of making mistakes during group work, the experience of making, detecting, and correcting mistakes will make the students' minds open and alert.

Another important point is that successful translators usually choose one specific kind of texts for translating and continue to work only in that area; for example a translator might translate only literary works, scientific books, or journalistic texts. Even while translating literary works, some translators might choose only to translate poetry, short stories, or novels. Even more specific than that, some translators choose a particular author and translate only her or his works. The reason is that the more they translate the works of a particular author, the more they will become familiar with her or his mind, way of thinking, and style of writing. And the more familiar is the translator with the style of a writer, the better the translation will be.

Translation needs to be practiced in an academic environment in which trainees work on both practical tasks under the supervision of their teachers and theoretical aspects to enhance their knowledge. In an academic environment, recently published articles, journals and books on translation are available to the trainees, who thus become familiar with good translators and their work by reading them and then comparing them with the original texts. In this way, trainees will develop their power of observation, insight, and decision-making, which in turn will lead them to enhance their motivation and improve their translating skills.

Therefore, translation studies has now been recognized as an important discipline and has become an independent major, separate from foreign-language studies, in universities. This reflects the recognition of the fact that not everybody who knows a foreign language can be a translator, as it is commonly and mistakenly believed. Translation is the key to international understanding. So in this vast world of communication and information overload, we need competent translators who have both the theoretical knowledge and practical skills to do their jobs well. The importance of theoretical knowledge lies in the fact that it helps translators acquire an understanding of how linguistic choices in texts reflect other relationships between senders and receivers, such as power relationships, and how texts are sometimes used to maintain or create social inequalities (Fairclough, 1989).

Finally, it is important to know that it takes much more than a dictionary to be a good translator, and translators are not made overnight. To be a good translator requires a sizeable investment in both source and target languages. It is one of the most challenging tasks to switch safely and faithfully between two universes of discourse. Only a sophisticated and systematic treatment of translation education can lead to the development of successful translators. And the most arduous part of the journey starts when translation trainees leave their universities.

Works cited

Azabdaftari, B. 1997. Psychological Analysis of Translation Process. Motarjem Journal, Mashhad, Iran. 21 & 22: 7-12 (Translation).

Fariclough,N. 1989. Language and Power. London, Longman.

Farahzad, F. 1998. A Gestalt Approach to Manipulation in Translation. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 6 (2): 153-233.

Hatim, B. & I. Mason. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.

Lotfipour, S.K. 1985. Lexical Cohesion and Translation Equivalence. Meta, XLII, 1, 185-92.

Razmjou, L. 2002. Developing Guidelines for a New Curriculum for the English Translation BA Program in Iranian Universities. Online Translation Journal, V. 6, No.2 http://accurapid.com/journal/20edu1.htm

Shahvali, M. 1997. Adaptation Knowledge, the Passage of Success and Creativity (Translation).

This article was originally published at Translation Journal (http://accurapid.com/journal).

Corporate Blog of Elite - Professional Translation Services serving ASEAN & East Asia

How many words per day?

© By Anita Karlson Henssler
A freelance translator (English, German and Danish into Norwegian).
Join PolarZone - her Free Newsletter for the Freelancer.
CH-4313 Moehlin, Switzerland
akarlson@polartext.com
www.polartext.com

One topic most freelance translators just starting up their business devote some thought and calculations to, is this: How many words am I supposed to translate per day?

Well, it is a tricky question - and it doesn't really have an answer! We all have different working approaches, different speciality fields, different software etc. This makes it very difficult to generalize. You will soon notice yourself; two texts of equal length will take you different long to translate.

The main factors involved in deciding how many words you can translate per hour or per day are:

Text format - When you are working from hardcopies it takes longer than when you are working on electronic texts. It will also go quicker if you are working in a program you are very familiar with as opposed to a program you have just bought and are unfamiliar with.

Available dictionaries - Looking up words you don't know will go quick if your dictionaries are good. If you have to search for words - be it on the Internet or at the library - you will loose a lot of time.

Use of CAT-tools - If you are using a CAT-tool, the translation process will go quicker, especially if you are working on a repetitive text.

Speciality topic - The more familiar you are with the topic, the quicker the translating will go.

Style of the source text - Another factor is the style the author of the source text has used. If you compare two texts within the same topic you might find that one text will consist of floating and poetic sentences whilst the other will have short and hard sentences.

Typing speed - How quick can you type? This is also one factor determining how many words per day you get through.

Motivation - When you are having a bad day and not feeling too good, it will also be very difficult to get your work done. The more motivated and focused you are, the quicker you can translate.

Then you also have to calculate the time it will take you to edit and proofread your work. The translating job does not consist of just translating - you also have to check and double check your work!

The average translator will tell you that he or she can translate 100 words per hour working on a complicated text where he or she is not familiar with the topic and needs to do a lot of research. On the other hand the same translator will tell you he or she can do 500 words per hour working on an easy text in his or her speciality field.

When working on a project requiring extra effort an average translator will do up to 4000 - 6000 words per day. But this workload cannot be maintained over longer periods of time. An average translator will do between 2000 and 3000 words per day, working at a comfortable speed and also having time to revise and proofread his or her work properly.

Consider the following two translations: Translation 1 is a PowerPoint presentation consisting of 1200 words and the text is an environmental report. Translation 2 is a software manual of 3000 words written in Word. If you asked several translators to perform these two translations and then asked how long each translation took them, you would not get the same answer from any of them.

I would use about six hours for the first job and about seven hours for the second job, that is including editing and proofreading, not counting breaks. Even if translation 2 has over double the amount of words, I do not need much more time on that than the first translation. I am not very familiar with the topic environment. I would have to spend relatively much time researching the terminology and looking up words. In addition, I am not very familiar with PowerPoint either. Even though this is a relatively easy program, I am bound to run into a problem or two. A software manual, on the other hand, is right up my street. This is a subject I don't need to do a lot of research on, as I am quite familiar with the terminology used. In addition Word would not cause me any problems.

So basically you have to set your own standards. To do this you can time yourself. See how much you can translate of different types of texts in one hour. This way you get an idea of how much you can expect to do in a day of a certain type of text. You learn as you go - and soon you will be able to predict very accurately how long it will take you to translate any given text.

Copyright © 2003 Anita Karlson Henssler

Corporate Blog of Elite - Professional Translation Services serving ASEAN & East Asia

Major mistakes when responding to job offers

By Natasha Cloutier
Chez Natasha
www.cheznatasha.nl

Wondering why you never got an answer to your e-mail? Sometimes potential clients do not have the time or simply do not need your services. Other times, it could very well be that your message is the real reason. Have a look at the following mistakes to see if any of them sound familiar and find out how to avoid these mistakes in the future.

Always check your spelling

Mistakes are unacceptable when selling language services.

Solution: Use a spellchecker and proofread your message.

Reason: It looks unprofessional and does not instil confidence.

Actually… It makes selecting potential candidates much easier.

Answer the client’s questions

Potential clients should never have to search for answers.

Solution: Make sure you actually answer their questions.

Reason: It looks like you haven’t read their job offer.

Actually… Who wants to work with someone who can’t communicate?

Resist applying for a freelance job following an in-house job offer

A potential client knows what they need better than you do.

Solution: Read the posting carefully.

Reason: It looks like you don’t care what your client needs.

Actually… It can look desperate.

Avoid using ‘Dear Sirs’

Reason: Using ‘Dear Sirs’ means you are making assumptions that could offend.

Solution: Use ‘Dear Sir or Madam’.

Actually… Women throw these ones out and men find them impersonal.

When answering per e-mail:

Do not send your résumé as an attachment unless asked

Solution: Paste your résumé into the body of your e-mail.

Reason: People will regard your e-mail as a virus and throw it out.

Actually… It’s quite irritating.

Do not automatically hit the reply button of your e-mail programme

Solution: Put the right e-mail address in your reply before writing.

Reason: You may need to send it to a different person.

Actually… You come off inexperienced and sloppy.

Sending e-mail to several people with their addresses showing

Reason: People respond better to anything addressed to them personally.

Solution: Test your e-mail by sending a message to yourself.

Actually… It shows a lack of confidentiality.

Other things to avoid

Writing in capital letters.
Actually… It looks and feels like screaming.

Sending an e-mail message with nothing but “see attachment”.
Actually… It looks like spam, it’s impersonal, and will be thrown out.

Applying for a job offer that does not match your qualifications.
Actually… It can look desperate and it is a waste of time.

Using a tone that is either too humble or too overbearing.
Actually… It sets a bad tone for any future dealings.

Corporate Blog of Elite - Professional Translation Services serving ASEAN & East Asia

FIST - First International Strike of Translators

Only A Fantasy?

By Alex Gross
http://language.home.sprynet.com/
alexilen@sprynet.com

This article is at least partly a fantasy. I know all the reasons why the events I am about to describe are unlikely to take place in the near future. I will even examine these reasons in some detail towards the end. But for now let us simply entertain the idea embodied in my title and see where it leads us. Let us imagine that all the professional translators in the world, working in their separate countries in business, science, diplomacy, or even espionage and the military, have in fact come together as a single group and have launched a strike under a single banner, First International Strike of Translators or "FIST," bearing a device something like the one shown here. Let's just assume this has happened or is about to happen. I then have three questions. Who precisely are we, the ones about to go out on strike? Assuming we can answer this and have decided we have something in common, what is it that we would want, what would be our actual demands? A strike—or the threat of one—is of course the classic weapon to resolve grievances, but we must first define what these grievances are and how they might be resolved. And finally, what effects could such a strike possibly have, both for ourselves and for the world beyond us?

Let us begin by talking about who we are, even though we may suppose we know this well enough. First of all, we are people who through birth, study and/or accident have come to be familiar with two or more languages. In all but a few countries this already marks us as unusual. And even in those countries where bilingualism is more accepted, we still stand out because we habitually deal in the detailed process of crossing between our languages and in helping others to do so. In some countries this ability is held in awe, in others it is dismissed as a rote skill and/or a plentiful commodity, and in yet others it is the object of considerable suspicion. In none of these lands, even where translation is more commonplace, is the ability to translate regarded as altogether normal. After all, we translators can actually handle two or more languages, are able to live to some degree in two or more cultures, and may in fact have two or more loyalties. And in a world of single loyalties, single nationalities and single cultural choices, this marks us as different and also as potentially dangerous. We all know this of course, and we do the best we can to prove our loyalty to the countries and companies which employ us.

But if we are looking for something to unite us in our undertaking, this is certainly a factor worth considering. Whatever our nations, origins or loyalties, it is likely to be something we have in common. We are able to look at two or more different cultural contexts and explain the first in terms of the second and often the second in terms of the first as well. In a world of single loyalties this is a useful skill but also an odd accomplishment, something that marks us both as dull, devoted drones and as potentially divided outsiders.

Such an accomplishment is all the more remarkable in a world where at least some ideological and national distinctions are slowly beginning to blur, blend, perhaps relax a bit. Let's just suppose that some of the internationalist rhetoric we are beginning to hear is actually true, let's imagine that we really are moving into a broader, more multi-cultural world environment. What do we then become? Do we not first and foremost among all human beings bear the banner of such a change? Could it just possibly turn out that we are pioneers and heroes? If the world's definition of freedom were expanded to embrace being free to know more than one culture, might we not rank rather highly in such a hierarchy of freedom? Is all this also a fantasy, or is it something worth considering? Such is my partial answer to the question "Who are we?"

And now the second question: what is it that we want? Assuming we could get every translator in the world to go out on strike with us, what would we ask as conditions for returning to work? Would we merely insist on the time-honored demand of improvements in pay and working conditions? Would we perhaps add a few clerical caveats on the maximum numbers of words to be translated per hour? Would we express Luddite dismay at the appearance of computers in our midst? Or would we launch some truly powerful salvos on the philosophical and educational level at a world that still fails to understand the true interactive relationship between language and reality? I am appending a tentative list of such demands—as I see them right now—and invite dialogue with readers to expand and refine them.

PROVISIONAL DEMANDS OF THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL
STRIKE OF TRANSLATORS

1. Specific demands concerning pay, working hours, and work conditions, to be formulated cooperatively by an international committee, with possible differences according to specific conditions in various countries and societies.

2. Explicit recognition by all the world's governments of the primacy of the translation process in international communication and a commitment from these governments to ensure, in cooperation with our standing committees, the highest possible standards of translation in all such communication media.

3. A further commitment from the world's governments and universities that they regard language/translation as the major fountainhead of culture and human understanding, and that they realize that knowledge and science are more likely to be seen in the future as a branch of language than language as a branch of knowledge or science.

4. The granting by all countries (or by an international organization) of special passports for translators, similar to those issued to diplomats, facilitating travel for them in all foreign countries they may wish to visit.

5. Granting translators the option to refuse to translate texts they find morally unacceptable, for example declarations of war, terrorist demands, death threats, statements that one nation or people is intrinsically superior to another, assertions about religious or political systems that are injurious to those holding different views. In such cases, translators would at least have the option of returning these statements to their authors for further thought and redrafting. While this demand may appear radical at first, it in fact reflects a process already at work in some international organizations, where the fine print and fine tuning of international agreements sometimes reaches its final shaping in the hands of translators or results from a cooperative process involving them.

6. Gaining widespread recognition and publicity through national and international bodies for what is at present a barely perceived reality, namely that the quality of a translation is to a great extent dependent on the quality and clarity of the original text. Just as it is rarely possible to make a clear xerox from a fuzzy original unless it is first enhanced, so a poorly conceived and indifferently written original text can be just barely rendered into a foreign language with considerable help from the translator. In practical terms, Adjudicative Committees comprised of translators should be formed to deal with problems arising in this area. In major cases where complaints of an "unfaithful translation" may be lodged, the role of such a committee would be to determine if such complaints are justified or if any truly faithful translation would have been possible in the first place. Where complaints are found to be unjustified, the committee shall be empowered to fine those lodging them for willful abuse of the translator and to require them to bear the expense of such proceedings. Decisions of such a committee shall be binding.

7. The right of translators to function as final advisors on the feasibility and usefulness of all computer-based translation aids and to determine standards on how these will be used in their work. This by no means indicates hostility to such devices among translators, many of whom are actually curious or even excited to learn how such devices can help them in their work. This demand merely confirms two recognized circumstances, that the use of computers in translation is still a relatively new and untried process, and that there is a great deal of misleading information in this field. A computer system may work brilliantly in the hands of its inventors and yet create intractable problems when integrated into normal work routines. Some systems which work well in one setting are less successful in others. Other systems, touted only recently as useful translation aids, have disappeared along with their manufacturers. Furthermore, as with interpreters, whose work is often so demanding that they can only work for brief one- or two-hour shifts, there may also be special human needs connected with using computers in the demanding field of translation. This could prove especially true in those cases where advocates of complex and expensive systems promise vastly increased outputs without considering the work or health needs of human translators.(1)

And now our most crucial question: would we actually be able to realize these demands by launching—or threatening to launch—such a strike? This question strikes at the heart of our fantasy and also forces us to consider the reasons why, according to many, such a strike could never in fact occur. Or, if it did, could never succeed. I will consider these arguments in a candid manner and without totally denying that such criticisms have some merit. But it also is worth considering that what seems totally impossible today may not be at all impossible a few years or a few decades from now.

The first thing we should clearly realize is that we are under no obligation to begin such a strike right away. In fact all practical experience in this field dictates that we should not begin it until we are truly ready. The key to all successful strikes is capable, prolonged, and thorough organization, and this would clearly involve endless work. In the meantime the mere announcement that translators might be planning such a strike or are even discussing its possibility can, in a media-driven world, begin to give us some of the publicity we need to start mobilizing our own resources. It is just possible that we already possess some of the necessary power—we simply need to make this power manifest and begin to shape it in the public awareness and in our own. No doubt some early reports would ridicule our efforts and suggest that they are doomed to failure, as the world at large does not tend to view translators as very important in the scheme of things and supposes that we are all easily replaceable, whether by other translators or by machines.

But it is precisely here where our organization and research efforts should concentrate, in order to prepare a credible response to such charges. Thus, I visualize the initial effort to realize these demands as being one of prolonged discussion, organization, international coordination and "consciousness raising" among ourselves, along with a parallel publicity campaign to keep the press and general public apprised of our intentions and progress. One major goal of these discussions and organizing activities will be to provide others and ourselves with accurate answers to our last question: what would happen if the strike actually took place? And to prepare practical answers to this question beforehand.

At this point I am prepared to claim on the theoretical plane—leaving some of the hardest questions for last—that if we were successful during the discussion and organization phase, and if we really were able to persuade all translators and interpreters in all fields in all nations to go on strike with us, the results could be nothing less than astounding. Business, communications, international relations, science, the military, espionage, patent registry, and applications for international jobs and divorces would all come to a grinding halt. The entire world—ourselves not least of all—would be astonished by the truly enormous power that flows through our hands.

But how would the world react to such a strike, you must by now be asking, would not all governments everywhere simply rush out and hire others to take our places, leaving us all out on our ears without a job? The answer to this question would depend on how effective we had been during the earlier phase of publicizing our demands. If we did a good enough job here, we might never actually have to go on strike. It might be possible to convince the world's governments and businesses of our enhanced value without ever having to fire a shot.

Here we would need to stress the specialist nature of our work and persuade the public that it would be far harder to find replacements for us than they think. We do more than move words and phrases around, we regularly fashion and transfer entire realities between nations. But even if we failed in this effort—and even if we failed in our strike—we would still have the satisfaction of knowing, as we stood on the unemployment lines, that it was only a question of time before our replacements came to feel the same way about their work as we do and began to voice the same desires and grievances. We are after all a very special group of people, and any others who try to play our role must necessarily be or become much the same people as ourselves.

It's time to consider the really hard questions, which I have postponed until now. I am of course well aware that as of now not all translators will share my views or even grant the need for such a strike. I also know that many translators have worked so long as intermediaries and are so accustomed to professional self-abnegation that for them any such appeal to activism must seem profoundly inappropriate. Other translators work directly for the government or the military and are certain their employers would never countenance anything like what I have described . Yet other translators work in countries where the legitimacy of any strike by the citizenry, much less by government workers, has never been granted. Thus, as innocent and well-meaning as we may see ourselves and our cause, some of us could actually end up being jailed—perhaps even executed (this is after all a fantasy)—for our efforts. Yet I believe that solutions might become possible in all these cases, provided we are not in too great a hurry.

On the positive side, translators and interpreters are already international by the very nature of their work. We share an international network of contacts, professional groups, and publications. It is by no means impossible that we can spread the word of our plans far and wide. We are after all also a relatively small group of people, and this has advantages as well as disadvantages. Some may also argue that business and government would simply ransack the schools and universities for linguists to take our places. We can provide against this by expanding our group in the first place to embrace all language professionals, including teachers, perhaps restyling ourselves as FISTITALP or "First International Strike of Translators, Interpreters, Terminologists, and Allied Language Professionals." Or we can just let the government go ahead and draft language professors—it might be amusing to see if they are really able to translate.

At this point, my fantasy—to the extent that it is a fantasy— is running low. It really does seem to me that there ought to be some means by which translators can come to enjoy more recognition than they now receive. They are in a very real sense life's true aristocrats, connoisseurs, and Kenner, its enjoyers of multi-realities, as anyone knows who has ever heard them converse or joined them at table. In an increasingly sophisticated and multicultural world they—unlike wealthy idlers, businessmen or scientists—are the true distinguishers of the world's many realities and the touchstone of the differences between them. It is hard to believe, strike or no, that they will not soon be recognized for their unique pioneering qualities.

But of course some will simply smile my fantasy away. Such a scenario surely belongs only to the future. Or perhaps someone will come along, do everything I have described and more, and describe me as an old fuddy-duddy for even calling it a fantasy.

(1) For further information about these aspects, see Jean Datta's excellent treatment Machine Translation in Large Organizations: Revolution in the Workplace, pp. 167-173, Technology as Translation Strategy, American Translators Association Scholars Monograph Series, Vol. II, 1988, edited by Muriel Vasconcellos, University of New York at Binghampton (SUNY).

Corporate Blog of Elite - Professional Translation Services serving ASEAN & East Asia