 |
|
Subject: ISO 17100:2015 -- Есть ли у кого-нибудь? gen. Уважаемые коллеги,Есть ли у кого-нибудь полный текст ISO 17100:2015 Translation services -- Requirements for translation services (или знает ли кто-нибудь, где можно скачать бесплатно) на английском, немецком и/или французском? |
|
ОГРОМНОЕ СПАСИБО! (а на фр. и нем. -- не знаете ли, где взять? Спрашиваю потому, что по ряду признаков предполагаю, что английский текст -- продукт перевода с фр. или немецкого. Есть смутное ощущение, что в части 3.1.3 Professional competences of translators на других языках описываются иначе.) |
|
link 13.03.2016 16:12 |
| If you post a few paragraphs of your English text, I can tell you whether it's a translation or not. |
| еврокоды изначально составляют те комиссии, которые занимаются подготовкой конкретной нормы; перевод этого еврокода выполнялся с немецкого на английский |
| Thanks, John. http://www.translatorforeningen.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/bestyrelse/ISO_17100_2015.pdf |
| Вот и мне так кажется. |
|
link 13.03.2016 16:31 |
| The English in that is 10/10, I'm afraid. It's either been written by someone with a native knowledge of English, or translated into English by someone with a native knowledge of English. If it's a translation, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's been translated ACCURATELY, of course -- just that it reads well in English. |
|
link 13.03.2016 18:35 |
|
OFF: I couldn't help noticing section 3.1.4 of that document, which lists the 'qualifications' required by the ISO for it to recognise a person as a professional translator, and how illogical they seemed, namely one of the following: * a degree in translation; OR But how can a degree in (say) horticulture be worth the same as three years' work as a full-time translator? And what about people who don't have a degree or 5 years' experience as a translator, but are still good/very good translators? Or have I misunderstood this section? |
| все логично; второе условие следует понимать как диплом специалиста в другой области знаний, при этом специалист после завершения учебы должен иметь стаж 2 года работы профессиональным переводчиком |
|
Thank you, John. This section left me wondering too. But above all, I found nowhere in whom these requirements require to require us, poor sods, to meet these requirements. Ув. paderin, я, вообще-то тоже не усматриваю логики. Но бОльшую нелогичность я вижу в другом. Если принять, что эти требования должны строго и неукоснительно выполняться, то получается, что первый пункт отсекает всех остальных кандидатов, relying on ss. 2 & 3: чтобы согласно второму пункту начать набирать 2 года официально регистрируемого стажа, кандидат должен уже соответствовать либо первому, либо третьему пункту, а чтобы, в свою очередь, просоответствовать третьему, он должен набрать 5 лет официального стажа, начать набирать который он может, лишь соответствуя первому или второму. По пп. 2 и 3 получается замкнутый круг, приводящий кандидата к п. 1. Другими словами, если эти требования ввести повсеместно, как, скажем, для врачей и установить отвественность за незаконное В свете чего и мой (доселе не высказанный) вопрос. Кому, собсна, адресованы эти требования?? :-) |
|
link 13.03.2016 21:57 |
|
paderin: But what if you've a degree in African studies or astronomy? If you then become a translator and wait for the Congo- or solar system-related translations to roll in, you'll be waiting a long time. If your degree's in a subject which helps you in your work as a translator, great -- but in a lot of cases, just having a degree in 'something' is completely irrelevant when it comes to how good a translator you are. And it certainly isn't worth as much as three years' experience of actual translating. A lot of people who have never been to university make very good translators/interpreters. Anyway, I shall stop here, otherwise I'll go 'off-topic' and become very boring. |
|
link 13.03.2016 22:17 |
| DUPLESSIS: I suspect that, when they drew up those rules on 'qualifications', they didn't have many translators/interpreters on the committee! To use a UK expression, they look as though they were 'written on the back of a fag packet' (=drawn up hurriedly, with little thought given to them). |
|
On the contrary, John, you are free and welcome to go off. Btw, do you happen to know where, when, how and why the prejudice originated that one can/must only translate/interpret into one's own native language? Thanks in advance. |
|
link 14.03.2016 0:39 |
|
I don't know, but we were always taught at university that you should only translate into your own language or into languages that you have a native-level knowledge of. I've only ever translated into English myself, as I know that if I translated into Russian or French, there'd be mistakes in it which any native Ru-/Fr-speaker would spot. It's not being a native of the country that matters (in my view), but whether you know its language to native level. That's just my view, though. |
|
The target language you mean, John, right? What about understanding the source? Which do you personally think is worse: a cock-up originating from misunderstanding the source or one as a result of misrendering in the target? (What I am trying to say is the "active" native level - ideal for the second half of the translation - is as hard to attain as the "passive" native level (= full and correct understanding), as prerequisite for the first half of the job. Full and correct understanding is not implied automatically or as a matter of course, do you agree? I mean, both are crucial and both are in fact hard to attain, come to think of it. But then someone somewhere sometime decided that rendering is more important. In other words, cock-ups from misunderstanding are less important. :-) I wonder why.) |
|
link 14.03.2016 3:50 |
|
I'm not sure that one's worse than the other, because both will result in a mistranslation of some sort. Obviously you need to have a good understanding of any language to translate from it. Perhaps the reason they say 'only translate into languages you have a native knowledge of' is because, being honest, if you misunderstand the source, at least you can present something to the customer that looks convincing so that they'll never know you've mistranslated it -- but if you write it badly in the target language, they'll know something's wrong straight away. Most people tend to have a better knowledge of their own language than of languages they've learnt but not been submersed in all their life, so presumably that's why they say it? |
| еще раз: все логично; формальная привязка к получению какого-нибудь диплома в третьем условии отсутствует, 5 лет работы профессиональным переводчиком; вне зависимости от качества полученного образования, можно и не иметь образованя вообще |
| You need to be logged in to post in the forum |