# should you translate errors in the source text?



## fenixpollo

Not being a formally-educated translator, I'm not sure how to handle this concept, as expressed by another forero: 





> That's right: the oiginal was written with deficiencies, the translation is going to show the same lack of sense.


 If you are translating a text that has fragment sentences, incoherent thought and bad grammar, should you translate it all, exactly?  Or should you change grammar, structure and word choice to improve the original?  Does the translator have permission/duty to change the content of the original?


----------



## cherine

Personally, I don't change much of the incosistencies when I translate : if the author wrote it like this, then why should I "correct" his text ?
The changes I allow myself to do are those that help understand the text, I sometimes use footnotes to explain a cultural connotation or an unknown concept... etc. Bad grammar is changed sort of automatically, because I'm supposed to produce a grammatically coherent text. But if the thought itself is incoherent, and I try to fix it then I won't be translating, but re-writing the text (even in another language), don't you think ?

So to make my idea short : I can change the *form* of the text I translate, but not the *content*.
And this is my personal opinion of course, others may have different opinions.


----------



## cuchuflete

A professional translator should ask this question, and get a written answer from the client, before beginning work.


----------



## Sidd

And if they say yes? I don't like the idea of improving a bad work with my effort, to be honest.


----------



## timpeac

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Not being a formally-educated translator, I'm not sure how to handle this concept, as expressed by another forero: If you are translating a text that has fragment sentences, incoherent thought and bad grammar, should you translate it all, exactly? Or should you change grammar, structure and word choice to improve the original? Does the translator have permission/duty to change the content of the original?


I'm not a translator but I don't think it is the translator's job to editorialise but to transform a text in one language to a text in another language that means pretty much the same thing to native speakers of each language, and makes pretty much the same impression on the respective readers.

In general, I would say that translators are not best placed to make what they consider improvements to a text. Their skill is to translate (obviously) and it is another speciality to take a badly written text and make it better (don't get me wrong - due to the skills they have for translation I'm sure they wouldn't do a bad job at that, I just mean that such a skill is a separate speciality). I suppose if an editor did want a translator to do both then as Cuchu says he should make it explicit - but, professional translators, is that a common request? I suppose it might depend on what you are translating. If you are translating a user manual then you don't care if the translation is faithful to the original in the way you would for a novel - you just want it to be as clear and concise as possible. It would seem perverse to deliberately translate unclear passages in this instance if you could as easily write something clear.


----------



## vince

I had a similar dilemma when I tried to explain what "All your base are belong to us" meant in France.

"Tout votre base est appartiennent a nous"?

I think that if the grammatical errors are an essential part of the work, e.g. typifying working-class language, or illustrating the linguistic incompetence of the speaker, then yes, you should introduce corresponding grammatical errors.

After all, "Toutes vos bases nous appartiennent" is far less funny than "All your base are belong to us".


----------



## lauranazario

Good question, Fenixpollo.

As a professional translator, I have sometimes encountered source texts with obvious mistakes. I usually do one of two things:

1. If the source text has some sort of grammar or syntax error but the intended sense is not lost, I just go ahead and translate it as if the source text contained no mistake.
When delivering my final translation, I would write the client to point out the mistake I found in the source text --and then it's up to him if he wants to fix it or not.

2. If the source text has content inconstencies --like saying Napoleon was Italian and he lost the battle at The Alamo-- then I do nothing. I translate exactly what was written, as a translator is not responsible for fact-checking --that falls in the hands of the author. 

Now here's another scenario... what about source texts that are given to us (as translators) and when we see them we find an atrocious/convoluted writing style that sounds (or reads) just terrible?

If it's not a literary text (where there MAY be all sorts of reasons to justify convoluted writing or atrociously constructed sentences) OR a legal document ("legalese" is a language of its own), I just render the translation in a way that will sound "good" and "natural" to the second target audience (for whom the translation is being created).

• For example, if I'm given a Spanish-language marketing presentation to translate, and that presentation was created using grammar or syntax that leaves much to be desidered... I do not "translate" those same errors or incorporate them into my English translation --no way! 
I deliver a 'flawless' translation in English (that's what I get paid for!), and then inform the client of whatever qualms I may have regarding the source document. Again it's up to him/her to decide what happens to the original, if it gets corrected or not.

Saludos,
LN


----------



## maxiogee

Would it be a thought to not correct the error but to put in a footnote?
I'm thinking of things like a "learned paper", which might be referred to (and the error) in a review, or in another learned paper. Your reader should not be 'deprived' of the error, as to do so might cause confusion later.


----------



## timpeac

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Would it be a thought to not correct the error but to put in a footnote?
> I'm thinking of things like a "learned paper", which might be referred to (and the error) in a review, or in another learned paper. Your reader should not be 'deprived' of the error, as to do so might cause confusion later.


From what I know footnotes are hated by translators and those receiving the translation alike. It's kind of like an admission that the translation is insufficient in achieving its aim. From a personal point of view if I read a book with lots of footnotes it drives me to distraction (I'd probably not bother reading it in fact). I view it as the translator's job to avoid having me read footnotes


----------



## maxiogee

As I posted that last comment, I just remembered a piece on this evening's news. Yesterday our Prime Minister was quoted, accurately, saying that three business people had wanted to "steal the assets" of a certain business. His deputy Prime Minister (and leader of the other party in the coalition government) was today quoted as saying she was sure he meant "strip the assets".
This is a much more common expression, and he is not known for his grasp of language. But, so far we don't know if he meant what he said. The deputy's comment was on the early evening news here, but it was noticeably absent from the main evening news (a case of the newsroom being leant on?).

How would one cope with that?


----------



## fenixpollo

lauranazario said:
			
		

> When delivering my final translation, I would write the client to point out the mistake I found in the source text --and then it's up to him if he wants to fix it or not.
> You mean, if he wants *you* to fix it or not, right?
> 
> 
> I deliver a 'flawless' translation in English (that's what I get paid for!), and then inform the client of whatever qualms I may have regarding the source document. Again it's up to him/her to decide what happens to the original, if it gets corrected or not.
> Does this ever become politically sensitive for you? I say that because the documents that I translate are usually written by executives in my company, and it becomes very tricky when I want to inform them that their original text is a piece of crap.


. . . . . . . . . .


----------



## danielfranco

Where I work, I am part of the translation team, but my job duties only require me to write the direct translation from English to Spanish, or the "proof copy". Others have the onerous task of editing the final document. But I'm required to provide feedback to the originators of the text about problems with grammar or context and to ask for clarification. If they want it to stand as is, then there's nothing to be done... It'll be up to the editing team to try to make it seem as if the text was badly written in Spanish! No, not really, but they will not go too much out of their way to make it "pretty".


----------



## lauranazario

LN wrote: When delivering my final translation, I would write the client to point out the mistake I found in the source text --and then it's up to him if he wants to fix it or not.

Fenix commented: _You mean, if he wants you to fix it or not, right?_

LN replies: Nope... translators have no "duty" to fix the original. If I catch a mistake on the original, I merely tell the client about it... and HE decides if HE (or the author) will change the mistake I'm pointing out.

- - - - - - -​
LN wrote: I deliver a 'flawless' translation in English (that's what I get paid for!), and then inform the client of whatever qualms I may have regarding the source document. Again it's up to him/her to decide what happens to the original, if it gets corrected or not.

Fenix commented: _Does this ever become politically sensitive for you? I say that because the documents that I translate are usually written by executives in my company, and it becomes very tricky when I want to inform them that their original text is a piece of crap._

LN replies: For me, no... it all depends on just exactly HOW you say it. Never come across as *severely critical* of anyone's original work. Like you say, there is the chance the person hiring you (the top executive) may be the actual author of the piece you aretranslating. Therefore --and this is my personal approach-- always make direct but "mild" observations about the questionable quality of the source material, letting the person CLEARLY know that you are acting on HIS/HER best interest, and not because you're being picky or preachy.

I recall that once I made a comment to a client about the source text not coming across as entirely suitable for a company of its stature and excellence (meaning HIS company)... and then the client hired me (again) to copyedit the source text because he wanted to make sure both documents 'spoke with one voice'. So in the end I got not just one gig, but two. 

Hot tip: ALWAYS be very *diplomatic* when expressing your qualms about the source text. At least in my case, it has always worked to my advantage because clients (for the most part) do appreciate honest feedback from a language professional. 

Saludos,
LN


----------



## Papalote

Laura´s advice is the best any aspiring translator will eve get.

Relations with your clients are crucial. So, start honing your diplomatic skills along with your language ones.

Mmm.. to answer the question, if I know how to fix a small, emphasis on small, error, I will fix it. I hate turning in less-than-perfect translations. Otherwise, I will talk with my client about my misgivings.

Have a glorious weekend!

P


----------



## fenixpollo

lauranazario said:
			
		

> LN replies: Nope... translators have no "duty" to fix the original. If I catch a mistake on the original, I merely tell the client about it... and HE decides if HE (or the author) will change the mistake I'm pointing out.
> 
> LN wrote: I deliver a 'flawless' translation in English (that's what I get paid for!), and then inform the client of whatever qualms I may have regarding the source document. Again it's up to him/her to decide what happens to the original, if it gets corrected or not.


 I agree with papalote that you offered some excellent advice, Laura.  What I meant by "you" changing it was that in the end, you're the one who will go back and change it in the translation (not the original).

Sidd, I agree that the translator's job is just to translate the original, not edit it; but I'm also concerned that I'm turning in high-quality work without errors.  I suppose the solution is the one many of you are saying: translate it as-is, with warts and all, but point out the irregularities to the client and hope that they will fix them in the source text so that I can fix the translation.

If only people would write well, to begin with.


----------



## lauranazario

Thank you Papalote and Fenix... for your kind words. 
I'm VERY glad to hear you find my advise to be helpful. 



			
				fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I agree with papalote that you offered some excellent advice, Laura.  What I meant by "you" changing it was that in the end, you're the one who will go back and change it in the translation (not the original).


Okay, let's go back to square one. Please go to the top portion of my post #7. In it I specify under which instances I 'modify' what the original _communicates/says_ (not making an actual change in the original text itself) and under which instances I just go by what's being said on the text.

If you would like to present a different scenario or instance, I'll be glad to discuss it... this thread is quite interesting for the Professional LN


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

What do you do with regionalisms, which are considered grammatical errors or their next cousins, when there is a need to translate?

I'm thinking especially of transcripts of interviews and oral histories.  Another example would be books written in dialect  - one that comes to mind is _La Sagouine_, written entirely in idiomatic Acadian French.  

How do you preserve the colour and the grammatical irregularities?


----------



## fenixpollo

I think you have to translate "ain't" as "ain't" (or as close as you can get in the target language.  If it doesn't exist in the target langauge, then you're stuck with the equivalent of "is not"), for the same reason that you try to render idiomatic expressions as closely as possible.

I wasn't trying to split hairs, laura.    I get you.

Cheers.


----------



## lauranazario

Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> What do you do with regionalisms, which are considered grammatical errors or their next cousins, when there is a need to translate?


Hi Chaska.
I have to admit I almost jumped out of my chair when I read this first sentence.... for I do not share the opinion that regionalisms are 'errors' or anything anywhere near that definition. But that's another topic that may merit its own thread... 


			
				Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> I'm thinking especially of transcripts of interviews and oral histories.  Another example would be books written in dialect  - one that comes to mind is _La Sagouine_, written entirely in idiomatic Acadian French.
> How do you preserve the colour and the grammatical irregularities?


Seems to me you may be referring to literary translation here --an area with its own set of 'translation parameters' (just to call it something).

You see, in literary creation it may be critical for a character or characters to speak in a certain way filled with grammatical mistakes. The author may have chosen that highlighting this lack of formal education was relevant --it's entirely his/her prerrogative. But whatever the reason, in literary translation the GOOD translator has the _obligation_ not only of being accurate but also of preserving the original tone, character and flow --quite a formidable task! 

Not being a literary translator myself, my only experience with "oral histories" is translating witness depositions. When I do, I have to remain faithful to the person's tone and register, using slang equivalents when the witness uses a slang word. 

Now, when it comes to regionalisms, sometimes there is no way to handle that word other than a straighforward/non-regional translation. Allow me an example:
In a deposition, a witness is saying in his defense "_¡pero si yo sólo le di pon a Juan!_" The word "pon" is a Puerto Rican regionalism for "ride" (in Spain it would be "aventón", and there are many other regional variations for the concept 'give a ride/hitch a ride'). 

My translation for the source phrase using a PR regionalism would have to be _but I was only giving Juan a ride!_. The regionalism is lost in the translation, but there is no separate regionalistic English term for the regionalistic 'pon' (PR) or 'aventón' (Spain), etc. In English, they are all '_ride_' (get a ride/hitch a ride)... OR... you could also paraphrase slightly and use '_lift_' (I only gave Juan a lift!) --but I'm extremely careful when  paraphrasing in witness depositions. Personally, I only use it as a last recourse.

Now, back to the literary translation of regionalisms... without a doubt, it's a very tall order. I believe that some regionalisms may survive the translation process (either included in italics or put between quotation marks), but others are certainly destined to be lost.

Saludos,
LN


----------



## lauranazario

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I wasn't trying to split hairs, laura.    I get you.


Oh, but let's *do* split hairs, Fenixpollo! 

Like I said in post #16, if you have or want to present a different scenario, by all means bring it over here. 
Chaska did, and I think it has added a whole new dimension to the ongoing conversation. 

Saludos,
LN


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

lauranazario said:
			
		

> Hi Chaska.
> I have to admit I almost jumped out of my chair when I read this first sentence.... for I do not share the opinion that regionalisms are 'errors' or anything anywhere near that definition. But that's another topic that may merit its own thread...



You're preaching to the converted, Laura - that's why I used the word "considered".  I should have said "considered by some".

Your comments about depositions was really helpful.

I love oral histories, but have only recently begun to think about the mechanics of rendering an accurate translation..... and it's somewhat overwhelming.  In addition, I think if I were translating into Spanish there'd have to be a version for both sides of the Atlantic!


----------



## Lugubert

Two extremes from the things I do:

Patents. All errors _must_ be preserved. I'm not paid to do a quality check. Nobody is interested in the quality of the language. So, I don't do patents.

A certain reoccurring kind of medical devices. I fix any errors, add what the author forgot but is helpful to the user, and delete what's just annoying. If there are serious problems, I tell the customer what I have changed.

In the area between those extremes, I freely add notes and suggestions, if possible before delivery.


----------



## Maja

It depends on a text, nature of a mistake etc. 
If a mistake is simply smt  overlooked (misspelling, omitted word, bad grammar...) then I would probably  correct it.
If a mistake is deliberate, part of a speech and likes, then I would try to translate it or find an equivalent in my own language since not all errors are translatable!


----------



## timpeac

Maja said:


> It depends on a text, nature of a mistake etc.
> If a mistake is simply smt overlooked (misspelling, omitted word, bad grammar...) then I would probably correct it.
> If a mistake is deliberate, part of a speech and likes, then I would try to translate it or find an equivalent in my own language since not all errors are translatable!


Trouble is that you can't always know. I know that I've been amazed on occasion when studying literature when some deliberate linguistic effect has been pointed out to me - something really clever and subtle that I would have missed otherwise. Don't you think that if you correct errors, even if they are not deliberate, you will change the tone of the text? A non-formally educated but very honest and direct author, for example, would lose his effect. I think the idea that we_ should_ correct errors comes from the idea that we all have, as language lovers, that the language should be respected and almost "honoured" in some way and that there is some sort of crime going on if you allow the "slip" to go uncorrected.

I know that we all like to "add value" when we do work and we see an opportunity to do so - I think that this should always be checked first with the person commissioning the translation in these cases, even if it is just to gain a general "go-ahead" to correct any grammatical/orthographical slips as appropriate to fit in with the standard language.


----------



## Chevere33

I am hoping this is the correct place to post this.

I frequently translate letters for a non-profit organization here.  The letters coming from South America are from folks in a little town; although the writers ARE literate, their writing lacks much in the areas of spelling and punctuation (the latter is much worse than the former).  No matter the topic or importance, they always send one huge paragraph with little to no punctuation---maybe one paragraph and one period somewhere in the middle of what should be three or four paragraphs, often more.  In fact, to help myself out, I sometimes have to paste their text into a Word file and separate everything out before I begin translating.

All along, I have been making slight alterations for readability's sake.  Of course the tone and language remain the same, but I put it into paragraphs, add punctation, separate the salutation, etc.  I keep the sentence order the same. 

My question is, what is the BEST way to handle this?  I would assume that this only happens to those who translate letters.  How have you handled it?

Thanks!


----------



## Kajjo

A very difficult matter which should be discussed with the customer -- who pays is allowed to make the choice. This ensures that your customer is happy with your work.

If I had to decide for myself: Since basic punctuation (commas, periods) is different from language to language, I would add the correct commas and periods in the destination language. I would not alter the paragraph structure or the level of politeness.

If it is possible without being impolite to the writers, you could just ask them whether you are supposed or allowed to reformat it to common style. Maybe show them one of their letters and the revised edition and ask whether such a transformation is generally OK in the future? I know this might not be possible without being offending.

Kajjo


----------



## Brioche

What sort of letters are they? Who are the recipients?


----------



## TraductoraPobleSec

Chevere33 said:


> I would assume that this only happens to those who translate letters. How have you handled it?


 
I am afraid that you are completely wrong: I'm a professional translator and deal with all kinds of texts (essays, legal documents, literary stuff, news, etc.) and you would not believe the great number of "faulty" texts I come across... And now my opinion: because of ethics, I believe it's our duty as translators to provide a good quality translations, and because of this, translation goes hand in hand with improving the original.

The terrible thing, though, is that we translators are not well paid for our efforts, and this is when "entran en escena" disapointment and "pasotismo".

Best regards from Barcelona


----------



## palomnik

I've probably been in a position very similar to yours, Chevere. In working with a state consumer assistance agency in Florida I had to translate a lot of letters received from consumers from Spanish into English. These were letters dealing mainly with complaints about insurance policies and claims. They contained a large number of mistakes, including punctuation, spacing, run-on sentences, and an incredibly large number of spelling errors for a language that theoretically is written as it is pronounced.

This sort of material presents a different set of criteria for handling than any printed text may present. To translate the letters as flawed as they were written is, in my opinion, a disservice to the people who wrote them. Semi-literacy is not a crime; it's even less of a crime if you live in a country or culture where universal education is not common, and if you translate these letters the way they are written you run the risk of the writer not getting the attention he or she may deserve.

My general rule is this: imagine that these people are average people who would have had an average education if one was available, and do up your translation accordingly. The content can generally remain the same, but the form should be such that it doesn't distract the reader from the intent involved in the letter. That was my approach, anyway.


----------



## ireney

My take is (unless the translator is otherwise directed by the customer that is) :Spelling mistakes, unless intentional, can be "fixed" in the translation. Punctuation can be fixed too but _only_ if the translator is absolutely, 100% sure, that altering the punctuation will not alter the meaning in the least. Poor word choice should remain as is as long as it will convey the same meaning in the target language. As for other formatting changes: Do these only if the translation will suffer more than the original without them.

To give an example of what lies under my "philosophy": I have a friend whose spelling leaves a lot to be desired and so do her composition skills. If I were to receive a translated letter of hers that was absolutely perfect from every respect, well, it wouldn't be hers, I wouldn't "feel" it's her letter.


----------



## jonquiliser

I think ireney's take seems sound, what a text conveys depends on very much more than singular meanings of specific words, and it is often important that all is put as similar to the original as possible. But, and I guess lots of people have said this in the thread already, it all depeds on what you're translating. If someone wants a translation of letters sent to potential financial supporters, I imagine it might be more important to make a good impression on these, than stay true to the original! But at the end of the day, I imagine it's the costumer who should choose. So to talk to them is probably the best idea.


----------



## Chevere33

Brioche, to answer your question, the letters are from ministry leaders in South America to the head of a missions organization here in the US (and vice versa).

Ireney, I don't tinker with stylistics, so other than the punctuation and paragraphs, the essence of the letters remains the same (simple vocabulary, redundancies, ramblings, and the like).

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone.  I guess the problem is more widespread than I thought!


----------



## loladamore

Chevere33 said:


> The letters coming from South America are from folks in a little town; although the writers ARE literate, their writing lacks much in the areas of spelling and punctuation (the latter is much worse than the former). No matter the topic or importance, they always send one huge paragraph with little to no punctuation---maybe one paragraph and one period somewhere in the middle of what should be three or four paragraphs, often more.


 
This is quite characteristic of a lot of writing in Spanish, perhaps especially in Latin America. You only have to try reading _El otoño del patriarca_ to get an idea of the lengths that some writers will go to. 
In literary translation there might be very good reasons for respecting the syntax of the source text, as form can be as important as meaning in conveying a particular message.
The point of your work seems to be to facilitate communication. If, as you say, you are only adding punctuation to these letters written by ministry leaders (which, if written in local bureaucratic jargon, are produced in a variety as distinctive as legalese), then I doubt you are doing any harm. On the contrary, you are (hopefully) making the message easier to understand for your target readers. Sounds good to me.

You might find (some of) *this debate* interesting. 
This bit made me smile:





> What you guys seem to be complaining about is that Spanish sentences are too long and that therefore there's something wrong about Spanish. Sounds like complaining that German words are too long, and that therefore there's something wrong with German. Maybe you should rather learn how to read in Spanish, rather than ask for Spanish to be written with English punctuation.


 
Saludos.
Lola.


----------



## LikeBarleyBending

As a full-time translators for five or six years, I have encountered such problems sometimes. If the error in the source text is obvious, I will correct it. However I will ask for the source owner (customer)'s confirmation of error in the source and my correction as well.


----------

