| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | post-editing of machine translations - Are there any real time savings? Thread poster: Thomas Johansson
|
|---|
Stepan Konev 
Russian Federation
Local time: 19:44
English to Russian
| Are you native in Russian? | May 18, 2022 |
Anton Konashenok wrote:
combining words that don't go together ("экономичный расход") Try this answer by the Russian Language Expert Bureau and a screenshot from the Big Russian Dictionary.
 
Even if you add quotes:
[Edited at 2022-05-18 19:31 GMT]
| | | | | Экономичность | May 18, 2022 |
Степан, вы нашли ответ не на тот вопрос. Экономичным является сам двигатель, а правильное прилагательное для расхода топлива - "низкий", "малый".
| | | | Stepan Konev
Russian Federation
Local time: 19:44
English to Russian
| Ok, I give up | May 18, 2022 |
Anton Konashenok wrote:
Степан, вы нашли ответ не на тот вопрос. Экономичным является сам двигатель, а правильное прилагательное для расхода топлива - "низкий", "малый". Can’t you see the question was about экономичный расход двигателя?  Experts corrected it to экономичный расход топлива. How can you judge if you can't see that? What you stated in Russian above is wrong. You can clearly see that if you read the definition from the Big Russian Dictionary. If you can't again, I don't know how to continue this discussion. I quit.
[Edited at 2022-05-18 21:27 GMT]
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:44
Member (2008)
Italian to English
I've just finished translating a document about the design of a range of light fittings. I ran it through the MT of CafeTran, just to try it, but the results were completely unusable because MT doesn't understand things like the writer's intention, the mood, the style, the need to reconstruct sentences and phrases in a better way, and not choosing the most obvious words for everything.
Time saved: being generous, maybe 5% of the time it would have taken me to do the whole translatio... See more I've just finished translating a document about the design of a range of light fittings. I ran it through the MT of CafeTran, just to try it, but the results were completely unusable because MT doesn't understand things like the writer's intention, the mood, the style, the need to reconstruct sentences and phrases in a better way, and not choosing the most obvious words for everything.
Time saved: being generous, maybe 5% of the time it would have taken me to do the whole translation by myself. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Lieven Malaise
Belgium
Local time: 18:44
Member (2020)
French to Dutch
+ ...
Justin Trumain wrote:
However, I have found that I have to type less and my wrists do not hurt me as much (used to have bad carpal tunnel) and sometimes MT will give me an option for the translation of a word or phrase that I might not have otherwise come up with on my own.
Glad you highlight this. MT makes the work more comfortable (compared to typing until you drop) and, indeed, in the long run makes you a better translator since you are provided with several auto-suggested options for every single word and every single sentence. In my case also speed went up, but even if it didn't, I would still use it because of the aforementioned advantages.
| | | |
Justin Trumain wrote:
However, I have found that I have to type less and my wrists do not hurt me as much (used to have bad carpal tunnel)
For those of us who dictate our translations, PEMT means the opposite: loads of extra keyboard work.
Again, it is not a panacea.
It's a shame it's not possible to compare the quality produced by the evangelists and the naysayers. But I know who I'd put my money on.
| | | | Stepan Konev
Russian Federation
Local time: 19:44
English to Russian
Ice Scream wrote:
It's a shame it's not possible to compare the quality produced by the evangelists and the naysayers. But I know who I'd put my money on. The main difference between those who you call evangelists and naysayers is their attitude. Those who use tools (both CAT, MT and others) for their own comfort never say that they are better or their quality is much higher than those who don’t use tools. Unlike them, those who neglect tools often emphasize and do their best to demonstrate their supremacy over those who use tools. This is the most disgusting result of comparison. Compare:
1. I use tools because using tools helps me a lot.
2. I don’t use tools because my handmade translation is way better than that produced by tool users.
That’s it.
| | | | Lieven Malaise
Belgium
Local time: 18:44
Member (2020)
French to Dutch
+ ...
Stepan Konev wrote:
Unlike them, those who neglect tools often emphasize and do their best to demonstrate their supremacy over those who use tools.
I simply don't understand why people would brag about their high-level skills on this platform (towards colleague translators, that is. It's obvious to emphasize your skills towards potential clients but even then you'll have to prove it). It's impossible to prove and as far as anyone else is concerned the opposite, i.e. being not so great as a translator even if you don't use tools, could also be the truth. So emphasizing it is completely useless and as effective as the average detergent commercial trying to convince you their product is the best.
| | |
|
|
|
| Two-way street | May 19, 2022 |
Stepan Konev wrote:
Unlike them, those who neglect tools often emphasize and do their best to demonstrate their supremacy over those who use tools.
And vice versa. Isn't that an essential element of the debate - each side arguing their way is best?
Lieven Malaise wrote:
I simply don't understand why people would brag about their high-level skills on this platform (towards colleague translators, that is. It's obvious to emphasize your skills towards potential clients but even then you'll have to prove it). It's impossible to prove and as far as anyone else is concerned the opposite, i.e. being not so great as a translator even if you don't use tools, could also be the truth. So emphasizing it is completely useless and as effective as the average detergent commercial trying to convince you their product is the best.
True. But there is no denying CAT and MT can be used as a crutch by the less talented. There is also no denying that CAT and MT result in a blander, more literal translation.
Given prevailing attitudes, if I used MT I would keep it on the down low.
| | | | Lieven Malaise
Belgium
Local time: 18:44
Member (2020)
French to Dutch
+ ...
Ice Scream wrote:
True. But there is no denying CAT and MT can be used as a crutch by the less talented.
CAT tools help you to keep terminology consistent throughout your text and throughout several assignments over time. They also make it easy to reproduce text you already translated, be it partially or completely. That's all. It has nothing to do with talent.
MT could perhaps in some cases help 'the less talented' to produce output that's actually above their level, but if they are really less talented they will deliver unsatisfying results, MT or not. Again: MT is a tool. If you don't know how to use it, or if you are a moderate translator, you will deliver moderate results at best.
Ice Scream wrote:
There is also no denying that CAT and MT result in a blander, more literal translation.
This is simply not true. It can be that way, but it doesn't have to be. It all depends on the amount of editing. You can't generalize about MT. Also segmentation in CAT tools doesn't make it impossible to use a more creative style. It's all up to the user. Simple as that.
| | | |
Lieven Malaise wrote:
CAT tools help you to keep terminology consistent throughout your text and throughout several assignments over time. They also make it easy to reproduce text you already translated, be it partially or completely. That's all. It has nothing to do with talent.
My experience is that the main use of CAT is to enable cheap translators to piggyback off the work of better translators.
MT is a tool. If you don't know how to use it
How could you not know how to use it? It’s a first draft that needs fixing, end of. I don’t want to spend my life reviewing the work of others, especially a dumb newbie. If you use MT, you are not a translator but a reviewer. Fine if that’s your thing, but I want to translate, to write, to create.
Ice Scream wrote:
There is also no denying that CAT and MT result in a blander, more literal translation. This is simply not true. It can be that way, but it doesn't have to be. It all depends on the amount of editing. You can't generalize about MT.
I certainly can! I’m not going to spend more time editing MT when I could just edit my own first draft which would not contain silly mistakes and awkward language in the first place.
I have fed various texts through DeepL. It is very good in some ways but the language is that of a foreigner, the terminology is mostly wrong, and there is no intelligence.
It can only help if the reviewer is happy to settle for “good enough”. Otherwise it will take more time to edit than a human translation, defeating the object.
Also segmentation in CAT tools doesn't make it impossible to use a more creative style. It's all up to the user. Simple as that.
But it makes it a whole lot harder.
Don’t forget you are a technical translator. I am not. I write not to inform, but to convince. It’s not what you say, it’s the way that you say it…
| | | | | Proof of the pudding | May 20, 2022 |
Stepan Konev wrote: Ice Scream wrote:
It's a shame it's not possible to compare the quality produced by the evangelists and the naysayers. But I know who I'd put my money on. The main difference between those who you call evangelists and naysayers is their attitude. Those who use tools (both CAT, MT and others) for their own comfort never say that they are better or their quality is much higher than those who don’t use tools. Unlike them, those who neglect tools often emphasize and do their best to demonstrate their supremacy over those who use tools. This is the most disgusting result of comparison. Compare: 1. I use tools because using tools helps me a lot. 2. I don’t use tools because my handmade translation is way better than that produced by tool users. That’s it.
I think there is a lot of truth in this.
I suspect that if you did do a quality comparison of translators who use these tools and those who don't what you would find is a whole range of different quality levels in both camps because, ultimately, it's the skill level of the translator that matters, not the tools they use.
Also, it matters what field you work in so people are arguing about wildly different processes as if they are the same.
| | |
|
|
|
| Different strokes | May 21, 2022 |
Ice Scream wrote:
There is also no denying that CAT and MT result in a blander, more literal translation.
I have no wish to get involved in any pissing contest, but I dispute the implication that the translations I deliver now, since I started using CafeTran's MT to save typing, are of inferior quality to those I used to deliver before.
The destination is the same, a high quality target text. It's just that I take a slightly different route to get there.
And I fully accept that the benefit I experience from using MT may be partly due to the type of text I normally work with and might not apply to everybody.
| | | | | Save the time | May 21, 2022 |
Post-editing of machine translations - Are there any real time savings?
I'd say: no ...
However, if you would have asked:
Interactive editing of machine translations - Are there any real time savings?
Or:
On-the-fly editing of machine translations - Are there any real time savings?
I would have answered: sure!
After all, MT is just a typing aid and potential inspiration of terminology. Nothing more, nothing less.
This only works during the translation process, not afterwards while editing a "pre-translated" document.
[Edited at 2022-05-21 06:59 GMT]
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:44
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Rachel Waddington wrote:
the title of your post
OFF TOPIC
Mangling of the English language: I recently heard someone say "the proof is in the pudding". I rank that along with "throwing the kitchen sink".
CORRECT VERSIONS
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
They threw everything at it but the kitchen sink.
TRANSLATED INTO ITALIAN USING DEEPL
La prova del budino sta nel mangiare.
Hanno messo in campo tutto, tranne il lavello della cucina.
[Edited at 2022-05-21 07:34 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | There is no moderator assigned specifically to this forum. To report site rules violations or get help, please contact site staff » post-editing of machine translations - Are there any real time savings? | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
