THREE POINTS ABOUT "CLIENT EUROLOGOS TECHNICIAN" TERMINOLOGICAL VALIDATION

Terminological validation and the final check of translated texts

a. The narcissism of translators and the "thank goodness I was there" of technicians

The occasional narcissism of technicians (sometimes in charge of correcting texts) is not lesser than the - proverbial! - one of translators. The latter, usually silent and unassuming behind their lines and dictionaries, can fall into the throws of great loquacious rushes of adrenaline when one of their phrases is questioned. You would think that nothing is more contentious than the universe of the logosphere, macrocosm of subjectivity "par excellence". Experience teaches us to start with the validation of glossaries. Sometimes, in fact, technicians/correctors do not resist the temptation to also show off ("thank goodness I was there") at the expense of the poor translators who are professionally very exposed.

b. Technicians who inevitably end up playing copywriters

Perhaps we will never stop being surprised by a certain tendency peculiar to technicians/proofreaders who intervene more on points of style than of terminology. Whereas their input is specifically required to validate the glossaries and for the final check of technical phraseology, it is rather usual that they prefer to indulge in rewriting texts by even introducing major author's corrections. And, as technicians are not known to be great copywriters, the results can also turn out to be disastrous.

c. Author's corrections without saying it or knowing it: better to prevent it!

What is even worse is the fact that changes to made to original texts are done without the client's knowledge (copywriters of the Head Office). Sometimes, in fact, technicians/proofreaders, although driven by the noblest of intentions "improve" the text (in good faith) without "realizing" it and without saying so. The client's editors, who, in the best of cases do not speak the language, sometimes end up being terrorized by the carnage of corrections and systematically start doubting everything: their technicians/proofreaders and - above all - the translations themselves!

Eurologos: 30 years of experience removing mines from multilingual publications.