Friday, 13 July 2018

Competitions and Judges

It is hard to talk about something when that something seems to have been stolen from our heads. 

That is what happened to PROz: I gave this idea to Trevor Skinner in 2001. 

I wanted the professionals of T & I to be more integrated in the direction of being ethical, and therefore competent. 

Competency, for me, is closest to the original. 

Even though sometimes we can fix it, so say create paragraphs where there was none, and that was the proposal of PROz, but I did not want them to do that, since I believe the original had to be respected even in those regards, we should never improve or worsen the text in terms of level of eloquence...

It is probably OK to add a c in ompetency, but it should not be OK to write Ex-libris in place of theme. 

It is probably OK to change the structure of the text in terms of paragraphs because very few people know how to make those, including me until recently. 

At PROz, we go and say what we think is wrong in someone's attempt to translate a text, so say a certain word, such as Ex-libris, or epoca or contemporaneo when the original brought 'age' (the age of the dinosaurs is 'a era dos dinossauros').  

The issue then becomes the judge, who may be unethical and act with bias, say to make a point to someone who that far believed a certain professional was top of the line in their language. 

PROz may have only one judge, but why would we not judge ourselves, through our remarks, I wonder? 

We should be able to find ways to confirm someone's competency in translation, and I believe we don't have those yet. 

I started a game with a few fellows to test Google Translate, this using PROz. 

The issue became that the other fellows were not really testing Google Translate, and believed the wrong translation was the best one. 

It should not be possible, you see...

Please purchase 

Saturday, 28 April 2018

Culture Matters in T & I

We can learn culture and manners of the language by analysing jokes. Here we have an Irishman who sounds like an Englishman: Interesting enough. Perhaps he spent most of his time in England. He died in 2005 according to the Internet. 

Thursday, 11 January 2018

Critical Cultural Differences: Brazil x Australia

POINT 1: Ethics is a cultural concept

In Australia, to complete each other's sentences at work means absence of ethics: If someone is struggling in front of you and you feel like helping them out, don't. The reasoning is that you are probably trying to get them fired by showing they are incompetent in what they have been hired to do. You will, later on, if necessary, appear to also not know the point with all your fellows of profession, so that everyone is in the same boat, and perhaps everyone needs extra courses or something. 
In Brazil, to complete each other's sentences at work means love, inclusion, and being a good fellow: If someone is struggling in front of you, and you can help, do. The whole thing is opening your mouth in time for it to look as if you are talking over the person, so that the client thinks you said what you said without need because you are arrogant, not because you thought the other did not know that. The reasoning is that it is better that you help like that, without being noticed, than the person is left under shame, as if they can't do their job. 

POINT 2: Professionalism

Professionalism in Australia is to never refer to your personal problems at work, this even if you suffer the worst world atrocities and work for the police. 
Professionalism in Brazil is being competent at what you are supposed to do, never let people down, and so on. 
In Australia, you can be incompetent and refer the person to your boss, or even ask for a time and call your boss for consultation, but you cannot disclose anything that refers to your personal problems during work.
In Brazil, if you are competent at what you do, you can do almost anything, including asking for help if you suffer crime, this during work hours, and so on. Life and human rights are seen as a top priority, so that you would not be punished for fighting for those. You will be understood almost all the time.

POINT 3: Preparation

In Australian Academia, places that are sometimes quite famous, such as RMIT, will not let you prepare your class if you are a student who has been given the allowance to work as a tutor: You will simply be told to be somewhere where you don't know what is being taught. You must therefore do the impossible to be on top of every discipline you think they may give you. What that implies is that sometimes you will pick someone who does not plan what they do, and you will then be left with no chance of preparing anything. 
In Brazilian Academia, you will always be able to be prepared for the class you will take: It is a horrible fault to let the tutor down. Tutors will always be on top of whatever they are supposed to teach. If the lecturer does not give the tutor the chance to prepare, they may lose their job. 

POINT 4: Morality

A person who provokes the other in conversations, sexually provokes, is complimented, so say cheeky, naughty, and kinky: We are in Australia. 
Sexual provocation has to be something that contains a personal element if we talk about Brazil (see point 5).
A person who does that in Brazil: Prostitute, immoral, especially if married or engaged, and so on. 
A person who gets heated by the proximity of others would be in the same category, especially if actually doing something. 
In Australia, if they are not like that, they are tagged as uncool: If you talk with someone in a deeper way, you and the person, it is assumed that the interests may go beyond the social interests, so that immoral is not doing it if the other gets interested. From there, the other may attack you criminally, and the justification they present to others may be as short as this: They are not cool. It will be accepted. 

POINT 5: Understanding

In Brazil, for it to be sexual interest, the person must actually mention sexual action in their discourse, so that telling a joke involving penis and vagina is not showing sexual interest in the other: It is necessary that it be personal, so say the individual says, imagine I put my penis in your vagina. That is showing sexual interest, nothing else is. A man says to the other: I could put my pants down and give you the butt. He could also say, Fu.. me. That is sexual interest.
In Australia, it suffices talking with the person in a deeper way. 
In Brazil, if you talk in a deeper way, meaning you want to know more about the person, you are after romance or friendship, but never sex. That is a deterrent. Those interested in one-offs, for instance, will stop by there. They will perhaps keep on conversing, but will stop having sexual interest, will deviate to another subject. 
In Australia, it is the opposite: The more frugal the conversation, the more distant it all is, and the more information you give, the more they assume you are open to sexual proposals. 

Please purchase 

Thursday, 24 August 2017

Historic Moments: VITS

From  VITS:

Elizabeth Compton, CEO of the Victorian Interpreting and Translation Service, said 

Each and every day, we see the impact language makes, allowing people to live life without limits and opening doors for organisations and businesses to speak in any language, and reach any customer. When all people living in Australia are able to reach any service or business anytime in any language, then we have succeeded in our mission.

Thursday, 6 July 2017

French Joke brings a joke written in the French language. I found all interesting and complex. I will copy the main text here for better visualization:

J’ai passé un coup de fil à un ami, et je lui ai demandé ce qu’il faisait.
Il m’a répondu qu’il travaillait sur:

Le traitement aqua-thermique des céramiques, du verre, de l’aluminium et de l’acier sous un environnement contraint.
J’ai été très impressionné… 
Et pour mieux comprendre, je lui ai demandé des précisions et il m’a déclaré qu’en fait:
Il fait la vaisselle à l’eau chaude sous la surveillance de sa femme…⁠⁠⁠⁠

English translation
I called a friend, and asked him what he was doing.
He answered that he was working on:
The aqua-thermal treatment of ceramics, glass, aluminum and steel in a constrained environment.

I was very impressed …
And to understand better, I asked him for details and he told me that in fact:
He was doing the dishes with hot water under the supervision of his wife… ⁠⁠⁠⁠ 

Keep It Simple in Translation

I think this is an excellent example of topic for debate, but I do have a choice, a line I think we should follow: Keep it simple when it is simple in both T & I and simplify if it is possible to do so when it is I. 

The expression our fellow, Rosemary Polato, came up with is, with no doubts, super correct and super elegant. Just read 

The original expression did not contain any Latin, however: It was written in plain Portuguese. Lots of people have defended the end of the use of the Latin Language. I think that might be the choice of the majority. It seems to me that the languages we use in human kind are incredibly complex. So much so, I am proposing the simplification of the entire structure, universalization. See:

I think that we always worry about Accuracy in Translation. I have been putting my head to work in that direction and got to Translation Techniques and the term Cultural Translation with a lot of effort. 

The efforts are always in the direction of keeping the tune of the original text, and we did not have writing that was as elegant as that in the original text, so that, also from that point of view, the choice is not the best, even though it would be absolutely correct. 

Transito, in English, means traffic or transit most of the time. Em Julgado means nothing in reality. We get the meaning from hearing the expression. Em means In. Julgado means Judged. In Judged, literal translation, means the same as Em Julgado, that is, nothing. Perhaps they got to that expression from refining applications, if you understand me. It is like this: Someone said Esta Bem? That means Is That OK? They started repeating that. Lots of people. They finally got lazy and said Ta Bem? instead. Now people learned the new expression, which replaced the other, short for the other, and Ta Bem? would now be used in place of Esta Bem for short. With time and continuous plus frequent use, they finally simplified it to maximum, to its current shape, Ta? In this way, if a foreigner learns the Portuguese language, they don't see much sense in having ta, but upon being taught the usage, they understand the sense and apply with no difficulties. The same happens with our generation, which did not create Transito Em Julgado. That means the suit has already gone through every instance that is possible, so that the decision is now considered final by the courts. Any expression that escapes this sense by much would be wrong translation. 

See the explanation in Portuguese (
Diz-se que a demanda transitou em julgado quando a sentença tornou-se definitiva, não podendo mais ser modificada, seja por ter transcorrido o prazo para a interposição de eventuais recursos, seja por não caber mais recurso sobre ela.

They probably mean that it went with the tag Judged from beginning to end of the list of courts and applicable processes, so maybe even possible appeals, so that it has passed, just like a car in the traffic, from beginning to end, as Judged. 

Another PROz fellow went with matter adjudged. See (

With legal issues, we have to be extra careful though. See what the experts say about matter adjudged (

From four items that form the definition of adjudged matter in the legal metier, we get to satisfy one or at most two in this case. What creates concern are the items in the middle of the list, 

 no appeal was made against the judgement within the canonical time-limit;

 the trial has been abated or renounced in the appeal grade;

It is possible, unfortunately, in Brazil, that appeals have been made inside of the limit, and the process kept on progressing inside of the legal scale. At least in Brazil I am sure this expression is used in a loser sense when it comes to those outside of the legal metier. 

Now we can check the proper use of the term by perhaps trying another source of legal terms in Brazil, since the previous one was already a specialized source. Let's do that.

From, a tribunal's website, of the Federal District and territories, we get:

Once more, we do not have the satisfaction of all items. We could still try one more source. Let's do that. confirms what we said so far, so unfortunately it does not look like we can replace one expression with the other. It could be that Brazilians had poor capabilities of expressing the definition of this expression and, in reality, it meant all that, but I myself have not heard of these four conditions ever. The expert, Alessandra, still mentions cases in which one can reopen the case. talks about expiration of the last deadline for appeals that is applicable before the process can become something that could be associated with Transito Em Julgado. It actually seems to me that a process in Brazil can become final in terms of decision on first instance if the magistrates so wishes, like certain conditions satisfied or something. All that I meant here is that we do not need two processes at all, but the definition in the English language seems to demand at least two (first item). In this case, it would be impossible to defend that both expressions mean the same. 

When we look at, we understand that the sense 1.3 of the first dictionary from TheFreeDictionary would have been the closest to what they legally meant in Australia in terms of this expression. It is easy to see that lexicon-wise the equivalency exists. The problem is realistically the legal metier. If we translate a technical document, however, we do have to obey what they decided, and that is the reason for some places to have their own glossaries and make sure interpreters can access those. 

We notice that the sense 1.1 of the lexicon we have used in the paragraph above this one has nothing to do with the main idea, that of the final decision, so that I myself would advise my fellows not to use adjudged matter as a replacement for the expression in translation. When the text is technical we really need the exact idea conveyed. In this case, we can increase the amount of words if necessary to pass the same idea, so that we may end up even with footnotes, as said many times by me, but we should not lose the original meaning or run the risk of losing it as we translate from one language to another. 

In noticing that there is no other possible choice, we are obliged to sign under the choice of Rosemary, Latin or not, and, this time, contrary to what we could expect, there is no Quodlibet (no spread, I am trying to joke, to connect this to what we see in Logic, Ex Falso). 

Now, there is a way in which we could sustain the use of adjudged matter in this situation: If what had been meant in the English language were or instead of and, so that if any of those items had been satisfied, any of them, we could have adjudged. 

In this case, we'd better check possible equivalency between the Latin expression and adjudged matter. Let's do that.

Oh, well, I found better now. See (

Now things became a little worse, since Res Judicatam, which seems to be the correct Latin version of Em Julgado, seems to be the same as adjudged matter. These are American lawyers. 

It is a case in which our powers as translators seem to be realistically small. If I were to decide things based on my current knowledge, supposing all I know is what I see here, I would appeal to footnotes and perhaps write Considered Judged or Finalized Matter. I still found Matter of Record as an equivalent expression for Rem Judicatam online. It all sounds wrong, if you ask me. Matter of Record should be anything that passes through a court. Adjudged Matter should be anything that has been judged by any court. Em Julgado, however, is something that is final somehow. So is Res Judicatam. 

To be sincere with you, I decided to stretch and Res Judicatio is Latin but not Res Judicatam according to It is also possible Judicatum, but not Judicata according to 

For today, and for being sure that I previously used Res Judicata trusting another PROz fellow in terms of the Latin language, I will stick to the Ozzie rules: Keep it basic. I think they write and say Finalized Matter down here, regardless, like they may be Legal Aid lawyers, judges or clients. That is how Brazil takes it, I reckon. So, Finalized Matter is my choice from here onward. I don't like Latin, I cannot become an expert in this language, it seems to me that it is not always that experts choose things in the best way as possible, referring here to the lawyers, and people who write the websites for the courts, and the meaning may be conveyed in an accurate manner via footnotes.