What are your pet peeves re English usage?

M.A. -- When they applied for their jobs, the posting probably said, "translator."

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

M.A. -- When they applied for their jobs, the posting probably said, "translator."

I doubt it, POM. I've done a lot of work for the US State Department as both an interpreter and a translator (Latvian language). The government makes a very clear distinction between the two and, in fact, translating and interpreting are two separate departments within the State Dept.'s Office of Language Services. You don't necessarily qualify for one just because you've been approved for the other. I suspect most of the Arabic language interpreters working as contractors in Iraq could never pass a translator's test. You have to be able to write in both languages at university level to be a translator. An interpreter just needs to be fluent and articulate in both tongues.

No, this is a case of either ignorance or laziness on the part of the news media. That, or it's a plot to further degrade and corrupt the English language. Smile

0 Replies

M.A. -- The government may but not everyone does. When my daughter was considering such work in the health care industry, the job was described as translator and yet it was interpretor.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

You have to be able to write in both languages at university level to be a translator. An interpreter just needs to be fluent and articulate in both tongues.

Having made the acquaintance of both interpreters as well as translators ... I'd thaught, interpreter to be a more difficult job. (In fact, those serving as civil servants or employees with our Office of Foreign Affairs are in higher paying group.)

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Merry Andrew wrote:
You have to be able to write in both languages at university level to be a translator. An interpreter just needs to be fluent and articulate in both tongues.

Having made the acquaintance of both interpreters as well as translators ... I'd thaught, interpreter to be a more difficult job. (In fact, those serving as civil servants or employees with our Office of Foreign Affairs are in higher paying group.)

Yes, it's the same here, Walter. Being an interpreter is more lucrative than being a translator. Certainly it's a harder job in a purely physical sense. You're running around with high-powered people who don't speak the target language instead of sitting comfortably in front of a word processor. But I know from personal experience that it's harder to qualify to be a translator. I'm fully qualified by the US State Dept. to interpret for the POTUS if necessary (which I have done on one occasion). But when I took the test for translator (twice!) I could qualify only to translate Latvian-to-English. Apparently my written Latvian leaves something to be desired. Such niceties as proper punctuation and flawless grammar play no role in the job of an interpeter.

0 Replies

Yes, the interpreters at the UN, for example, or the EC have to translate at high speed (simultaneous translation) and convey the exact meaning of sometimes highly important speeches.

The potential for costly mistakes is obvious.
No wonder they are highly paid.

0 Replies

Not only at high speed, McTag; you have to deal with idioms which sometimes don't have an exact (or even near-exact) equivalent in the other language. In some languages it would be virtually impossible to accurately translate Bush's famous "Bring it on!" statement and get the full implication across in a similarly short phrase. I have done a lot of simultaneous interpretation and it's an exhilarating challenge.

My peeve still stands -- please stop calling us 'translators.'

0 Replies

Andrew's statement brushes the issue of idealect: how to give meaning in another language of the personal idiosyncratic speech of a person in his native tongue.

0 Replies

F*kin' A, sunshine.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

My peeve still stands -- please stop calling us 'translators.'

From today's (London) Evening Standard (West End Final, page 11):

0 Replies

Lovely, Walter. They got it right in the story, then some copy editor writes an incorrect headline.

New pet peeve: When did such phrases as 'low priced' or 'inexpensive' become politically incorrect? All I hear on the news these days is talk of 'affordable' housing and 'affordable' health care. What the hell does that mean? Everything is affordable for somebody. A million dollar condominium may be way beyond my means, but it's affordable for some major company CEOs. I understand that the word 'cheap' has some unpleasant connotations and is generally taboo in marketing. But what's wrong with inexpensive?

0 Replies

I agree, MA, have fumed at that use of affordable too, genuinely didn't understand what they meant by it first. In Britain they can say neither inexpensive nor cheap since all housing, even the affordable kind, is way overpriced. It would have to be SLAP or something - slightly less astronomically priced.

0 Replies

I like that, Clary -- SLAP.

0 Replies

In North America, the only thing approaching a cheap domicile would be "the handyman's dream," or "the fixer-upper." Translation--this house just barely avoids condemnation by local code enforcement officers.

0 Replies

Clary wrote:

I agree, MA, have fumed at that use of affordable too, genuinely didn't understand what they meant by it first. In Britain they can say neither inexpensive nor cheap since all housing, even the affordable kind, is way overpriced. It would have to be SLAP or something - slightly less astronomically priced.

this is true. Even the affordable is unaffordable these days. So glad I build my own out of balsawood many years ago.

0 Replies

Add my voice to the chorus condemning affordable. By whom?

Which reminds me, there is a fracus over a children's book in which the word scrotum is used.

the book describes an incident of a snake biting a dog on the scrotum. Well, of course, the author could have been less than specific, but, when you think of it, the use of euphemisms is somewhat silly.

Many people are afraid to use the medical terms for body parts, particularly those dealing with the elimination of waste and procreation, so they invent euphemisms to make mentioning said parts easier.

The funny part is that some of those euphemisms become dirty words while others become babytalk!

0 Replies

I hate the term "waiting on" vs. "waiting for". "I'm waiting on my friend Jack". "Where's he at?" Another one

0 Replies

I agree about waiting on. It's what waiters do to restaurant customers. I have a suspicion it's a sneaking Scoticism?!

0 Replies

Clary wrote:

I agree about waiting on. It's what waiters do to restaurant customers. I have a suspicion it's a sneaking Scoticism?!

Ye mean like as in "Waitin' on the Robert E Lee?" Ye canna blame us furr tha', lassie.

Oh wait a minute, I may have got that wrong...is it

"....Waitin' on the levee
Waitin' for the Robert E Lee?"

0 Replies

Quote:

M-W

wait

usage American dialectologists have evidence showing wait on (sense 3) to be more a Southern than a Northern form in speech. Handbook writers universally denigrate wait on and prescribe wait for in writing. Our evidence from printed sources does not show a regional preference; it does show that the handbooks' advice is not based on current usage <settlement> <I> <the> <doesn>. Wait on is less common than wait for, but if it seems natural, there is no reason to avoid it.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/ditionary?book=Dictionary&va=wait+on

The part I've underlined and put in bold mirrors my feelings exactly. Language is full of nuance. 'Tis a pity that some miss it.

0 Replies

What are your pet peeves re English usage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know