Reply
Mon 10 Oct, 2005 07:30 am
I'm constantly irritated by newscasters (TV and radio both) referring to Iraqui -- or any other nationality -- 'translators' accompanying American newsmen or diplomats, when they obviously mean 'interpreters', not 'translators.' Translators translate written material from one language into another. Speech is interpreted from one language to the other. Even if a person is classified in his job description as a translator, because most of his work is written, when he is 'translating' the speech of a person, he is not, in fact, 'translating' but, rather, 'interpreting.'
Does anyone share this pet peeve of mine?
I must admit I hadn't given it much...well, any...thought up until now.
Maybe I'm overly sensitive to this because I do contract work, from time to time, for the US State Department both as a translator and an interpreter of the Latvian language. The two assignments are quite different and a good translator is not necessarily a good interpreter. It bothers me that supposedly articulate people like newscasters don't seem to know the difference.
Yes, I do.
But then I am a cranky bastich.
Hmmm. Never really thought about that one. I have the same sort of complaint about the misuse of the word "civilian" though.
I too had not thought of it MA, but I am fully prepared to get into a real snit over it.
Really - they should know better.
I hate the way most people pronounce harrassment. Or maybe I should say the way Americans pronounce it.
Good point. Actually I made the same mistake before.
Re: Translator/Interpreter
Merry Andrew wrote:I'm constantly irritated by newscasters (TV and radio both) referring to Iraqui -- or any other nationality -- 'translators' accompanying American newsmen or diplomats, when they obviously mean 'interpreters', not 'translators.'
Does anyone share this pet peeve of mine?
Yeah,p****s me off to
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace