| Páginas no assunto: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | Should “native language” claims be verified? Autor da sequência: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
Phil Hand 
China
Local time: 14:09
Chinês para Inglês
| @Robin - it's a definition, not a test | Sep 16, 2012 |
Robin wrote:
I really do not see how that definition will stop nonnatives of English, FOR EXAMPLE*, from claiming English as 'their' or 'a' native language when it is not.
Taking it at face value, I could claim French as a native language - although I never even set foot in any French-speaking country before age 21 and I speak (and write) it far better now than I did then. The fact is that, even as a child, I occasionally spoke
a bit of French as an acquired language, not a native one (I had an aged aunt who was a French teacher).
...
Your definition does not preclude me from making that unjustified claim so, were I so inclined, I could cheat with a clear conscience, just the same way many folk do here already.
This is why I didn't want to get into the definitions game at all.
I don't think this is a major problem, because I don't think the definition is the problem. We've had a number of people on this thread, and on a separate Chinese thread, affirm that they indicate English (it's usually English) as a native language purely for the purpose getting jobs. With one exception, none of them claimed to really believe that English was their native language, nor justification by some "definition" of nativeness.
So I don't think that confusion over definition is what's causing the issue. Nor do I think that putting forward this definition will do anything to increase or lessen the confusion. I only raised it because Bernhard and Samuel kept yelling DEFINITION at us all, as they seem to believe that a definition is in some way a necessary prerequisite for action. I don't think it is, but I'm happy to stick a relatively non-controversial definition in for the sake of a quiet life.
But you're right. No definition can save us from bad faith ("I once spoke some Latin at school therefore I'm a Roman") or from straight lying. Only testing can do that.
However, I think testing is too hard, logistically, so my preferred solution at the moment is to add some questionnaire questions at the point of joining to force people to think about their own histories. It's not a check, it doesn't enforce honesty, but I think it might work as a psychological nudge, increasing levels of voluntary compliance.
| | | | Bernhard Sulzer
Estados Unidos da América
Local time: 02:09
Inglês para Alemão
+ ...
| tweaking the definition | Sep 16, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
So I don't think that confusion over definition is what's causing the issue. Nor do I think that putting forward this definition will do anything to increase or lessen the confusion. I only raised it because Bernhard and Samuel kept yelling DEFINITION at us all, as they seem to believe that a definition is in some way a necessary prerequisite for action. I don't think it is, but I'm happy to stick a relatively non-controversial definition in for the sake of a quiet life.
But you're right. No definition can save us from bad faith ("I once spoke some Latin at school therefore I'm a Roman") or from straight lying. Only testing can do that.
However, I think testing is too hard, logistically, so my preferred solution at the moment is to add some questionnaire questions at the point of joining to force people to think about their own histories. It's not a check, it doesn't enforce honesty, but I think it might work as a psychological nudge, increasing levels of voluntary compliance.
tweaking:
the language(s) you spoke (used) during most of your childhood and still speak (use) today
and regarding testing: yes, only testing can prove it
Is testing too hard? Not if you are willing to meet once with peers, in person or online.
I think it can be done. If one thinks that's too complicated, well then they should stay without native language. Just my thoughts.
Bernhard
[Edited at 2012-09-16 04:27 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
Índia
Local time: 11:39
Membro (2006)
Inglês para Hindi
+ ...
LOCALIZADOR DO WEBSITE
Samuel Murray wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Phil Hand wrote:
A language which you spoke during your childhood and still speak today. 1. For many translators, native language is not their working language. 2. So, if we adopt this definition, then job access cannot be made on the basis of native language. I struggle to see what the logic behind these statements is. First, why would Phil's definition affect translators whose native language is not their working language? I can't think of any reason for that. And secondly, why would not using one's native language as a working language affect whether one can access jobs based on native language? Remember, I don't question the idea that some translators do not use their native language as a working language, in some countries. Samuel
I was looking it from two angles: 1) the Indian experience (a multi-lingual country experience as opposed to a mono-lingual country experience; and 2) from a practical point of view. I will try to explain this as best as I can below:
I struggle to see what the logic behind these statements is. First, why would Phil's definition affect translators whose native language is not their working language?
I thought this was rather obvious. Currently, job access and translator selection by outsourcers are heavily controlled in proz.com on the basis of native language. If we define native language the way defined by Phil/Bernhand, many people will end with having their native language and their main working language as two entirely different languages. And for those translators whose main working language is different from their native language this will have disastrous professional consequences, because their access to jobs will be cut off and they will no longer appear on translator searches where native language is set as a filter. This won't be fair to them or to the translation industry as a whole.
Further, as it would be clear from the above, this will not solve our original problem of misrepresentation, as those translators who are debarred from jobs which they are capable of doing will soon begin to adopt whole-scale misrepresentation to circumvent the system. We must not underestimate human ingenuity. So that takes us back to square one. In other words, we won’t be addressing the real cause behind misreprentation on native language. So we would achieve nothing by recommending this definition to proz.com.
And secondly, why would not using one's native language as a working language affect whether one can access jobs based on native language? Remember, I don't question the idea that some translators do not use their native language as a working language, in some countries.
This is where the Indian case study assumes significance. I am not sure that I have the explaining ability to present the case clearly to anyone who is not familiar with the language situation in India, but I will try anyway.
I think the explanation will become simpler if we keep these facts in mind:
1. More than 200 languages are spoken in India. (Some of them are not even listed in proz.com’s language list).
2. But only about 17 of these are recognized by the Indian state as national languages. This is of immense significance because it is only in these 17 languages plus English that there are facilities available in India for schooling.
3. Throughout India actual schooling facilities are restricted to only three languages at any place. This is the so-called three-language formula. These languages are: Hindi, which is the official language of India; the national language of the state in question (one of the 17 languages mentioned above); and English, which is also an official language of India.
4. Hindi has a unique place in India in that it is both a national language and an official language of India. More than 40% Indians speak Hindi as their mother tongue. In addition it is extensively used throughout India as a link language, much in the same way as English is used in the world. So many Indians for whom Hindi is not the mother-tongue also have native-level proficiency in Hindi. The situation here is similar to English on the international stage, with many non-native speakers of English also having high levels of proficiency in English (Jose, for example).
5. Huge amounts of internal migration of people continuously takes place in India, with people moving from one language area to the other and back again. All you need to do is hop into a bus or a train and in a couple of hours you are outside of your language area. No visas, no immigration check, no costly air journeys are required. Also, urbanization has not yet completed in India and only about 30% of the population lives in cities. This means people are still moving in large numbers into cities. And cities in India are all emphatically multilingual. What this means is that many Indians have exposure to several languages at native level (ie, exposure in early childhood and fluency in it.). But their written fluency will be limited to one or more from this list: Hindi, state language, and English.
6. Like Hindi, English has a curious place in India. The chief point is, it is not so much used in India in speech as in writing. This is an important consideration, as speech based verification to test English competency won’t work in India, as many people who speak imperfect English can handle it with astonishing competence in its written form. It is extensively used in higher education, business communication and administration. Most jobs in India emphasise adequate proficiency in English. This means that there is a very strong incentive to acquire proficiency in English. And people go to great lengths to do so, and many succeed. It is pointless to argue that English is not spoken in India so no one can claim it as a native language. The facts point just to the reverse. India has the largest English-language publishing industry in the world, next only to that of the US and the UK. Some of the largest selling English broadsheets are published from India. But at the same time, no films (a speech-based medium) in English are made in India, even though India's film industry is bigger than even Hollywood. The reason is simple, English is not spoken in India. It is the written form of English that is widespread in India. And this has immense importance for translation, as translation too is an exclusively written phenomenon in which Indians easily excel. So here again, the above definition will keep out most Indians from adopting translation as a profession. This will be good news for English-native speaker translators in other parts of the world, but will belie reality and won't work in practice. A down-to-earth, business proposition like proz.com can't build itself up on idealistic views, it will have to take into account ground realities.
7. Higher education and professional education in India are available only in English. This means, the more educated an Indian becomes, the farther he moves away from his native language and the closer he moves to English. In many cases, among Indian professionals, the language in which they can express themselves most fluently in writing is not their native language, but English. This again has great significance for translation. This is the crucial aspect that invalidates Phil/B's definition. In the case of most Indians, English is not the most exposed or most fluent language in early childhood. English proficiency is acquired slowly over time and matures late into adulthood. So any definition that talks about the most used language in childhood fails to meet the specifications of the Indian case.
8. Many Indians may have one of the non-national languages as their mother tongue, but they won't get any facility to develop this language through proper schooling. So even though they have a language as a mother tongue, they won't be able to use it effectively for a purpose like translation. So for them it would be pointless to declare their native language as they would be using their native language only for home communication.
9. Because of the three-language policy practiced in India mentioned above, most Indians, irrespective of their native language, will develop high levels of proficiency in the three languages, ie, Hindi; the language of the state in which they are living; and English. So it is pointless for them to declare their native language as they would not be working in their native language but in either Hindi, or in the state language, or in English.
---
That in a nutshell is the Indian case. I suspect that, the case of other former colonies of England, France, etc. in south Asia, Africa, middle-east, Latin America, etc., is similar.
The paradigms that neatly fit monolingual, literal, urbanized European countries, don’t necessarily fit other parts of the world.
[2012-09-16 06:30 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
Índia
Local time: 11:39
Membro (2006)
Inglês para Hindi
+ ...
LOCALIZADOR DO WEBSITE | Why the suggested defintion of Phil/Bernhand is pointless and mischievous | Sep 16, 2012 |
Pointless
The way it is worded it has no relation what so ever to translation. It is of mere academic or curiosity interest to anyone, just like stating what your hobbies are. Whether I cycle to pass my time or swim, or do sky-diving or reading, does not say anything at all about how well I will translate.
Similarly, stating a particular language as my native language has no relation to my translation practice, especially when I don’t translate at all in the stated na... See more Pointless
The way it is worded it has no relation what so ever to translation. It is of mere academic or curiosity interest to anyone, just like stating what your hobbies are. Whether I cycle to pass my time or swim, or do sky-diving or reading, does not say anything at all about how well I will translate.
Similarly, stating a particular language as my native language has no relation to my translation practice, especially when I don’t translate at all in the stated native language, even more so when I have practically no written skills in the stated native language – a situation which is true for many individuals.
Mischievous
But the definition is more dangerous because it is decidedly mischievous and underhand, in that it restricts competition. If we use this definition to restrict job access and facilitate translator selection, it will benefit those for whom native language is also the working language, and un-benefit those for whom these two languages are different.
This will serve people who have been candid enough to admit that protecting the turf is the real intention, but it will do nothing to promote the translation industry, and do immense harm to legitimate competitors. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
Índia
Local time: 11:39
Membro (2006)
Inglês para Hindi
+ ...
LOCALIZADOR DO WEBSITE | Towards an alternative approach to the petition | Sep 16, 2012 |
If anything, this lengthy thread has established that many people for whom native language is not the working language also make a honourable living translating into their working languages. In fact, I should say, all of us do so, as I am sure most competent translators work in both directions of their language pair, and when they are translating in the reverse direction, they are translating into a non-native language (unless they are bilingual).
If we really want to address the or... See more If anything, this lengthy thread has established that many people for whom native language is not the working language also make a honourable living translating into their working languages. In fact, I should say, all of us do so, as I am sure most competent translators work in both directions of their language pair, and when they are translating in the reverse direction, they are translating into a non-native language (unless they are bilingual).
If we really want to address the original stated objective of this thread – keep out egregious cases (those who can’t string a straight sentence in the chosen language and yet who have the temerity to offer themselves as translators); and if we have enough integrity to be not pushing hidden agendas; then there are only two ways open to us:
1. Define native language as a proficiency; or
2. Stop using native language for job access and translator selection.
I think we will all agree that in practically all languages, non-native translators also do translation. I think it is really pointless and ineffective now to try to keep out non-native translators from doing translation on specious criterion like native language. It will be more beneficial to all concerned to take a more inclusive approach and accept the situation as a given and work for ways to ensure quality.
Those on the pro-native side need to realize that the only way non-native translators can attract clients and develop their business is through using their proficiency USP. So they are not going to accept any solution that undercuts their USP. And Phil/B’s definition by saying nothing about proficiency does just that.
The pro-native side also needs to realize that it can no longer surreptiously push their hidden agenda of protecting their turf by using native language to restrict competition. As this thread has demonstrated, their bluff has already been called.
Therefore, an alternative approach to the petition is called for which should reflect one of the two possible ways I have indicated above:
1. Define native language as a proficiency; or
2. Stop using native language for job access and translator selection.
[2012-09-16 07:05 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
Índia
Local time: 11:39
Membro (2006)
Inglês para Hindi
+ ...
LOCALIZADOR DO WEBSITE | An alternative proficiency-based definition | Sep 16, 2012 |
The pitfalls into which the definition of Phil/Bernhand will lead us, can be avoided if we adopt an empirical definition based on real-life situations as they prevail in the translation industry.
I therefore suggest an alternative proficiency-based definition:
Native language:
The language in which you are most proficient and into which you translate regularly.
Advantages of this definition
1. This cannot be misused for protecting ... See more The pitfalls into which the definition of Phil/Bernhand will lead us, can be avoided if we adopt an empirical definition based on real-life situations as they prevail in the translation industry.
I therefore suggest an alternative proficiency-based definition:
Native language:
The language in which you are most proficient and into which you translate regularly.
Advantages of this definition
1. This cannot be misused for protecting the turf.
2. It is inclusive and is fair to all competent translators.
3. It is effective in keeping out egregious cases and it is easy to show that those “who can’t string a straight sentence in their chosen language” are not really proficient in their language.
4. It is based on a criterion that is truly relevant to translation and therefore will help outsources in translator evaluation. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
Reino Unido
Local time: 07:09
Hebraico para Inglês
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
I therefore suggest an alternative proficiency-based definition:
Native language:
The language in which you are most proficient and into which you translate regularly
If there was ever a definition which was open to abuse and false claims, you've just read it.
[Edited at 2012-09-16 06:39 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
Reino Unido
Local time: 07:09
Hebraico para Inglês
| What are these countries? | Sep 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The paradigms that neatly fit monolingual, literal, urbanized European countries, don’t necessarily fit other parts of the world.
What/Who/Where are these monolingual, literal??? European countries?
Do you mean the UK? With its English, Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Scots, Cornish, Manx, Irish Gaelic. Have you ever been to London? You can walk around for ages and never hear of word of English spoken!
Do you mean France? With its French, Alsatian, Catalan, Breton and Occitan among others...
Do you mean Spain? With its Castillian, Galician, Basque, Catalan and others...
Do you mean Italy? With its Italian, Sicilian, Venetian and others....
Do you mean Germany? With its Frisian and Sorbian, among others...
This is not even mentioning immigrant languages too, which have had quite an impact across the spectrum.
This is also not mentioning the countries which officially are multi-lingual (Belgium, Switzerland et al).
"Monolingual" is not an accurate tag I'd use to describe most European countries.
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble
Estados Unidos da América
Local time: 23:09
Membro (2006)
Norueguês para Inglês
+ ...
| Cutting the Gordian Knot | Sep 16, 2012 |
Your native language is the language you speak and write natively, i.e. in a way that is indistinguishable from the way monolingual speakers of that language speak and write it.
[Edited at 2012-09-16 07:37 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
Índia
Local time: 11:39
Membro (2006)
Inglês para Hindi
+ ...
LOCALIZADOR DO WEBSITE | This is more like it... | Sep 16, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
Your native language is the language you speak and write natively, i.e. in a way that is indistinguishable from the way monolingual speakers of that language speak and write it.
I like this definition. We can start with it.
Except that I would tone down the speaking part for the reason that translation is chiefly a written activity.
This definition accounts for proficiency which is definitely its plus point. I will also bring in the "educated monolingual speakers" as we are more interested in educated written output than in colloquial or slang output.
So I would modify it as follows:
Your native language is the language in which you can write in a way that is indistinguishable from the way educated monolingual speakers of that language write.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Holanda
Local time: 08:09
Membro (2006)
Inglês para Africânder
+ ...
| @Balasubramaniam, are you sure it is a problem? | Sep 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Samuel Murray wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Phil Hand wrote:
A language which you spoke during your childhood and still speak today. For many translators, native language is not their working language. Why would not using one's native language as a working language affect whether one can access jobs based on native language? * Many Indians for whom Hindi is not the mother-tongue also have native-level proficiency in Hindi. * Many Indians have exposure to several languages at native level (ie, exposure in early childhood and fluency in it.), but their written fluency will be limited to one or more from this list: Hindi, state language, and English. The paradigms that neatly fit monolingual, liter[ate], urbanized European countries don’t necessarily fit other parts of the world.
Yes, I see what you mean. Well, that is unfortunate -- ProZ.com treats all languages and all countries the same way, even though the situation in many places of the world is actually much different from ProZ.com's predominantly Anglo-American approach. I suspect all you can do is to plead with ProZ.com to add exceptions to the credential, based on country or working language.
The way it is worded it has no relation what so ever to translation. It is of mere academic or curiosity interest to anyone, just like stating what your hobbies are. Whether I cycle to pass my time or swim, or do sky-diving or reading, does not say anything at all about how well I will translate.
I understand the point you're making, but consider this:
If you have spoken English, Hindi, the state language and your regional language since childhood, and if you still speak them all regularly, then in terms of the proposed definition they would all be native languages for you, and (assuming that ProZ.com can be convinced that Indian English+Hindi translators can have four native languages), then you would be included in jobs that require any of these languages as a native language anyway. So I don't think your objection is to the definition but to the presumed implementation of it (the presumption that ProZ.com will continue to allow only two native languages), and I right?
==
One thing I'd like to say is that I find it odd that in the jobs posting section of ProZ.com one can specify any language as the native language to filter results by, but in the directory search section one can select only one of two languages as the native language to filter results by. In other words, job posters can currently let their job be sent to e.g. English-French translators who are native in Spanish, but they can't use the directory search in find such translators, because in a directory search for English-French translators you can only specify Any, English and French as native language.
[Edited at 2012-09-16 07:33 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
Reino Unido
Local time: 07:09
Hebraico para Inglês
| Are we still talking about self-assessment? | Sep 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Michele Fauble wrote:
Your native language is the language you speak and write natively, i.e. in a way that is indistinguishable from the way monolingual speakers of that language speak and write it.
I like this definition. We can start with it. Except that I would tone down the speaking part for the reason that translation is chiefly a written activity. This definition accounts for proficiency which is definitely its plus point. I will also bring in the "educated monolingual speakers" as we are more interested in educated written output than in colloquial or slang output. So I would modify it as follows:
Your native language is the language in which you can write in a way that is indistinguishable from the way educated monolingual speakers of that language write.
If so, it doesn't matter how you choose to define it, the delusional hoard will still 'self-assess' their writing ability to be on par with an educated native speaker.
That's the trouble with self-assessment.
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
Índia
Local time: 11:39
Membro (2006)
Inglês para Hindi
+ ...
LOCALIZADOR DO WEBSITE | This is the difference... | Sep 16, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The paradigms that neatly fit monolingual, literal, urbanized European countries, don’t necessarily fit other parts of the world. What/Who/Where are these monolingual, literal??? European countries? Do you mean the UK? With its English, Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Scots, Cornish, Manx, Irish Gaelic. Have you ever been to London? You can walk around for ages and never hear of word of English spoken! Do you mean France? With its French, Alsatian, Catalan, Breton and Occitan among others... Do you mean Spain? With its Castillian, Galician, Basque, Catalan and others... Do you mean Italy? With its Italian, Sicilian, Venetian and others.... Do you mean Germany? With its Frisian and Sorbian, among others... This is not even mentioning immigrant languages too, which have had quite an impact across the spectrum. This is also not mentioning the countries which officially are multi-lingual (Belgium, Switzerland et al). "Monolingual" is not an accurate tag I'd use to describe most European countries.
But the question is, it it possible for some in UK, to get education in schools in say Welsh, or Cornish, or Manx, etc.?
And are these languages (dialects?) used officially in administrative and business communications, as the Indian languages are?
By "literal" I was meaning literacy. That is, most European countries have 100% literate population. And school education destroys much of the language diversity that is there in society by promoting a standard version of the language.
In India, the literacy rate is still about 74% of the population. For certain sections like women, minorities, tribal people, etc. it is even less. So there is much less standardization of languages in India, and therefore much more linguistic diversity. So people's native language can be greatly different from what is the state language or the official language of India (Hindi). Also, literacy is very liberally defined in India - anyone who can read a line or two and who can write his own name, and do simple maths is considered literate. So actual literacy of the level required for translation purposes is even less than 74% in India.
This I don't think is the case in the European countries you have mentioned.
[2012-09-16 07:27 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
Índia
Local time: 11:39
Membro (2006)
Inglês para Hindi
+ ...
LOCALIZADOR DO WEBSITE | But I presume we will be testing it... | Sep 16, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Michele Fauble wrote:
Your native language is the language you speak and write natively, i.e. in a way that is indistinguishable from the way monolingual speakers of that language speak and write it.
I like this definition. We can start with it. Except that I would tone down the speaking part for the reason that translation is chiefly a written activity. This definition accounts for proficiency which is definitely its plus point. I will also bring in the "educated monolingual speakers" as we are more interested in educated written output than in colloquial or slang output. So I would modify it as follows:
Your native language is the language in which you can write in a way that is indistinguishable from the way educated monolingual speakers of that language write.
If so, it doesn't matter how you choose to define it, the delusional hoard will still 'self-assess' their writing ability to be on par with an educated native speaker. That's the trouble with self-assessment.
But I presume we intend to test it, and it will be easier to test written output than spoken output.
| | | | Ty Kendall
Reino Unido
Local time: 07:09
Hebraico para Inglês
| Beth yw hwn? Allaf egluro bod....ond rwy'n brysur! ..A dialect of English I think not. | Sep 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
But the question is, it it possible for some in UK, to get education in schools in say Welsh, or Cornish, or Manx, etc.?
Yes, it is. Welsh-medium education/bi-lingual education is growing in Wales and along the "border".
And are these languages (dialects?) used officially in administrative and business communications, as the Indian languages are?
Yes they are. The Welsh assembly uses Welsh. That's what devolution is all about.
TRUST ME! Welsh is most certainly NOT a dialect of English. In fact, it's on another branch of that tree of yours, the Celtic branch. English is not a Celtic language.
Ydych chi'n siarad Saesneg?
| | | | | Páginas no assunto: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should “native language” claims be verified? | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
