This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Translation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
something wrong in the bibliography text: several "cite journal" or "cite book" phrases, some with "generic" word. (Presumably meant to be template invocations!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.59.15 ( talk) 16:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, the history section is primarily concerned with the methods/ideals of translation in various epochs. As such, it clearly, but unwittingly, has a certain Translation Studies bias. The history of translation should also consider its growth as an industry, e.g. statistics on published translations, etc. Then any non-original theory on how these intersected (e.g. readability in 18th C compared to the rise of the novel a la Watt). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.174.46 ( talk) 16:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I saw the following when I reached the "Translation" article: QUOTE"Translators" redirects here. For the company, see Translators, Inc..UNQUOTE (sic: with two periods/full stops)
Who are these people?
Have they advertising privileges here that allow them to hijack the plural of a common noun to another Wiki article that reads like advertising and is flagged as such???
I suggest that link be promptly removed.
That failing, there are websites for "translators", e.g. ProZ and Translators Cafe (www.proz.com and www.translatorscafe.com) -- but the hijacking of a common noun in order to vector readers to a publicity article seems unethical. Moreover it appears right at the top of the article: I'm floored! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges ( talk • contribs) 09:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
this discussion sucks pie! lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.149.5 ( talk) 06:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
As the discussion was getting difficult to follow, this page has been archived at [1]. Please feel free to copy any relevant ongoing conversations from the archive. maxsch ( talk) 01:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is huge. Perhaps it's time to spit some of the larger sections away to create their own articles?-- Lendorien ( talk) 15:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
" Translation," and its sections as presently constituted, do not strike me as excessively long. Parceling out sections would detract from the article's comprehensiveness. Nihil novi ( talk) 03:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
On WP:EL blogs are listed under the type of external links that are to be generally avoided. I would bet that there are hundreds of blogs that are related to translation. I don't know why we should include any of them--or, diplomatically, what would the standard for inclusion be? Links to blogs amount to a sort of endorsement, if users want to search for blogs that talk about translation they should do that with a search engine. I propose that we not have a section on this page called "Blogs", but I thought maybe I'd seek consensus. xschm ( talk) 03:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose that Translation process be moved here. Surely the general article on translation is where the translation process should be discussed; the process isn't really unique enough to warrant its own article. — An gr 13:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps something can be mentioned about the relationship of the original author(s) to the translated work through history? Currently, for example, it is illegal to translate something without the original author's permission due to copyright laws, but it wasn't always thus. Even until the collapse of the Soviet Union, because the world wasn't unipolar, you frequently saw translations of works from "the other side" that were done without permission and took many liberties with the original work, sometimes for the better. In the USSR, there were such translations of Winnie the Pooh, The Wizard of the Emerald City and Buratino. Esn ( talk) 10:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
A-Class quality requirements of Wikipedia need to be observed. -- 78.48.48.65 ( talk) 03:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
A user has added to the " Translation" article a template titled "Translation" that is ill-conceived and unnecessary. Its first part, "Translation concepts," lists two items, " Literal translation" and " Direct translation," that refer to the same article, " Literal translation."
The template's second part, "Translation process," lists two items, " Transcription (linguistics)" and " Transliteration," neither of which is a central concept in the theory and practice of translation.
Moreover, each concept listed in the template appears in the article's "See also" section and need not appear in a template. Nihil novi ( talk) 06:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I notice in several scientific or professional books (about management or social science) translated from French to English the absence of translator notes. Whereas similar books translated from English to French have lots of notes added to allow the French-reader to understand why the English-writing author said that. Is there a "culture" of avoiding translator notes in English please? -- Silwilhith ( talk) 22:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
No from english to pashto Noor wali ( talk) 10:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
>>The art of translation is as old as written literature.
Why? Art of translation is (imho) much older than a writing system. Writing literature isn't condition of translation. For example incantations in Evenki language was translated into Sakha language without knowledge of writing.-- 88.83.179.234 ( talk) 13:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
"Such research is a necessary prelude to the pre-editing necessary in order to provide input for machine-translation software such that the output will not be meaningless." --This sentence strikes me as nearly example of the very thing it speaks of, as something to avoid. 200.160.81.133 ( talk) 23:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
but —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.149.53.89 ( talk) 00:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Nihil Novi:
As a professional book editor and translator (English, Spanish, German, vice versa), I understand your translator’s professional enthusiasm, yet you insert your opinions so often that the article becomes subjective, i.e. Who says that language spill-over is particular to limited-proficiency translators? If they are not your opinions, then please cite the name of the speaker. This is especially noticeable in the machine translation and Internet sections, which are over-padded . . . with opinion and weasel words — because there is little substance to such matters; the machine always is inferior to the translator and translatress. Might not “Machine translation”, “CAT”, and “Internet” become a single, substantive section? Then that triune section might not need padding.
Moreover, a history section requires dates of occurrence and publication, otherwise, the layman reader shan’t grasp the entry’s gist — because it reads as an in-crowd article for and about translators and translation. Furthermore, the image captions are editorially necessary context establishing the image-text relations that illustrate the article’s points; otherwise, they are random pictures to which the reader might remain indifferent. After all, in the reading-deficient 21st century, such are the requirements of full communication.
In the lead paragraph, communication is the purpose of the art and craft of translation, the purpose of a translation is the readers’ comprehension of the source-language text, thus why I corrected that construction; otherwise, I concur with you that the entry is not over-long, but padded; unfortunately American English tends to a prolix passive voice. I shall contribute throughout; thanks for your forebearance.
Best regards, Mhazard9 ( talk) 15:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
"Every translator is a traitor." Italian maxim, adopted by the French as "traduire, c'est trahir". (Good translations ? Ha!) -- Jerome Potts ( talk) 10:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
"Sworn translation" redirects to this article, but then there's no mention of the concept within the article. I hope someone with an understanding of "sworn translation" will add a section for this within the article. Phlar ( talk) 19:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The proposal is to replace this sentence in WP:NONENG :
with the following :
Please add your comments at WP:V:talk and not here. Thanks. Rubywine . talk 02:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
hemat energy 80% ringan dan langsung nyala dapat beropeasi pada tegangan turun naik antara 17 - 250 Volt tidak cocok untuk rumah lampu downlight tidak dapat di dimmer atau tombol elektronik kinerja terbaik untuk tegangan 220 - 240 Volt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.115.207 ( talk) 04:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the general definition of "translation" already a bit too specific? I suggest getting rid of, or qualifying, the terms "meaning" and "equivalent" since arguably translation isn't just about translating "meaning" (but also content, effect etc.) and the concept of equivalence is now hackneyed in translation studies even though one can't deny translation comprising a degree of equivalence. Most introductions to translation studies (such as Jeremy Munday's) give a broader definition. Just a thought.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.212.87 ( talk) 05:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Does the Rosetta Stone realy belong with in the section about the Etymology of Translation? i can't realy see how it is relevant to the name. Fatalicus ( talk) 11:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I hope I have added this to the correct section, I apologize if I haven't. Rosetta stone a secular icon? By whose standards?? An editor has stated in the article about translation that the Rosetta stone is a secular icon. Since the Rosetta stone is an actual stone (not a myth) and since it represents an unbiased artifact, the editor that used the phrase "secular icon" probably is a support of the religious myths that the Rosetta stone would help to remove from humanity. (When I use the term myth I understand that religious supporters do not identify their myths as fantasies, so my opinion, like that of many secular people, researchers, etc, is based on the fact that the religious community provides no hard evidence to support their claims, thus their claims are mythical and not factual, if we're being logical in these discussions, debates, diatribes.) Therefore, a much more balanced sentence to replace the faulty one would be: "The Rosetta stone is a viewed as a valid linguistic and historic tool by secular intellectuals while simultaneously being viewed as a secular icon by theologians.? We should not let Wikipedia continue to be a place where myths and erroneous philosophies are accepted as facts without the balance of the opposing views.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.19.234 ( talk) 21:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The start is overly technical and could benefit from more explanation or examples. For example, it presumes the reader knows what "spillover" is; if they don't and click on the term they are taken to a seemingly unrelated article. - Reagle ( talk) 19:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The current final paragraph of this article's " Literary translation" section reads:
In the 2010s a substantial gender imbalance was noted in literary translation [2] ( list of women translators). In 2014 Meytal Radzinski launched the Women in Translation campaign to address this. [3] [4] [5]
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
It is unclear whether this passage refers to a dearth of women translators or of women authors in translation, or to both.
Could someone please clarify this?
Thanks.
Nihil novi ( talk) 23:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I came across the following text in the article and I feel that it should modified: "translations, like women, can be either faithful or beautiful, but not both". As a gay man I am sensitive to gender inequality and I think the phrase does not add anything meaningful or important to article, but instead perpetuates a phrase that is meant to be funny but it isn't (for women) going against the Wikipedia guidelines.
I have removed the "like women" due to the aforementioned reasons but let me know if you disagree. --Jlascar 16:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)jlascar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlascar ( talk • contribs)
Kire Yeyani is a zimbabwean born in 1994 as his real name is clemence yeyani. kire was was born in mutoko maternity hospital which is located in mashonaland east province. he attended hid primary school at kowo primary school from grade 1-7 and half of his secondary was at kowo secendary from form 1-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kire Yeyani ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this isn't mentioned anywhere on the page.
This is basically reading a text in Language A and speaking the gist of the content in Language B. Professionally, I've seen this used most in legal contexts, where a legal team has received a large batch of hard-copy documentation in a subpoena request and is triaging to find the relevant content to assign for full translation.
Sight translation is also essentially what happens when a Japanese reader reads a text written in kanbun, a particular form of Classical Chinese that the reader reconstitutes on the fly into a kind of Japanese.
I do translation, but I don't have books about translation, so I lack the kind of references needed to cite such a section. Could someone else with relevant references please add a section on sight translation?
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Different bits of histoy under different sections History of translation (Histories?) Or Traditions of translation should be in a separate article History bits should be slimmed down & summarised here Also I don't understand why some global traditions are literally labelled "other" (!) 88.104.135.242 ( talk) 08:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Des Vallee:
@ Nihil novi and Des Vallee: I endorse the idea of moving this material to another article, and leaving a brief summary here, following summary style. Also, I endorse the proposed title change to "interpreting", as I don't see anything in the current content about translation. That said however, content could certainly be found for military translation, so I think the article could have larger scope and be called Military interpreting and translation (or Translation and interpretation in the military). Des Vallee, since you added the section, you should get first shot at moving the content out and starting the new article. However, I don't think it should be left here too long, and if you are busy or believe it would take you a large amount of time, I can do it for you, because I'm used to creating articles, and could do it quickly. I could either leave it as a WP:DRAFT, so you could continue to develop it according to your vision of it, or I could just move it to its own article outright. Let me know what course of action you prefer. (please mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot ( talk) 20:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Translation is the communication of the meaning of a source-language text by means of an equivalent target-language text.
@ Des Vallee: In light of the above discussion, I will be deleting the recently added "military translation" section from the " Translation" article. When you are ready to submit a new article specifically on military interpreting, you can find your material in an earlier edition of " Translation". Thank you. Nihil novi ( talk) 19:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Supply chain network design is the process of building and modeling a supply chain to better understand the costs and time associated with bringing goods to market with the resources and location available 176.18.79.144 ( talk) 21:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Translation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
something wrong in the bibliography text: several "cite journal" or "cite book" phrases, some with "generic" word. (Presumably meant to be template invocations!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.59.15 ( talk) 16:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, the history section is primarily concerned with the methods/ideals of translation in various epochs. As such, it clearly, but unwittingly, has a certain Translation Studies bias. The history of translation should also consider its growth as an industry, e.g. statistics on published translations, etc. Then any non-original theory on how these intersected (e.g. readability in 18th C compared to the rise of the novel a la Watt). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.174.46 ( talk) 16:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I saw the following when I reached the "Translation" article: QUOTE"Translators" redirects here. For the company, see Translators, Inc..UNQUOTE (sic: with two periods/full stops)
Who are these people?
Have they advertising privileges here that allow them to hijack the plural of a common noun to another Wiki article that reads like advertising and is flagged as such???
I suggest that link be promptly removed.
That failing, there are websites for "translators", e.g. ProZ and Translators Cafe (www.proz.com and www.translatorscafe.com) -- but the hijacking of a common noun in order to vector readers to a publicity article seems unethical. Moreover it appears right at the top of the article: I'm floored! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges ( talk • contribs) 09:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
this discussion sucks pie! lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.149.5 ( talk) 06:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
As the discussion was getting difficult to follow, this page has been archived at [1]. Please feel free to copy any relevant ongoing conversations from the archive. maxsch ( talk) 01:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is huge. Perhaps it's time to spit some of the larger sections away to create their own articles?-- Lendorien ( talk) 15:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
" Translation," and its sections as presently constituted, do not strike me as excessively long. Parceling out sections would detract from the article's comprehensiveness. Nihil novi ( talk) 03:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
On WP:EL blogs are listed under the type of external links that are to be generally avoided. I would bet that there are hundreds of blogs that are related to translation. I don't know why we should include any of them--or, diplomatically, what would the standard for inclusion be? Links to blogs amount to a sort of endorsement, if users want to search for blogs that talk about translation they should do that with a search engine. I propose that we not have a section on this page called "Blogs", but I thought maybe I'd seek consensus. xschm ( talk) 03:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose that Translation process be moved here. Surely the general article on translation is where the translation process should be discussed; the process isn't really unique enough to warrant its own article. — An gr 13:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps something can be mentioned about the relationship of the original author(s) to the translated work through history? Currently, for example, it is illegal to translate something without the original author's permission due to copyright laws, but it wasn't always thus. Even until the collapse of the Soviet Union, because the world wasn't unipolar, you frequently saw translations of works from "the other side" that were done without permission and took many liberties with the original work, sometimes for the better. In the USSR, there were such translations of Winnie the Pooh, The Wizard of the Emerald City and Buratino. Esn ( talk) 10:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
A-Class quality requirements of Wikipedia need to be observed. -- 78.48.48.65 ( talk) 03:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
A user has added to the " Translation" article a template titled "Translation" that is ill-conceived and unnecessary. Its first part, "Translation concepts," lists two items, " Literal translation" and " Direct translation," that refer to the same article, " Literal translation."
The template's second part, "Translation process," lists two items, " Transcription (linguistics)" and " Transliteration," neither of which is a central concept in the theory and practice of translation.
Moreover, each concept listed in the template appears in the article's "See also" section and need not appear in a template. Nihil novi ( talk) 06:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I notice in several scientific or professional books (about management or social science) translated from French to English the absence of translator notes. Whereas similar books translated from English to French have lots of notes added to allow the French-reader to understand why the English-writing author said that. Is there a "culture" of avoiding translator notes in English please? -- Silwilhith ( talk) 22:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
No from english to pashto Noor wali ( talk) 10:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
>>The art of translation is as old as written literature.
Why? Art of translation is (imho) much older than a writing system. Writing literature isn't condition of translation. For example incantations in Evenki language was translated into Sakha language without knowledge of writing.-- 88.83.179.234 ( talk) 13:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
"Such research is a necessary prelude to the pre-editing necessary in order to provide input for machine-translation software such that the output will not be meaningless." --This sentence strikes me as nearly example of the very thing it speaks of, as something to avoid. 200.160.81.133 ( talk) 23:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
but —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.149.53.89 ( talk) 00:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Nihil Novi:
As a professional book editor and translator (English, Spanish, German, vice versa), I understand your translator’s professional enthusiasm, yet you insert your opinions so often that the article becomes subjective, i.e. Who says that language spill-over is particular to limited-proficiency translators? If they are not your opinions, then please cite the name of the speaker. This is especially noticeable in the machine translation and Internet sections, which are over-padded . . . with opinion and weasel words — because there is little substance to such matters; the machine always is inferior to the translator and translatress. Might not “Machine translation”, “CAT”, and “Internet” become a single, substantive section? Then that triune section might not need padding.
Moreover, a history section requires dates of occurrence and publication, otherwise, the layman reader shan’t grasp the entry’s gist — because it reads as an in-crowd article for and about translators and translation. Furthermore, the image captions are editorially necessary context establishing the image-text relations that illustrate the article’s points; otherwise, they are random pictures to which the reader might remain indifferent. After all, in the reading-deficient 21st century, such are the requirements of full communication.
In the lead paragraph, communication is the purpose of the art and craft of translation, the purpose of a translation is the readers’ comprehension of the source-language text, thus why I corrected that construction; otherwise, I concur with you that the entry is not over-long, but padded; unfortunately American English tends to a prolix passive voice. I shall contribute throughout; thanks for your forebearance.
Best regards, Mhazard9 ( talk) 15:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
"Every translator is a traitor." Italian maxim, adopted by the French as "traduire, c'est trahir". (Good translations ? Ha!) -- Jerome Potts ( talk) 10:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
"Sworn translation" redirects to this article, but then there's no mention of the concept within the article. I hope someone with an understanding of "sworn translation" will add a section for this within the article. Phlar ( talk) 19:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The proposal is to replace this sentence in WP:NONENG :
with the following :
Please add your comments at WP:V:talk and not here. Thanks. Rubywine . talk 02:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
hemat energy 80% ringan dan langsung nyala dapat beropeasi pada tegangan turun naik antara 17 - 250 Volt tidak cocok untuk rumah lampu downlight tidak dapat di dimmer atau tombol elektronik kinerja terbaik untuk tegangan 220 - 240 Volt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.115.207 ( talk) 04:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the general definition of "translation" already a bit too specific? I suggest getting rid of, or qualifying, the terms "meaning" and "equivalent" since arguably translation isn't just about translating "meaning" (but also content, effect etc.) and the concept of equivalence is now hackneyed in translation studies even though one can't deny translation comprising a degree of equivalence. Most introductions to translation studies (such as Jeremy Munday's) give a broader definition. Just a thought.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.212.87 ( talk) 05:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Does the Rosetta Stone realy belong with in the section about the Etymology of Translation? i can't realy see how it is relevant to the name. Fatalicus ( talk) 11:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I hope I have added this to the correct section, I apologize if I haven't. Rosetta stone a secular icon? By whose standards?? An editor has stated in the article about translation that the Rosetta stone is a secular icon. Since the Rosetta stone is an actual stone (not a myth) and since it represents an unbiased artifact, the editor that used the phrase "secular icon" probably is a support of the religious myths that the Rosetta stone would help to remove from humanity. (When I use the term myth I understand that religious supporters do not identify their myths as fantasies, so my opinion, like that of many secular people, researchers, etc, is based on the fact that the religious community provides no hard evidence to support their claims, thus their claims are mythical and not factual, if we're being logical in these discussions, debates, diatribes.) Therefore, a much more balanced sentence to replace the faulty one would be: "The Rosetta stone is a viewed as a valid linguistic and historic tool by secular intellectuals while simultaneously being viewed as a secular icon by theologians.? We should not let Wikipedia continue to be a place where myths and erroneous philosophies are accepted as facts without the balance of the opposing views.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.19.234 ( talk) 21:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The start is overly technical and could benefit from more explanation or examples. For example, it presumes the reader knows what "spillover" is; if they don't and click on the term they are taken to a seemingly unrelated article. - Reagle ( talk) 19:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The current final paragraph of this article's " Literary translation" section reads:
In the 2010s a substantial gender imbalance was noted in literary translation [2] ( list of women translators). In 2014 Meytal Radzinski launched the Women in Translation campaign to address this. [3] [4] [5]
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
It is unclear whether this passage refers to a dearth of women translators or of women authors in translation, or to both.
Could someone please clarify this?
Thanks.
Nihil novi ( talk) 23:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I came across the following text in the article and I feel that it should modified: "translations, like women, can be either faithful or beautiful, but not both". As a gay man I am sensitive to gender inequality and I think the phrase does not add anything meaningful or important to article, but instead perpetuates a phrase that is meant to be funny but it isn't (for women) going against the Wikipedia guidelines.
I have removed the "like women" due to the aforementioned reasons but let me know if you disagree. --Jlascar 16:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)jlascar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlascar ( talk • contribs)
Kire Yeyani is a zimbabwean born in 1994 as his real name is clemence yeyani. kire was was born in mutoko maternity hospital which is located in mashonaland east province. he attended hid primary school at kowo primary school from grade 1-7 and half of his secondary was at kowo secendary from form 1-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kire Yeyani ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this isn't mentioned anywhere on the page.
This is basically reading a text in Language A and speaking the gist of the content in Language B. Professionally, I've seen this used most in legal contexts, where a legal team has received a large batch of hard-copy documentation in a subpoena request and is triaging to find the relevant content to assign for full translation.
Sight translation is also essentially what happens when a Japanese reader reads a text written in kanbun, a particular form of Classical Chinese that the reader reconstitutes on the fly into a kind of Japanese.
I do translation, but I don't have books about translation, so I lack the kind of references needed to cite such a section. Could someone else with relevant references please add a section on sight translation?
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Different bits of histoy under different sections History of translation (Histories?) Or Traditions of translation should be in a separate article History bits should be slimmed down & summarised here Also I don't understand why some global traditions are literally labelled "other" (!) 88.104.135.242 ( talk) 08:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Des Vallee:
@ Nihil novi and Des Vallee: I endorse the idea of moving this material to another article, and leaving a brief summary here, following summary style. Also, I endorse the proposed title change to "interpreting", as I don't see anything in the current content about translation. That said however, content could certainly be found for military translation, so I think the article could have larger scope and be called Military interpreting and translation (or Translation and interpretation in the military). Des Vallee, since you added the section, you should get first shot at moving the content out and starting the new article. However, I don't think it should be left here too long, and if you are busy or believe it would take you a large amount of time, I can do it for you, because I'm used to creating articles, and could do it quickly. I could either leave it as a WP:DRAFT, so you could continue to develop it according to your vision of it, or I could just move it to its own article outright. Let me know what course of action you prefer. (please mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot ( talk) 20:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Translation is the communication of the meaning of a source-language text by means of an equivalent target-language text.
@ Des Vallee: In light of the above discussion, I will be deleting the recently added "military translation" section from the " Translation" article. When you are ready to submit a new article specifically on military interpreting, you can find your material in an earlier edition of " Translation". Thank you. Nihil novi ( talk) 19:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Supply chain network design is the process of building and modeling a supply chain to better understand the costs and time associated with bringing goods to market with the resources and location available 176.18.79.144 ( talk) 21:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)