Hi @anon044949
I do know about the spelling and Biblical term notes, but that isn’t at all what I’m trying to do.
So, we have been having discussions with various consultants about how to help translators produce better drafts. If we can avoid problems in the first place, it makes everything else easier. If we know some things about how a particular language works then we can put in prompts that are specific to those linguistic preferences. Then the team can correctly translate it before getting to the consultant check.
Three examples:
-
Some teams have a difficult time distinguishing rhetorical questions from content questions. This means that the consultant has to keep asking about them the same question at every instance. But if I could make a consultant note saying “Rhetorical Question” and apply it to the hundreds of instances, then teams would be much more likely to do it right from the start.
The basis for the list would be the Logos searches
{Label Figure of Speech WHERE Description ~ “Interrogating” AND Name ~ “Erotesis”} or
{Section <Sentence ~ Interrogative>} INTERSECTS {Section <SpeechAct = Info.:Assert.>} but manually checked for false hits.
-
In English it is grammatical to say, “To buy milk, I went to the store.” but it is more natural to say, “I went to the store to buy milk.” Languages differ on preferred phrase order but because of the cognitive load of translating, translators often don’t consider the possibility while they’re drafting. One of my teams can follow the Spanish word order and it is perfectly grammatical, but in certain circumstances it is more natural to use a different word order. If I use <LDGNT = Reason-Result Frame> and <LDhb = Reason-Result Frame> I could make four or five hundred notes where they probably don’t want to follow the Spanish word order.
-
The most common source text in Spanish is the Reina-Valera, which is equivalent to the KJV (or maybe NKJV). But there are lots of instances where it deviates from what most scholars agree is the original text. (A friend of mine who teaches seminary won’t let his students use it in class because he got tired of correcting them.) The teams should be comparing versions and noticing all these differences, but the reality is that they usually miss them. I have started a consultant note project just dedicated to the textual issues in the Reina-Valera because they’re maybe 10-15% of all my notes for the project. If I could find a list of these differences, it would save me hours, let alone the time for my team.
These could each be their own consultant note project which could be shared with the dozens (if not hundreds) of teams dealing with these specific issues. Of course there are many other issues that would work well, these are just a few off the top of my head.
Many teams don’t have great tech skills so Logos visual filters aren’t a great option. It is hard to get them to use the commentaries and resources that they have, so adding another file to check probably wouldn’t get integrated into their workflow. There is some talk about this being an option in the CLEAR dashboard, but that is dependent on whether it gets programmed in and whether teams use the dashboard in drafting. So my best idea so far is issue-specific consultant notes projects, and you can see why I’d rather make a note once instead of 400 times.
Also, for what it is worth, I only experiment on my own projects that I set up specifically to test on. I know the dangers of messing with code and I do incremental changes that I can easily undo. Or if I really mess it up (hasn’t happened yet) then I can delete the project with no harm done.
