你好 @anon044949
我知道拼写和圣经术语注释,但这完全不是我想要做的事情。
因此,我们一直在与各种顾问讨论如何帮助译员制作更好的初稿。如果我们一开始就能避免问题,其他一切都会变得更容易。如果我们了解某种语言的某些运作方式,我们就可以输入针对这些语言偏好的特定提示。这样,团队在到达顾问检查之前就能正确翻译它。
三个例子:
有些团队很难区分修辞性问题和内容性问题。这意味着顾问必须在每个实例中反复询问同样的问题。但如果我能创建一个名为“修辞性问题”的顾问注释并将其应用于数百个实例,那么团队从一开始就正确处理的概率会大得多。
该列表的基础将是 Logos 搜索
{Label Figure of Speech WHERE Description ~ “Interrogating” AND Name ~ “Erotesis”} 或
{Section <Sentence ~ Interrogative>} INTERSECTS {Section <SpeechAct = Info.:Assert.>} 但需手动检查误报。
在英语中,说“To buy milk, I went to the store.”(为了买牛奶,我去了商店。)在语法上是正确的,但说“I went to the store to buy milk.”(我去了商店买牛奶。)更自然。不同语言对短语顺序的偏好不同,但由于翻译的认知负荷,译员在起草时往往不会考虑这种可能性。我的一个团队可以遵循西班牙语语序,这在语法上是完全正确的,但在某些情况下,使用不同的语序更自然。如果我使用 <LDGNT = Reason-Result Frame> 和 <LDhb = Reason-Result Frame>,我可以制作四五百条注释,指出他们可能不希望遵循西班牙语语序的地方。
西班牙语中最常见的源文本是 Reina-Valera,它相当于 KJV(或可能是 NKJV)。但是,在大多数学者公认的原典文本中,它偏离的地方很多 。(我的一位在神学院教书的朋友不允许他的学生在课堂上使用它,因为他厌倦了纠正他们。)团队应该比较版本并注意所有这些差异,但现实是它们通常会被忽略。我已经启动了一个专门针对 Reina-Valera 中文本问题的顾问注释项目,因为它们可能占我项目所有注释的 10-15%。如果我能找到这些差异的列表,将为我节省数小时,更不用说为我团队节省的时间了。
这些中的每一个都可以成为自己的顾问注释项目,可以与处理这些特定问题的数十个(如果不是数百个)团队共享。当然,还有许多其他问题也很适用,这些只是我脑海中浮现的几个。
许多团队没有很好的技术技能,因此 Logos 视觉过滤器不是一个很好的选择。让他们使用他们拥有的注释和资源已经很困难了,所以添加另一个要检查的文件可能不会整合到他们的工作流程中。有人讨论说这可能是 CLEAR 仪表板中的一个选项,但这取决于它是否被编程进去以及团队是否在起草时使用仪表板。因此,我目前最好的想法是特定问题的顾问注释项目,你可以看到为什么我宁愿制作一次注释而不是 400 次。
另外,值得一提的是,我只在我专门设置用于测试的自己的项目上进行实验。我知道摆弄代码的危险,我进行的是可以轻松撤销的增量更改。或者如果我真的搞砸了(目前还没有发生过),我可以删除项目而不会造成任何伤害。
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.
机器翻译自 English 显示原文