嗨 @anon044949
我知道拼寫和聖經術語註釋的事,但這完全不是我想做的事情。
因此,我們一直在與各方的顧問討論如何幫助譯者產出更好的初稿。如果我們能一開始就避免問題,其他一切都會變得更容易。如果我們了解某種語言的運作方式,我們就可以加入針對這些語言偏好的特定提示。這樣,團隊在進入顧問檢查之前就能正確地翻譯它。
三個例子:
-
有些團隊在區分修辭性問句和內容性問句時感到困難。這意味著顧問必須在每個實例中不斷詢問同樣的問題。但如果我能建立一個標註為「修辭性問句」的顧問註釋並應用於數百個實例,團隊就更有可能一開始就做對。
該清單的依據將是 Logos 搜尋
{Label Figure of Speech WHERE Description ~ “Interrogating” AND Name ~ “Erotesis”} 或
{Section <Sentence ~ Interrogative>} INTERSECTS {Section <SpeechAct = Info.:Assert.>} 但需手動檢查誤報。
-
在英語中,說「為了買牛奶,我去了商店。」在文法上是正確的,但說「我去了商店買牛奶。」更自然。不同語言對詞序的偏好不同,但由於翻譯帶來的認知負荷,譯者在起草時往往不會考慮這種可能性。我的一個團隊可以遵循西班牙語的詞序,這在文法上是完全正確的,但在某些情況下,使用不同的詞序會更自然。如果我使用 <LDGNT = Reason-Result Frame> 和 <LDhb = Reason-Result Frame>,我可以製作四五百個註釋,指出他們可能不希望遵循西班牙語詞序的地方。
-
西班牙語中最常見的源文本是 Reina-Valera,它相當於 KJV(或可能是 NKJV)。但是,有很多實例偏離了大多數學者認為的原文。(我的一位在神學院任教的教授不讓他的學生在課堂上使用它,因為他厭倦了糾正他們。)團隊應該比較不同版本並注意到所有這些差異,但現實是他們通常會錯過這些差異。我已經啟動了一個專門針對 Reina-Valera 中文本問題的顧問註釋項目,因為這些問題可能佔我該項目所有註釋的 10-15%。如果我能找到這些差異的清單,將為我節省數小時,更不用說為我的團隊節省的時間了。
這些中的每一個都可以成為獨立的顧問註釋項目,並可以與處理這些特定問題的數十個(如果不是數百個)團隊共享。當然,還有許多其他問題也很適用,這些只是我隨口舉出的幾個例子。
許多團隊的技術技能並不強,因此 Logos 視覺過濾器不是一個很好的選擇。讓他們使用已有的註釋書和資源已經很困難,所以再增加一個需要檢查的文件可能不會被整合到他們的工作流程中。有人討論說這可能是 CLEAR 儀表板中的一個選項,但這取決於它是否被編程進去,以及團隊是否在起草時使用儀表板。因此,我目前最好的想法是針對特定問題的顧問註釋項目,你可以理解為什麼我更願意製作一次註釋而不是 400 次。
另外,就事論事,我只在我自己設置的專門用於測試的項目上進行實驗。我知道修改代碼的危險,我進行的是可以輕鬆撤銷的增量更改。或者如果我真的搞砸了(目前還沒發生過),我可以刪除該項目而不造成任何傷害。
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.
機器翻譯自 English