Hi Helen, thank you for feedback. I'll submit more texts for translations and present them here.
Certainly we will need to provide some vocabulary for any translator - SQL is pretty narrow topic... Regards, Alexey > At 09:37 p.m. 10/11/2014, Alexey Kovyazin wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> As you know, we are going to translate recently completed Firebird >> Language Reference in Russian into English. >> For this purpose we are working with translation services. >> I need input from English speakers (native and not native :) about >> quality of the following test translation from one of the services: >> https://yadi.sk/i/uh1WeVY9ccChv >> >> Obviously, this translation needs some additional work, and also we can >> supply translator with some kind of guideline how to translate certain >> things in better way, but the question is: should we choose them or need >> to try another one? > On a quick read, > > 1. I sense that this translator does not have a good command of the use of > articles in English (the, a/an, some. and constructs with no article). At > best, it makes the text awkward to read for an English native speaker; at > worst, the misuse of articles can make a difference to meaning, which could > be a problem when translating the English version to other languages. It is > a tedious editing task to go through text and correct these errors. (Believe > me, I'm doing that all the time!!) If the person is being paid to translate, > we should not be put in the position of needing to do such basic corrections. > > 2. Vocabulary choice in some cases needs to be reviewed. Referring to > statements as "operators" is a bad choice in a language reference. The term > "operator" has a distinct meaning in SQL and it is not that one! Similarly, > use of the word "events" when talking about operations will cause confusion, > even to native English speakers, given that the word "event" has a specific > meaning in Firebird's procedural language. I found some other examples where > vocab choice was inappropriate. Possibly the translator(s) should be given a > set vocab of the terms most used in English for the various concepts. > > 3. Is the merging of keywords into one invalid "word" intentional? e.g. > DROPPROCEDURE and other examples. If so, why? As far as I can tell, this > occurs only in the explanatory text, not in the syntax patterns or the > examples. > > I downloaded the sample, in the hope that I will have more time to study it > when I get clear of release notes for a while. > > Helen > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Firebird-docs mailing list > Firebird-docs@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-docs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Firebird-docs mailing list Firebird-docs@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-docs
