In our daily routine as professional translators, we are faced to new challenges every day: tighter deadlines with higher and higher quality standards --which involve additional links in the translation supply chain once the translation has been trans-edited, such as language quality assessment, mechanical quality checks and others--; today’s working environment resting on innovative technologies; integration with remote teams of linguists floating in a “cloud” somewhere, who feel and use the same language “differently”; and millions of potential consumers of our rendering scattered in diverse areas of the world. In every step of the way, the translator wanders as an errant user of the language trying to cater for everybody's needs, sometimes leaving the language unprotected, exposed to the risk of impoverishment and progressive deviation from the norm and the etymology of its lexicon.
Armed as a guardian
As a basic rule, if you want to succeed as a guardian you must first arm yourself with a shield... DOUBT. If you doubt, you research, you learn, you doubt again and double check, and you can then discuss about it and enrich yourself from others' viewpoints and eventually make a choice. As translators we are decision-makers, and our decisions forge the language that millions of people will use or repeat. We should ponder on our own language, become aware of its expressive capabilities, the linguistic structures that compound it, and of the enormous wealth its unity and variety can accumulate. Recently, the Real Academia Española has released the latest versions of the grammar and orthography rules, called in Spanish “Nueva gramática de la lengua española” and “Ortografía de la lengua española”, respectively. In such resources, the translator will not only find the norm (ruling all the Spanish speakers, irrespective of their geographical location) but also reference to variations or traits related to certain communities, times or social spectra. For the sake of language semantics, doubt should always lead you to the dictionary. Translators of Spanish should constantly resort to the “Diccionario de lengua española” and the “Diccionario panhispánico de dudas”, our primary sources of reference for general terminology (needless to say that these are not technical dictionaries or specific of any other field), both from the Real Academia Española, available on line (www.rae.es) for free and in printing at a reasonable cost. Obvious, isn’t it? Then, we should wonder why we have been interchanging terms of our language losing accuracy and effectiveness in the interest of similarity of sound or proximity to the term in other language, mainly cloning terms from English. Almost unnoticeably, we have been using the verb “provocar” and “causar” interchangeably, ignoring that the former in Spanish implies an action that leads to or incites another one, while the latter implies an action that someone or something receives passively. “Ignorar” in Spanish means not knowing about something, which is not the same as “ignore” in English, meaning to pass something unheeded, skip it or omit it. Even though there are different terms in both languages for these concepts, we tend to keep our rendering closer to the English “ignore” instead of using “omitir”, “hacer caso omiso” or whatever is more appropriate according to context and register in Spanish. Similarly, we just replicate "serious" as "serio", instead of communicating the meaning more effectively using adjectives such as "grave", "importante"; we have adopted the term "nominado" (which in Spanish simply means “nombrado” [named]) as a clone for “nominee, nomination, nominate”, trying to make it convey the meaning of “candidato”, “aspirante”. We have gradually lost shade of meaning for several terms, such as “control” in English, forgetting you can make it collocate diversely in Spanish making it understandable and natural for the reader… Why not translating “control fever” as “bajar la fiebre”, “control blood pressure” as “medir la presión”, “control bleeding” as “detener la hemorragia” instead of repeating “controlar” endlessly? And we can add many other examples to this list, such as: “aggressive" translated as “agresivo” instead of “emprendedor” [in marketing texts]; “conventional” as “convencional”, for which in the Spanish dictionary the first entry defines it as the result of an agreement, not "tradicional” as we should have said; “confrontar” [confront] instead of “enfrentar”; “estimar” [estimate] instead of “calcular”; “severo” [severe] instead of “grave”; “sofisticado” [sophisticated] instead of “avanzado, moderno”, and so on. In the field of the medical translation, linguistic calques are also frequent and so embedded in the scientific community that nowadays we see terms like "médula", "randomizar", “bizarro", “constipación” much more frequently than “bulbo raquídeo”, “asignar al azar”, “curioso”, “estreñimiento”, just to name a few examples, which does not mean we are mistranslating but just confining our language to a set of “easily englishable” terms . We seem even to forget our “privacy”, when we translate it as “privacidad” instead of “intimidad". We are so blinded by the English that sometimes it appears as we were losing consciousness of time, translating “within” as “dentro de”, postponing the time span to a farther future than the actual date of occurrence. This ambitious cloning practice has also spread to the field of syntax: the deletion of articles, the nonsensical use of prepositions and the overuse of possessive adjectives in Spanish are illustrative examples of it. Unfortunately, many of these terms are so engraved in the eye of the reader or in the client’s lexicon that we are dubious of “correcting” them, (i.e., by today’s technologies, such as translation memories, which are used by us to preserve a misconceived sense of consistency instead of enhancing adequacy), since such a decision (or rescue attempt!) may eventually mislead the recipient of the message, so well used to reading an impoverished Spanish version.
Changes in the battle field
The alphabet and double-spelling words
New moves have been taken by the Real Academia Española (RAE) and we, as language conveyors and protectors, should be aware of them. Mastering in the domain of our own language is the primary duty we should take over as communicators and our language system is formally described and contained in the bibliography published by the RAE. Based on the statements in the latest release of the “Ortografía de la lengua española”, the Spanish alphabet now consists of twenty-seven letters. Digraphs like “ll”, “ch” have been deleted from the alphabet and therefore words containing those digraphs at the beginning are ordered in the corresponding position under letters C and L (effective since the 22.nd edition of DRAE, 2001). In the book mentioned above, there is a section focused on letters with distinctive pronunciation based on the geographical areas (B vs. V, W and Y), clarifying the variations according to each region. Contrary to what many publications and newsletters have reported, there is not a mandatory unification in this sense, but only recommendations for the sake of unity. In relation to differences in spelling, the RAE states preferences for those terms that have double spelling, such us “hiedra” vs. “yedra”, “hierba” vs. “yerba”, “yerbería” vs. “hierbería” (all terms related to “herb”); “yerra” vs. “hierra” (action of erring), “yodo” vs. “iodo” (iodine), being the first element of the pair the recommended one. (Please note this list is not complete.) Considering all such recommendations come from the highest language authority in Spanish, embracing them would contribute a great deal to language unity and we, in our role of communicators, definitely have a say in this regard.
One rule, all prefixes
In contrast to what the academic orthographic doctrine has been prescribing in regards to the Spanish prefix "ex” (former), which up to now had to be written separated from the noun, as in “ex marido; ex presidente” (former husband, former president), the new orthography states that, from this release on, such prefix should be united to the noun, just as the norm rules for all other prefixes (for Spanish: no n-dash between prefix and base or blank space between them is used), unless it is used modifying multiword bases, in which case it should be written isolated from the base (the same applies to all prefixes), i.e., "ex primer ministro", "anti exclusión social", etc. Although this is the only change in terms of prefixes, it is advisable for translators to revise the whole section of the new release, where they will find clarification for all those cases in which the n-dash is necessary after prefixes, something that will definitely help him/her keep consistency among all speakers of the language and the norm. Just like an invitation to see more, let me remind you of the fact that the n-dash is used to separate the prefix when the base is a proper name, such as "pre-Camus” or “pos-Malvinas”, as well as when it is an acronym, "mini-DVD", or a date, “pre-1945”. If two or more prefixes are used related to one single-word base, the n-dash is fixed to the "dangling" prefix, such as: "pre- y posparto". But when the base is a multiword one, no n-dash is present: "anti y pro derechos humanos". Are you sure you have been using it consistently this way? Are you dubious now? Great, because you can find detailed information and examples in the book referenced above (just a personal suggestion, no conflict of interest).
Diacritical marks (accents)
As one of the key players among the constituents of the Spanish language, the "accent" has always posed difficulties to learners of Spanish as a second language, Spanish native speakers and translators of Spanish, in this order and despite of all attempts to deny it (as linguists, it is hard for us to admit it, but reviewers and proofreaders have enough evidence against us or even themselves!). In the accentual system of Spanish, the orthographic accent as a diacritical mark is a exceptional, not only because it prescribes graphical accents in words that, according to general rules, should not be marked, but also because it is not used systematically to all potentially markable morphemes. Historically, such graphical mark has been added and deleted in an effort to apply it as consistently and restrictively as possible. In fact, it is graphically marked in certain words against general orthographic rules for the exclusive purpose of facilitating understanding by means of an immediate visual identification of unstressed/stressed variations of one single word frequently used, in order to avoid ambiguities in the language. In the new orthographic rules of the RAE, you can find a summarizing chart listing all the monosyllabic words that are written both with the graphic mark and without it, depending on the meaning they convey. In such guidelines, there is explicit indication of the deletion of such mark in other words typically accented. Since 1959 and aiming at restricting its use as much as possible, the orthographic norm has confined the mandatory use of the graphic accent to situations of potential ambiguity. Particularly, this recommendation related to the diacritical mark differentiating the pronominal use from the demonstrative use of the words “este, ese, aquel" (this, these, that, those) and the corresponding inflexions indicating plural and feminine forms, and the diacritical mark differentiating the word "solo" depending on its part of speech (adjective vs. adverb) [graphically accented when used in their pronominal form and as adverb, respectively]. As mentioned before, from now on we can do without it based on the RAE’s consideration: the cases of potential ambiguity are rare and easily resolved by contextual information, and priority should be given to the existing orthographic rule. Obviously, such criterion is materialized throughout the book, so reading it will also help reinforce the new concept. Likewise, the old recommendation of marking the conjunction “o” (or) when used between figures so as to avoid any potential confusion with the figure "zero" has been disregarded based on the fact that nowadays such proactive action is clearly unnecessary due to text processors in use. Again, the translator will find further information and examples in this book, that will drive him/her through the most clear and consistent way of communicating.
Based on the same foundations, in the new "Ortografía de la lengua española” there is an assertive statement regarding a few words that used to have spelling variations, claiming that only one should be kept from now on. Examples are: “guion” (dash), “fie” (conjugated form of to give credit), “truhan” (knavish), “liais” (conjugated form of to make a mess), etc. Again, such claim is based on the Spanish accentuation rules for orthographic monosyllables. As you can see, this criterion is the same as the one applied for demonstrative pronouns and the adverb “solo” mentioned above: primary rule prevails. Personally, I believe this consistency in rules will render a more consistent language overall, and we should contribute to this end, both in our interest and in the interest of our language.
The space as an important constituent of Spanish Orthographic System
There is a section in the book focused on the different punctuation marks of the Spanish system, including the blank space, which the translator or reviewer can check for the use (or more specifically the absence) of blank spaces between the bar and other alphabetizable symbols, such as the "%”, which is kind of a novelty in this regard. For the percentage symbol, as for all other such symbols, the RAE states there should be a non-breaking space separating the figure and the percentage symbol, something which is not so widely used currently. Such guideline also addresses the use (and the absence, again) of spaces before and after bars and other cases that typically give rise to inconsistency among Spanish translations, especially in the sphere of the English into Spanish translations because of the flexible nature of English in such respect. In this release, there is a specific recommendation of the use of bars and its position in the line when writing URLs, pointed out as an exception of leaving that mark at the end of the line.
It goes outside. Period.
Typically, when translating from English into Spanish (whichever target market the content is meant for) there is room for hesitation whether the period should be written before or after the closing parenthesis, exclamation or quotation mark, to name a few. In this new version of the book, there is reiterative reference to the positioning of this punctuation mark, which should always close the sentence after any other mark used therein.
Words versus figures
Keeping clarity and consistency when transcribing numerical data should always be on top of our priorities as translators. For this matter, you must also shape your work following the norm. The new orthography book also focuses on prescribing rules for the choice of writing figures in words or using the numerical expression, so that this aspect is not left to subjective perceptions but framed within a norm. This chapter covers dates, time and other number-related expressions, and the great point is the international system is referred to as a ruling body. We tend to confuse the reader using blurred criteria in this respect (usually mirroring the source in English) and gaining consensus among a large group of linguists working remotely is not always so easy if the decision is not explained upfront. Base your decisions on the norm and you will be automatically ruling inconsistencies out! Teach clients there is a way of doing it correctly and coherently, and surely they will be prone to adhere to it… Appealing? Well, it is impossible to attain if you do not know it yourself first.
Boot camp training
For any aspect of life, being in good shape is always a plus – but when it comes to protecting a critical asset, and we do have one: our language, it becomes a must. Train your language abilities, take a reading workout every day and get fit to go out to the battle field, you will not only guard your language, but your career too! As we have discussed in this article, you do not have to “go an extra mile”, just place the books on your laptop (both the physical and the electronic ones work just fine) and open them up! Whether you use the RAE’s publications just as a reference for a particular query (there are valuable lists of acronyms and symbols in the appendix in the orthography book, for example) or as study material, you will come out enlightened, enriched, and armed to fight and win the battle against idiomatic laziness.
By Luciana Ramos
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario