| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | Absurd Chilean ruling affecting translators Thread poster: traductorchile
|
|---|
traductorchile 
Chile
Local time: 16:30
English to Spanish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Reply to a post hidden as per site rules | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Reply to an already hidden post |
|
|
traductorchile
Chile
Local time: 16:30
English to Spanish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
I know, reading those rules, the excerpt, and all the other documents, including my arguments, is not easy reading. It takes time, it can be boring, it can make your neurons sweat.
It took me time to understand the underlying purpose of this ruling. But I've gone through this many times, checked and checked again, and I'm pretty sure, not only is this absurd, but also intentionally created to favour a reduced group of translators. A maze, where the only way out is signalled, inducing po... See more I know, reading those rules, the excerpt, and all the other documents, including my arguments, is not easy reading. It takes time, it can be boring, it can make your neurons sweat.
It took me time to understand the underlying purpose of this ruling. But I've gone through this many times, checked and checked again, and I'm pretty sure, not only is this absurd, but also intentionally created to favour a reduced group of translators. A maze, where the only way out is signalled, inducing potential clients in that direction. If that group of translators provided the draft or contributed with their influence, I can't know for sure. One thing is for sure, in all these years, they have said nothing, despite they know what's going on and they should be experts on the topic.
Maybe, what you'll find in those texts helps you identify similar situations in other places, but please don't replicate the same rules in your country. Workers have the right to be assessed by their competencies, not because they belong to a privileged group. ▲ Collapse
| | | | traductorchile
Chile
Local time: 16:30
English to Spanish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Exceptions to the rule | Aug 8, 2016 |
liviu roth wrote:
Yes, I know the following Olympic medalists:
- Christa Luding and Clara Hughes - cycling and speed skating
- Conn Findlay - rowing and sailing
- Lauryn Williams - bobsleight and track&field (100 m)
-Rebecca Romero - cycling and rowing
- R.Krause - handball and swimming , and the list can go on.
3500 athletes in Rio 2016. 10.400 in London and similar in previous Olympic venues.
An average of 400 medals are awarded in each Olympic year.
It is not one swalowe that bryngeth in somer. (And that was in the 16th Century)
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Requested edit not made. |
|
|
| Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Responds to a hidden post | | Futher observations | Aug 10, 2016 |
Having (hopefully) got this thread back on topic, I offer the following additional observations regarding the MOP’s "rules" (if, indeed, they can be classed as "rules"), as quoted (and translated) by OP:
1. The MOP does not advocate, either explicitly or implicitly, that it’s OK for non-natives, be they translators or interpreters, be they specialists in the subject-matter or not, to translate documents submitted by tendering companies.
2. In its capacity as an administrat... See more Having (hopefully) got this thread back on topic, I offer the following additional observations regarding the MOP’s "rules" (if, indeed, they can be classed as "rules"), as quoted (and translated) by OP:
1. The MOP does not advocate, either explicitly or implicitly, that it’s OK for non-natives, be they translators or interpreters, be they specialists in the subject-matter or not, to translate documents submitted by tendering companies.
2. In its capacity as an administrative body within the Chilean "establishment" (aka: the government), the MOP cannot dictate rules that fall outside its sphere of competence. The MOP is responsible for infrastructure (airports, highways, bridges, etc.), not for language usage.
3. Nor can the MOP set rules that it cannot possibly enforce (such as verification of the native language of an anonymous translator living 15 thousand km away from here).
4. Above all, the MOP cannot rule in a restrictive manner on matters that are covered in a liberal manner by existing Chilean law. If they did, no doubt someone would be taking the MOP to court for unconstitutional discrimination.
5. For example, Chilean law uses the term "traducción oficial" (OP’s "official translation") to refer to what in other jurisdictions is known as a "sworn translation". Under Chilean law, the delivery of "official" translations is restricted to translators employed by the Translation Department of the Foreign Ministry (Departamento de Traducciones del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores). The department is concerned essentially with the translation of documents of foreign origin that are to be used in legal proceedings before a Chilean court (marriage certificates, court sentences that have to be executed in Chile, etc.) - or vice-versa- , or for the cross-border accreditation of academic qualifications (university diplomas, etc.). It is unlikely that tender documents, which are essentially of a commercial/technical nature, would fall into any of the categories dealt with via Chile’s "official translation" route. And, AFAIK (and from what I’ve seen in all the documents I have had translated by them), the law does not require that the Ministry’s translator has a good understanding of the source language, nor that he be a specialist in the subject matter. If the only government department authorised to deliver official/sworn translations doesn’t discriminate in the way OP wants, then it seems obvious that the MOP cannot, either.
6. The above is aligned with the practice in numerous other jurisdictions: Brazil, for example where sworn translators are required to work both to and from Portuguese.
7. At the end of the day (as I mentioned previously), the "rules" offer an un-ordered, un-prioritised, list of non-exclusive (nay, "all-inclusive") options, whereby any tendering company can meet the MOP’s requirements regardless of the legal niceties of Chile or of the tendering company’s home country. And if they chose the last option, that of certifying the accuracy of the translation and assuming responsibility for any errors, then that is in any case a requirement regarding the submission of the original documents. Hence, it’s no big deal.
8. If we were to follow OP’s line of thinking, the MOP should also be demanding that the source-language originals of all tender documents must all be written by people who are natives of a country where that language is native. That not only doesn’t happen – it would be utterly impossible to verify. There are plenty of engineers and technologists from Asia, for example, or from Germany or the Nordic countries, whose English-language documents (be they originals or translations) will be used as the basis for making a Spanish translation for use in Chile. Are they to be barred from tendering in Chile, too, just because it says "Chinese", "Korean", "German" or "Swedish" on their birth certificate?
Further disclaimer: I am not in any way connected with the MOP; I have never worked for them, directly or indirectly, and most probably never will.
RL ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule |
|
|
| Locking thread | Aug 11, 2016 |
Hi all,
There are a few posts in this thread which have been removed in accordance with site rules ( http://www.proz.com/rules ). I am about to remove a few more which should not have been left visible, also for not being in line with site rules, and I'll be locking the thread. Thanks for your understanding.
Jared
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Absurd Chilean ruling affecting translators | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
| | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
