Faulty logic

[Sarah Carroll <sarahc -at- INDIGO -dot- IE>]

Max,
Your question was why should translators
be paid per word when writers aren't. That's
where the faulty logic applied.

At 13:53 18/06/98 +0200, Max Wyss wrote:
>I would be glad if my logic were faulty. But then, why do threads popping
>up in FLEFO on Compuserve on how to handle clients who do ask for a
>reduction when the translated text is shorter after editing ... Or all
>those discussions about different word count methods. If source word count
>would apply, these discussions would not happen, wouldn't they?

It is common practise in the translation/localisation
business to cost a translation on the number
of source words. As for discussions about different
word count methods (are you listening John Pilla?)
these apply across the board -- clients and translators
frequently come up with differing totals for word
counts for the same material, depending on the
method being used. The source words are what are
usually being counted. Word counting is just about
always done before translation begins so that the
project can be scoped and costed. I've never actually
come across a client who word counted after translation
-- I would imagine that one that went to such lengths
was a rather unsatisfied and unhappy camper.

Max also wrote:
>It could be different in the MT world, however.

Yes, in the real world, where language technology
tools are used, life is a little bit different. LT tools (in
the main) provide a stable word counting environment,
for one thing. So both client and translator can work
from the same blueprint. Clients don't have to
pay for two or more translations of the same phrase
and translators can be more consistent in their
use of phraseology. But that's another days battle...

Best
Sarah
sarahc -at- indigo -dot- ie