Help with Canadian French?

[Geoff Hart <Geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>]

Maggie Secara is <<...going over our installation guide as it
has come back from the translators. This French version is
presumably localized for... the Canadian French market... I'm
trying not to be annoyed that they seem to have not just
translated but substantially re-written (I'm sure they'd say
corrected) my text.>>

Speaking as a French translator working in Montreal, one
thing you soon learn about translation is that you're no better
than a duffer if you only translate the literal meanings. I don't
mean that you can't just do a word for word translation, which
is patently ridiculous; I mean that the whole way of getting at
the same concept can be radically different in two languages,
even two that are genetically related, like English and French.
(There are some excellent case stories that illustrate this in
Volume 46, #2, of _Technical Communication_. In particular,
see the one on communication in South America; it's heavy
sledding, but you'll learn a lot if you persevere.) The true test
of a nonliterary translation is whether it gets your readers
where you want them to go. If it's a literary translation, of
course, there are other things such as voice, style, and tone
that you want to try to preserve too, but that's not the case
here.

<<...most of my clean, clear active voice text has suddenly
reappeared as overwhelmingly passive... is this just a
convention of software documentation in Canadian
French?>>

To be honest, I can't say; I simply don't read any French
software documentation. What I can tell you is that passive
voice is very common in Canadian French; rather than saying
"we do this" (nous faisons quelque chose), the wording would
effectively be "it is done" (on fait quelque chose), with the
actor left implicit. On the other hand, this is idiomatic French,
not technical French; the French aerospace industry, as the
only example I'm familiar with, is developing guidelines on
writing to improve reader and translator efficiency called
"rational French", which are the equivalent of the industry's
simplified English. They've made clear recommendations to
avoid passive voice and identify the actor wherever possible.
So this suggests to me that at least one group of French
experts, upon whose work a great many lives depend,
recognize the value of active voice. So, to the bottom line:

<<Is this what those users expect? Or is our Montreal office
just not with-it in terms of technical communications.>>

Maybe a little of both? The only good answer to your
question would be to talk to them and find out what audience
analysis led them to this decision. If they have no basis for
their decision other than idiom, then you should ask them if
they're aware of the "rational French" endeavor and have
considered incorporating those guidelines in their own
writing. One caution: don't try to give them the impression
that you're trying to push the "Academie Francaise" down
their throats; Quebecers tend to get their backs up over such
things, and quite properly so. Explain the goals of "rational
French" in terms of helping the reader, not imposing foreign
linguistic standards.

<<Here's what I said in English:
1. From the Start menu, choose Run. The Run dialog box
appears. 2. In the text box, type regedit then click OK.
Here's the same thing, as translated by our folks in Montreal:
 1. Demarrez l'edition du registre et tapez Regedit dans la
fenetre de Demarrage situee dans le menu principal de
Windows.>>

I can't comment on the specific French names (oddly enough,
though we're about 50% French at work, nobody seems to
have a French version of Windows, so I can't check!).
However, there are two obvious problems I see. First, you
can't start the registry editor and then type Regedit, so this
text at least is backwards. Second, and a bit more abstractly,
cognitive psych isn't so strongly influenced by culture that it's
efficient to place the context after the command. I'd discuss
word ordering with them; I suspect they're simply following
an old variant of technical writing style that more or less
states the action first, and provides the context (here, where to
look for the menu choice) afterwards for those who need it. I
imagine the logic was that experts wouldn't need the context,
so why make them read it?

<<I suppose I have no business trying to copyedit in a
language I'm not fluent in, but I'm stuck with the task.>>

First, let's clarify the terminology here: you're _not_
copyediting. Copyediting would involve questioning whether
their grammar, spelling, and suchlike were good. You're
performing substantive editing (focusing on meaning,
sequence, content, logic, and structure), and by the looks of
it, your French is good enough to have picked up on a
problem. One advantage you have that they lack is that you
have a greater distance from the text, and that's part of what
makes a good substantive editor: it lets you see things they're
too close to see.

Final thoughts: Work with them to figure out why they're
doing what they're doing. Before joining STC and beginning
a long journey of education, I used to do a lot of things
simply because I'd seen them done that way by others.
They're probably in the same boat. You may be able to gently
guide them along towards more modern practices if you can
pique their curiosity, show them other techwhirlers working
that way in French, and gently lead them along the "right"
path. You probably won't get anywhere by making this into a
confrontation, particularly if you're seen as a foreign anglo
trying to tell them how to write their own language. A tricky
situation.

--Geoff Hart @8^{)}     Pointe-Claire, Quebec
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca

"The text's out of joint, oh cursed spite/that ever I was born to set it
right."--Prince Hamlet, early Danish editor

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=