Re: [Audacity-translation] Are the translator's dreams in closed source?

[Kevin B. U. <unh...@gm...>]

2008/5/17, Tino Meinen <tin...@gm...>:
> Op vrijdag 16-05-2008 om 21:43 uur [tijdzone -0300], schreef Cleber
>  Tavano:
>
> > I would only add extremely-technical terms like pitch, range, sample
>  > rate, threshold, endianess... So that people that has the technical
>  > knowledge but don't want to get directly involved  with the
>  > translation will  be able to contribute easily.
>
>
> The danger of letting people with technical knowledge translate
>  technical terms is that they usually work with specialized software,
>  often in the English language. They would argue that terms like 'pitch'
>  and 'range' should not be translated, because these are 'technical
>  terms'.

But sometimes it helps having some way of communicating with people
with technical knowledge; certain terms (eg. in Norwegian) _do_ have
specific translations that are hard to find in regular dictionaries,
they might not look very much like the English terms, but are in
common use as translations among those who work with audio. (One just
has to not be swayed by the people who want to keep every technical
term in English.)

Also, I don't think we as translators should be so sure that our
non-technical strings are translated as well as they could be
translated; why not let every string be open to suggestions for
improvement?


--
Kevin Brubeck Unhammer