Re: Translation of program names

[Danilo Segan <dsegan gmx net>]

Дана четвртак, 30. октобар 2003. 19:48:45 CET, Christian Rose написа:
> 
> Of course there are always some corner cases, but these are at least
> the types I try to classify names in.

Yes, and programmer is unable to know what are those corner cases, so  
it would be wiser to let translators decide.

For instance, "evolution" is translated to Serbian language as  
"evolucija" or "еволуција". The 'transliteration' (as suggested) would  
be "еволушн" or "evolušn", which is insane. Actually, "evolucija" is  
much more similar to "evolution" than the transliteration is.

> So how about translation? I think one important aspect to consider is
> that technical translation (as we do in translating software) is very
> much different from translating literature.

This is where I think you're wrong, especially in case of Gnome  
software. Gnome is made for non-technical folks as well, and that's one  
of the guidelines I have in mind. Btw, I don't know what's so technical  
about names. Cities have names too, but they're not very technical.  
Actually, neither is your name very technical.

And something being technical doesn't mean it must be "dull or boring".

> While literature translators are given awards for being creative,  
> permissive and "free" in their translations, and also amuse or excite  
> people, technical translation is entirely the opposite.
> 
> Technical translators do their job best by staying as close to the
> original as possible in style, even when it means that the  
> translation will be dull or boring in some cases.

No, I don't think the style of original is at all important for  
translation. Perhaps every sentence in English starts with  
"Please, ...", but that form is unneccessary in Serbian. So, I'm  
definitely not going to keep the "style". Yeah, even if passive is used  
originally, I might change it to active, if that's how it's usually  
done in my language. Again, I'll use imperative for buttons and menu  
items, but not for menu names. Style should reflect the language it is  
translated *to*, not the language it is translated from.

> Closeness to the original is key, as bringing the message through  
> with all its details is the most important thing. The information  
> must not be altered or skewed to mean something else or even have the  
> smallest danger of confusing users or being misinterpreted by users.  
> Any other goal is, and should be, far below that one.

I don't see how this is related to the issue at hand. Are you claiming  
that a user unfamiliar with English will be more confused with  
'Spoznaja' than with 'Epiphany'? I certainly doubt that :-)

I think I see your point, but I think your arguments are flawed :-P

If "closeness to the original is key", we might as well not translate  
at all, right? That would make that goal easily achieved.

> 
> This style policy is very much applicable to the translation of  
> names, and the types of names explained above. Since the purpose of  
> the first category (descriptive names) is to be descriptive, and not  
> so much for identification, translating these should be encouraged,  
> since that improves the descriptiveness for users of the other  
> language.
> 
> The primary purpose of the second category however isn't to describe
> the function of an application, but instead be an unique identifier.

Even if this was a primary purpose, I think a user shouldn't be exposed  
to it if she doesn't explicitely request it. As I already mentioned,  
names are "translated" all the time (Magyaroszag, Deutschland), and  
when you say any of Deutschland's names, you're still thinking of that  
one and the same country. Yeah, it's probably in the dictionary too,  
just like any other words (yet, it really is a name). The same  
situation is with city names (at least best known ones), language  
names, rivers, lakes, seas, etc. Perhaps you don't consider software  
'public good' (one of backing ideas of free software), but rather  
'goods for sell'.

Perhaps it would be better to really have program names be 'unique  
identifiers', but it would be better in the same sense as it would be  
better to have just one language in the world. It might be more  
practical, but how many of you do really want that to happen?

> Even though the name may originally be a result of developers (or  
> marketing people) hyping their application by introducing a "cool"  
> name for it, the name usually serves an important purpose later on as  
> being a reference keyword in related documentation and user forums,  
> and on the web in general for information about and support for this  
> application.

This is a valid point, but from a users' stand, I don't think it's  
relevant. The tools should automate it, like the bugzilla fields in . 
desktop files, and it should all work behind the scenes.

> The documentation aspect is very relevant in GNOME, as we have far
> less translations of our documentation than of the applications  
> themselves.
>
> Translating application names of the second category can thus be very
> dangerous if the names in the docs aren't translated, and make the
> docs much less useful or even useless.

The same is true for country names. I don't know why you're not  
suggesting every language to use the same basic name for other  
countries. If it can work there, I don't see how it cannot work here.  
Once the concept of "name should not be translated" is abandoned, users  
will expect to have to translate the name of the program in order to  
read the documentation. Just like I'd have to translate Deutschland to  
Germany, if I was hoping to find out some information about it in  
English.

Actually, I don't think it will be any easier for a user to relate  
'Gnome System Tools' to the translation, whatever that might be. It's  
still an effort to be made. Yes, this would be easier for *translators*  
to translate unambigously, but that's not the goal, if you ask me.

> Also, as much as we'd like it, GNOME is not an isolated island, and  
> so isn't our translations. We need to be consistent with the original
> namings and translations that distributors and packagers use, and
> sources for support, user forums, web sites and the whole lot. Thus,  
> I think anyone that seriously considers translating a name of the  
> second category above should make really sure that they are not  
> actually creating more problems to users than they aim to solve.

Exactly. And if you help your user enjoy the name (because she can at  
least read it), than I don't see a problem. As I already mentioned,  
those who'll need to translate the name are far fewer than those who'll  
never care about it. And 'name translation' is really normal thing,  
it's just that it's not much used.

> To sum my points up:
> 1) Translate descriptive names.
> 2) Do *not* translate branding names.
> 
> Of course there may be exceptions to this, but IMO they should be
> strongly motivated. And so far I haven't heard any motivations that
> have been strong enough.

At the same time, I haven't heard any motivations that are strong  
enough to keep the original names. All the mentioned problems  
(reporting bugs, searching web, etc.) are easily solved by translating  
the name back (did I mention how country names... ;-).

Also, it's really unfortunate that what hackers have built so far is  
supposed to work only in English. I will never accept that. Please  
check the Jargon File, and the fun people had while constructing those  
words.

If I don't get any joy/fun in translating software, I probably wouldn't  
do it. And word games is one of things which makes it fun.


Cheers,
Danilo