Dear fellow list members,
Svrbi' mne jazyk (`my tongue is itching' - how is this in English?), so I better
[Michael Grant says:]
> They've gone down quite a bit--most of the leading packages (at least
> the "individual" versions) are well below $1000 now, and are no
> longer out of reach for translators with a "western" clientele. I'm
> told they pay for themselves pretty quickly if you do certain kinds
> of repetitive text (which you receive in the form of electronic
> files, not hard copy or fax).
I agree. The other thing is that the translation should be in the same format as
[Otto Pacholik says:]
> > BTW: is
> > there anyone on the list who has worked with a CAT system?
> Yes, there is. I have been working with DejaVu for some 3 years and I can
> confirm I have earned a lot of money, thanks to this tool. I have also
> experience with Trados and IBM TM.
Some time ago I persuaded my wife - who is the professional translator from the
two of us - to make the investment and there is no reason to regret it. I can
only second Otto's experience. The longer you use it, the better resources you
have and the better chance that the input at least partially matches something
which has been translated already. Of course, at least at the start you should
feed in aligned parallel texts and glossaries.
In my opinion, the best thing about those tools is that you are no longer
frustrated by trying in vain to remember/find how you translated this some time
ago. Also, some people say that translators and agencies will soon be routinely
exchanging not only glossaries, but also databases of translations. However,
some translation agencies may try to use such tools for sending their
translators only `squeezed out' texts - without parts present in previous
translations and even without `internal repetitions'. But this is another story.
We were considering Trados Workbench and Atril DejaVu. The former is more widely
used and was cheaper with more intuitive interface for those accustomed to MS
Word, the latter has better customer support, is better in dealing with DTP
formats and offers more functions - like assembling translation of a sentence
from portions found at different places in the database. The latter won.
[Michael Grant says further:]
> Still haven't used one myself, unless you count WordFisher, but since
> there basically aren't any for the Macintosh, I'm thinking of
> eventually creating my own for the Mac market.
Michael, that's a very good idea. There are a number DTP formats around and lots
of DTP stuff done on the Mac, and often these types of documents are good
candidates for CAT: the translator can receive a graphical image of the original
file (a pdf file) and seperately the text to be translated. No need to own a
range of costly licenses for the DTP software and no need to learn to handle
them. And the Mac<->PC conversion tends to be a tricky business. However, it
would be nice if a Mac user could share a TM database with a PC user.
Sorry about this lengthy contribution, it's my favourite topic...
Institute of Theoretical and Computational Linguistics
Faculty of Philosophy, Charles University, Prague
address: UTKL FF UK, Celetna 13, CZ 110 00 Praha 1, Czech Republic
tel.: +420-2-24491858, e-mail: alexandr.rosen@...