What's It All About, Alfie?

In any translation process there are numerous small words, phrases and bits of punctuation that, for one reason or another, come through in the target language still smelling of the source language. These are mostly false friends (chef/szef), and literalisms (sympathetic/sympatyczny), but are also sometimes the result of simple time pressure or ingrained learning. For example, putting an unnecessary comma before ‘that’ in English, because we usually say ‘comma że’ in Polish. This results in grammar, punctuation and other technical problems in the Target Text. Another common source of trouble stems from the fact that Polish lacks the heavy contextualising of English, and often uses more words than are strictly necessary to do the job in English.

Apart from the eternal frustration of microscopic deadlines and clients who neither know nor care (or worse, think that they know better than the language professionals!), the constant, speedy evolution of vocabulary and usage is the other great culprit. Great swathes of language as it is learned in the traditional manner through schools, tutors, books and tapes etc, is out of date almost as soon as it is taught. This leads to the amusing phenomenon of non-natives of a language being able to speak it more clearly and with better understanding than some of its native speakers, because the non-native was taught the language without all the bewildering slang, loan words and learned errors that make up half a language at any given time.

Of course, with the Internet it's pretty easy to keep a tab on your target languages, but as much good information as there is, there's also three times as much crap. Particularly horrifying are the numerous ‘online dictionaries’, most of which should be avoided like the plague. The other side of that coin, though, are the user-defined sites such as the slang dictionaries. Whilst most of them describe the kind of language that would give your mother a heart attack, they can be a useful resource for modern literary translators (although as with any un-moderated user-submitted content, you should be 200% sure of what you’re taking from them).

What I want to do with this blog is describe all the most commonly occurring problems in Polish to English translations, and while not everything will be relevant to you personally, perhaps some of it will be at least helpful (not least because we’ll be looking at a lot of formatting issues common to any ST>EN translation). As I said above in the first post (yay!), we will be drawing on mixed resources, including already well-known items, my own experience of translating and proofreading in the Polish/English language pair, and anything else that comes up day by day.

One final thought for you – some of the items we’ll look at may seem obvious or unnecessary to know – surely some of this stuff is only the proofreader’s concern? But for those occasions when you know your work is going directly to the end reader with no further editing or proofing, or you know the client is a difficult one, then perhaps this will help you nail down every last detail, ‘just in case!’ 

 Lastly, although the obvious intention is to provide a concrete, 100% solid gold explanation of each item, there’s nothing that we can’t change, correct or improve if we feel that it needs doing so. Please do feel free to comment below (just click on the thing that says ‘x comments’), and we’ll bang our heads together (albeit gently if anyone’s hung over ;).

Welcome to the Bad Article!

Greetings traveller, pull up a chair and put your dogs up. Here, have some refreshments and rest a while. Allow me to introduce myself. My name's Jim and I'm an Englishman by birth (shh, don't tell anyone), although I've been living in Poland for the last eight years and I have no intention of leaving.

I work from home as a freelance proofreader and copy editor. I specialise in texts for computer and video games, as well as multimedia and technical documentation, although I’ve also ghost-written books for adults and children alike, and if I could remember even a tenth of what I’ve read, I’d probably be an expert on Polish history to rival Norman Davies. I also work mornings in a translating office in town, checking the PL>EN translations and advising, when requested, on the EN<>PL translating process. Through the office I used to run seminars on this subject too, and the notes and exercises I prepared for them partially form the basis for these blog posts. Mostly though, these blog posts are the result of a lifetime spent writing professionally, and at least ten years of working specifically with Polish translators.

At any rate, that’s pretty much me in a giant, unshaven nutshell. How about you? Please feel free to leave a comment; ask a question, raise an issue, make a point, or even – for bonus points – tell us a joke!

- Jim :-)

Transitional Jurisprudence and ECHR Book

How does the European Court of Human Rights deal with issues of transitional justice? What effect do transitions in European states have on Strasbourg case-law and how does Strasbourg jurisprudence affect transitions from authoritarian rule and protracted conflict to democracy and peace? These are some of the key issues at the core of a collaborative project between dr Michael Hamilton, associate professor connected both to the Central European University in Budapest and the Transitional Justice Institute of Ulster University, and myself. The outcome of the research project is a co-edited book entitled 'Transitional Jurisprudence and the ECHR. Justice, Politics and Rights' which will appear with Cambridge University Press this autumn. It contains a wide range of interconnected chapters on freedom of religion, protection of property, non-discrimination, situations of emergency, and on the interplay of politics on the national level and the ECHR. The book will also include comparative chapters on how the Inter-American and African human rights systems have addressed transitions. All written by experts in their respective fields. For more information on the book's contents, look on SSRN here.

A simple way for publishers to manage access to digital content

Posted by Lee Shirani, director, business product management, Google Commerce

(Cross-posted from the Official Google Blog)

At Humboldt University in Berlin today, Eric Schmidt announced Google One Pass, a service that lets publishers set their own prices and terms for their digital content. With Google One Pass, publishers can maintain direct relationships with their customers and give readers access to digital content across websites and mobile apps.

Readers who purchase from a One Pass publisher can access their content on tablets, smartphones and websites using a single sign-on with an email and password. Importantly, the service helps publishers authenticate existing subscribers so that readers don’t have to re-subscribe in order to access their content on new devices.

With Google One Pass, publishers can customize how and when they charge for content while experimenting with different models to see what works best for them—offering subscriptions, metered access, "freemium" content or even single articles for sale from their websites or mobile apps. The service also lets publishers give existing print subscribers free (or discounted) access to digital content. We take care of the rest, including payments technology handled via Google Checkout.

Our goal is to provide an open and flexible platform that furthers our commitment to support publishers, journalism and access to quality content. Like First Click Free, Fast Flip and Living Stories, this is another initiative developed to enable publishers to promote and distribute digital content.

German publishers Axel Springer AG, Focus Online (Tomorrow Focus) and Stern.de joined Eric at Humboldt University today as some of our first Google One Pass partners. Other publishers already signed up include Media General, NouvelObs, Bonnier’s Popular Science, Prisa and Rust Communications.

Google One Pass is currently available for publishers in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. If you’re a publisher in one of these countries and want to learn more, please reach out to the Google One Pass team or submit your information on our website. For interested publishers in other countries, we’d love to hear from you too as we plan to expand to other countries in the coming months.

Two New Papers on ECHR on SSRN

In the last few weeks two new papers relating to the European Convention on Human Rights have been posted on the Social Science research Network (SSRN). Wouter P. J. Wils, connected both to the European Commission and to King's College London, has posted 'EU Antitrust Enforcement Powers and Procedural Rights and Guarantees: The Interplay Between EU Law, National Law, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights'. This is the abstract:

This paper deals with the powers of the European Commission and the competition authorities of the EU Member States to enforce Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, and with the procedural rights and guarantees that circumscribe or limit these powers. It focuses in particular on the interplay between the different sources of law governing these matters: EU and national legislation, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the case-law of the EU Courts and the European Court of Human Rights.

Juan J. Garcia-Blesa of the American University in Bosnia and Herzegovina
has posted 'Transitional Exceptions to the Rule of Law in International Administrations: The Case of the OHR in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Right to Due Process'. This is the abstract:

Promotion and even direct implementation of rule of law in conflict and post-conflict societies, as defined by the UN Secretary-General in 2004-2006, have actually become core activities of the United Nations during the last decades. These tasks are occasionally entrusted to international administrations that exercise a number of legal competences in the field embodied in their international mandates. The Office of the High Representative in Bosnia has been mandated to guarantee that full compliance with the Dayton Peace Agreement is achieved, including respect for the essential elements of rule of law in this society, as a key condition for long-lasting peace. However, some of the competences of the OHR seem to go far beyond the most basic idea of rule of law. This is the case of the power to vet, dismiss and ban public officials from public life at the OHR’s discretion, in permanent and increasing tension with the due process requirements. This anomaly can be explained by the need for some transitional exceptions to the rule of law in conflict and post-conflict societies. Furthermore, suspensions are provided for in every international human rights system on the grounds of exceptional emergency situations (e.g., Articles 4 ICCPR and 15 ECHR). Notwithstanding, there seems to be a common limitation to exceptions in these human rights protection systems that require them to be temporary. After thirteen years of exceptional rule in Bosnia, could this be the time for revision? Any tentative answer would need a thorough evaluation of the political situation in Bosnia. This paper only attempts to offer some reflections on possible legal scenarios.

Alarming Rise in Requests for Interim Measures

The number of applications might be on the rise in Strasbourg, but the number of requests for interim measures has seen an even sharper increase: a rise of 4000 % in the last four years. If this were a company, the shareholders would be jubilant, but alas this rise reflects growing problems rather than profits. The majority of the requests relate to asylum and immigration matters. The steep rise prompted the Court to issue a statement addressed at states, applicants and lawyers. The statement emphasizes that the Court is not an appeals tribunal for asylum and immigration issues. This is the whole statement:

Governments, applicants and their lawyers urged to co-operate fully with European Court, following “alarming rise” in requests to suspend deportation

European Governments, applicants to the European Court of Human Rights and their lawyers are today being urged to improve co-operation with the Court, regarding requests to suspend deportation, extradition or expulsion, following a 4,000% increase in the number of such requests coming to the Court.

The Court’s President Jean-Paul Costa has issued the statement in the light of the “alarming rise” in the number of these requests (1) for interim measures, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to the “already over-burdened Court”. Under this rule the Court can indicate to the Government concerned any measures (such as suspending deportation) which it considers should be taken while it is examining a case.

Mr Costa reminds Governments, applicants and their lawyers of the Court’s proper but limited role in immigration matters, emphasising their respective responsibilities to "co-operate fully" with the Court. He also stresses that the Court is not an immigration appeals tribunal.

The statement reads as follows: “Between 2006 and 2010 the Court saw an increase of over 4,000 % in the number of requests it received for interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. In 2006 the Court received 112 requests. That figure had increased to 4,786 for 2010.

In particular, between October 2010 and January 2011, the Court received around 2,500 requests for interim measures concerning return to one particular State, including 1,930 such requests against Sweden. The vast majority of those applications were incomplete, with insufficient information and documentation to permit the Court to make any proper assessment as to the risks attendant on return. In addition, in 2010, more than 2000 requests were made in respect of the United Kingdom, 400 against the Netherlands and more than 300 against France.

When there is such a large in-flow of applications, it is often not possible for the Court to contact applicants individually to ask for missing documents. Because of a lack of information about proposed dates of return, it is difficult for the Court to make a proper assessment of which applications should be given priority.

More importantly, there is a risk that the small minority of applicants who do face a genuine threat to life and limb in the country of destination will not have their cases examined in time to prevent removal.

Moreover, because of the need to process these applications as a matter of urgency, and given the limited human resources available, the Court and its Registry may be hindered in the performance of their case-processing duties under the European Convention on Human Rights.

It must be underlined that, according to its case-law and practice, the Court will only request a Member State not to deport, extradite or expel a person where, having reviewed all the relevant information, it considers that he or she faces a real risk of serious, irreversible harm if removed. An interim measure requested in this way has binding legal effect on the State concerned.

However, the Court is not an appeal tribunal from the asylum and immigration tribunals of Europe, any more than it is a court of criminal appeal in respect of criminal convictions. Where national immigration and asylum procedures carry out their own proper assessment of risk and are seen to operate fairly and with respect for human rights, the Court should only be required to intervene in truly exceptional cases.

For the Court to be able effectively to perform its proper role in this area both Governments and applicants must co-operate fully with the Court.

In particular it is essential that:

▪ applicants and their representatives respect the Practice Direction on Requests for Interim Measures. In particular, requests for interim measures should be individuated, fully reasoned, be sent with all relevant documentation including the decisions of the national authorities and courts, and be sent in good time before the expected date of removal. The widespread distribution of application forms to potential applicants is not and should not be seen as a substitute for proper legal representation in compliance with these conditions. It must be emphasised that failure to comply with the conditions set out in the Practice Direction may lead to such cases not being accepted for examination by the Court.

▪ Member States provide national remedies with suspensive effect which operate effectively and fairly, in accordance with the Court’s case-law and provide a proper and timely examination of the issue of risk. Where a lead case concerning the safety of return to a particular country of origin is pending before the national courts or the Court of Human Rights, removals to that country should be suspended. Where the Court requests a stay on removal under Rule 39, that request must be complied with.

The practice direction for lawyers can be found here (as Appendix 2)

Credit where credit is due

Posted by Eric Weigle, Software Engineer, and Abe Epton, Publisher Technical Specialist

News publishers and readers both benefit when journalists get proper credit for their work. That can be difficult, with news spreading so quickly and many websites syndicating articles to others. That’s why we’re experimenting with two new metatags for Google News: syndication-source and original-source. Each of these metatags addresses a different scenario, but for both the aim is to allow publishers to take credit for their work and give credit to other journalists. Here’s how to use these metatags:

• syndication-source indicates the preferred URL for a syndicated article. If two versions of an article are exactly the same, or only very slightly modified, we're asking publishers to use syndication-source to point us to the one they would like Google News to use. For example, if Publisher X syndicates stories to Publisher Y, both should put the following metatag on those articles:
  <meta name="syndication-source" content="http://www.publisherX.com/wire_story_1.html">
  


• original-source indicates the URL of the first article to report on a story. We encourage publishers to use this metatag to give credit to the source that broke the story. We recognize that this can sometimes be tough to determine. But the intent of this tag is to reward hard work and journalistic enterprise. For example, to credit the publication that broke a story you could use a metatag like this:
  <meta name="original-source" content="http://www.example.com/burglary_at_watergate.html">

In both cases, it's perfectly valid for a metatag to point to the current page URL. It's also fine for there to be multiple original-source metatags on one page, to indicate a variety of original reporting leading up to the current article. If you’re not sure of the exact URL to provide in either case, just use the domain of the site that should be credited.

Although these metatags are already in use by our systems, you may not notice their impact right away. We'll need some time to observe their use "in the wild" before we can make the best use of them. But we're hopeful that this approach will help determine original authorship, and we encourage you to take advantage of them now.

To learn more about how these metatags work, and how you can implement them for your site, visit our Help Center article.

Update 2/11/11:

We've had a lot of interest in these meta tags, particularly in how the syndication-source tag relates to rel=canonical. After evaluating this feedback, we’ve updated our system to use rel=canonical instead of syndication-source, if both are specified.

If you know the full URL, rel=canonical is preferred, and you need not specify syndication-source.

If you know a partial URL, or just the domain name, continue using syndication-source.

We've also had people ask "why metatag instead of linktag"? We actually support both forms for the tag, and you can use either. However, we believe the linktag form is more in line with the spirit of the standard, and encourage new users to implement the linktag form rather than the metatag form we originally proposed.