Las mayúsculas y los acentos.

Queridos colegas,

El otro día cuando estaba interpretando en una conferencia en la que el ponente utilizó diapositivas como parte de su presentación, me di cuenta que los días de la semana estaban escritos con mayúscula.  Esta no es la primera vez que me toca interpretar en conferencias donde las diapositivas tienen faltas de ortografía garrafales. He visto mayúsculas donde no debe haberlas, y he notado la falta de acentos donde la palabra se acentúa.

Los días de la semana, los meses y las estaciones del año se escriben con minúscula inicial, salvo que se empleen como nombres propios, fechas patrias o festividades. Por ejemplo: “La reunión se llevará a cabo en la avenida 20 de Noviembre”; “Bienvenidos a la Fiesta de Otoño”; “No se trabaja el Viernes Santo.”

Las mayúsculas siempre deben acentuarse en los casos que corresponda. Antes no se acentuaban por una cuestión de imprenta, pero el acento no es opcional. Además, también deben acentuarse si una frase está escrita por completo en mayúscula. Ejemplos: “África”; “Ándale”; “LOS LUNES LOS NIÑOS COMEN GRATIS.”

Los gentilicios siempre van con minúscula inicial, salvo que se usen como apodo. Por ejemplo: “Mi jefe es guatemalteco”; “Me voy a casar con una mexicana.” Y como apodo: “A Juan lo mató el Alemán.”

Finalmente, los signos del zodíaco (o zodiaco) y los días festivos se escriben con mayúscula inicial. Por ejemplo: “Mi hija es Aries y yo soy Capricornio”; “La Noche Buena voy a cocinar y el Día de Gracias vamos a ir a casa de Laura.”

Algunos ponentes corrigen estos errores cuando se les explica la falta de ortografía, pero en ocasiones no lo hacen y hasta se molestan. Me gustaría ver si ustedes han encontrado este problema, y de ser así, como lo han resuelto.

Cuando el cliente no paga ¿Qué hacer para no trabajar gratis?

Queridos colegas,

Hace unos días platicaba con una colega relativamente nueva en la profesión. Ella me preguntaba si había alguna manera de divulgar los nombres de aquellos clientes que no pagan por el servicio prestado por el intérprete.  Por supuesto que eso me parece justo y legítimo, siempre que se haga cuidadosamente para no incurrir en responsabilidad jurídica. Debemos compartir este tipo de información con nuestros colegas para evitar que otros “caigan en las garras” de uno de los clientes en la “lista negra.”  Sin embargo, me parece que es mejor evitar (hasta donde se pueda) una situación en la que el intérprete que ya ha prestado sus servicios profesionales salga perdiendo al no ser remunerado.

Para poder cobrar mis honorarios yo sigo ciertos pasos que me parecen lógicos: En primer lugar distingo entre clientes ya establecidos y nuevos. A mis clientes de hace años les trabajo cuando me lo piden ya que no tengo que preocuparme de cuándo me van a pagar ni de si mis honorarios les van a parecer elevados.  Sin embargo, cuando se trata de clientes nuevos, o “casi” nuevos, mi política es diferente. Cuando sé que se trata de un cliente que solo va a utilizar mis servicios una vez, pido que se me pague por adelantado, o que se me dé al menos un anticipo que cubra el tiempo mínimo que voy a estar dedicando a ese trabajo (cierto número mínimo de horas, o cierto número mínimo de días si hay que viajar por ejemplo) Si se trata de un cliente que podría convertirse en algo regular, entonces les envío una carta-convenio detallando las obligaciones básicas de las partes: servicios que voy a prestar y honorarios que ellos van a pagarme.  Si el trabajo va a ser de varios días, les pido un anticipo que cubra los gastos de equipo, viáticos, y demás que yo tengo que desembolsar, y requiero de su firma en el documento para poder de esa manera “apartarles” las fechas del trabajo.

Mi carta detalla la forma de pago (un solo pago, dos pagos, cheque, tarjeta de crédito, etc.) la manera de solicitar el pago (mi manera predilecta es por factura enviada electrónicamente) y el plazo que tiene el cliente para hacer el pago total o los pagos parciales (30 días a partir de la fecha en que recibió la factura por ejemplo) Asimismo, esa carta detalla las penas en que incurre el cliente en caso de un pago vencido (intereses moratorios después de 30 y 60 días) y la mención de que cuando no se haya hecho el pago en 90 días, la factura saldrá a cobro con una agencia de cobranzas, y que los gastos de cobranza (judiciales y de abogado) correrán por cuenta del cliente.

Este sistema me ha funcionado en prácticamente todas las ocasiones en que me he topado con un cliente moroso.  Además, al determinar el monto de un anticipo, me aseguro que este me permita por lo menos no perder dinero, o sea, salir a mano.  Me gustaría conocer otras estrategias seguidas por ustedes.

When the client’s conduct is insulting. How much of it do you have to take?

Dear Colleagues,

I was having dinner with a colleague several weeks ago, and we were talking about a situation that had recently happened to her that I know happens to many of us.  One day she was contacted by a State District Attorney’s  office from one of the states in the U.S.  They asked her to help with her expertise as a linguist and interpreter during a criminal trial.  Because the trial was taking place in a different state from where she lived, it was agreed that the DA’s office would mail her a video of a police interview that apparently had been poorly interpreted.  My colleague agreed, the conversation ended, and she hung up.

As the weeks went by, she did not hear from them and she got busy with other work.  Finally, one day out of the blue she got an e-mail telling her that the video had been mailed and she should receive it in a couple of days.  Again, after a waiting period that was quite lengthier than two days, the video arrived. My colleague opened the envelope and there was a video with no enclosure letter or any way to know what she was expected to do.  She contacted this DA’s office and as a result she got an e-mail telling her what the interpreter on the video had done wrong.  As soon as my colleague realized who the interpreter was, she knew the rendition would be less than satisfactory as this person has a “reputation” that transcends borders.  However, everything that the Spanish- speaking paralegal at the DA’s office pointed out as serious mistakes seemed irrelevant in my colleague’s expert opinion.

Because of these irregularities she decided to e-mail the assistant DA to ask him what it was that they wanted her to do and to remind them of her fee.  In other words, she did not want them to spend money for something that was probably unnecessary.  The attorney answered back asking her to only listen to the relevant parts, and to listen only once to avoid a “hefty” bill. He then informed her that they wanted her to testify as an interpreter, not an expert, and that for this reason they believed that it was not necessary to pay her as an expert.  Moreover, to add insult to injury, the attorney told her that they would subpoena her so that she had to appear in court at her own expense, this way avoiding payment of travel expenses.

Obviously, after taking a deep breath, and reacting in a way more civilized way than I would, she “suggested” they should look for another person within their state who would be willing to do that. She politely explained that she would not even watch the video, as this would generate “unnecessary expenses” to the DA’s office, and she sent them off, hopefully forever.  Does the story sound familiar to many of you?  It amazes me how such a specialized taskforce as the District Attorney’s office can be so ignorant about interpretation.  The story reminded me of the reasons why I tend to stay away from court cases at the state level, as my patience is almost exhausted after all these years. I would like to hear what you have to say about this situation, and how you have handled similar scenarios when they have happened to you.

Trabajo en equipo: ¿Corregir es ofender?

Queridos Colegas,

Por haberlo pedido varios colegas, aquí vuelvo a incluir este tema que ya hemos abordado anteriormente.

Hace un par de meses hablábamos de aquellas ocasiones en que durante una interpretación no nos llega una palabra conocida y estamos trabajando solos.  Cuando el trabajo es en equipo, especialmente en cabina o durante un juicio, hay quienes pasan una nota al compañero para que este ayude con la palabra, ya sea diciéndola o buscándola en un diccionario; y hay quienes son más afortunados todavía y reciben el apoyo del compañero de equipo aún sin pedirlo.

A mí me parece que el papel del segundo intérprete en cabina, el intérprete de apoyo, es el estar alerta en todo momento y proporcionar estas palabras al intérprete principal lo más pronto posible, sin embargo, algunos colegas piensan que el tema es muy delicado, especialmente si se trata de palabras conocidas, y por temor a ofender a la colega, prefieren disimular que no escucharon el error o la omisión.

También hay quien sostiene que el segundo intérprete necesita descansar cuando no está interpretando, y que ese tiempo es exclusivamente para recuperarse y no para estar apoyando al principal.  ¿Qué piensan ustedes?

Obscenity while Interpreting a Live Broadcast.

Dear Colleagues,

During the past few weeks we have watched many movie award shows and political debates on American TV. Last week I shared my thoughts on interpreting a live political event on TV.  Today I want to talk about another very important element of live media interpretation: The live broadcast “5-second delay” factor that we have in the United States because of the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction incident during a Super Bowl half time show several years ago.

As I watched the Golden Globes from my home, and I saw Meryl Streep  fumble around looking for her eyeglasses to read her acceptance speech after being voted best female actor, I noticed,  like all of you, that she said something that we did not hear but “saw” regarding her frustration about forgetting her glasses.  Although I was watching the broadcast in English, I immediately thought of my colleagues who at that precise time were interpreting the broadcast of the ceremony to the non-English speaking world.

There is a principle in conference interpreting about avoiding the interpretation of all that is irrelevant and all that makes the speaker look bad and does not contribute anything to the listener.   Of course, there are two possible scenarios where the interpreter may need to make a judgment call:  On the first one, the interpreter has a live speech, as many of our colleagues from other countries did during the Streep incident, and a second reality, the one that faced those who were interpreting from the American signal that had the 5-second delay.  The question is: As the working interpreter in this situation, would you skip the “expletives” and just interpret the rest of what Ms. Streep said when she accepted her award?  I would skip it regardless of the way I am getting the feed of the speech. If it is live without any delay I would just interpret everything else, and if I had to deal with the delay, as we often do when we work in the States, I would pace myself so that the listener would not  even realize that there was a 5-second delay on the original broadcast.  Of course, there are those who say that you should interpret everything, and at least use “softer” expressions to convey the flavor of what is happening.  Please tell us what you would do as the broadcast interpreter of one of these events.

Evaluation Results of My Presentation during ATA’s 52nd. Conference in Boston.

Dear Colleagues,

A few days ago I received the evaluations by those of you who attended my presentation on Translating Extradition Requests between Mexico and the U.S. during ATA’s Annual Conference last October in Boston.

I want to thank you for your attendance and participation, and I want to express my gratitude for taking the time to provide this feedback so constructive and necessary to all of us who have a passion for teaching.  I appreciate all of your kind comments, and I have decided to share them with you in this blog:

S-2.  Tony A. Rosado. Translating Extradition Requests between Mexico and the U.S.

Was this session’s content useful?
Yes: 40
No: 1
No Answer:

Did the speaker(s) present the material effectively?
Yes: 40
No: 1
No Answer:

Did the speaker(s) demonstrate knowledge of the subject?
Yes: 43
No:
No Answer:

Would you attend another session from this speaker?
Yes: 43
No:
No Answer:

Would you recommend this session to a colleague?
Yes: 38
No: 1
No Answer: 4

Overall, this session was:
Excellent: 33
Good: 7
Fair: 1
Poor:
No Answer: 2

Comments:
Tony was Excellent! His Spanish in so crisp and clear and beautiful and he is
so knowledgeable.; Too much time spent on history and not enough on practical
vocabulary.; Had inexact in his historical facts need more MD; Extremely informative,
excellent; Needed more time; Wonderful!; I would sign up for a workshop on this
subject!; Fantastic! very useful.; The best presentation!; Very knowledge.; Maybe
he should not dwell so much on history & focus on the examples of good/bad transnationals,
which he had to end of the presentation.; Super informative and fun!; Not only
factual but very entertaining great for court interpretation.; Clear, diver,
very interesting!; Very entertaining would love more sessions in the future comparity
law in Mass US.; Very Good; Great speaker with tons of info. Wish he had more
time!; Excellent from all points of view.; Loved the topic, very interesting,
funny, opened my eyes about the problems.

Thank you all for your answers. I hope to see you soon at another workshop.

Traducciones atroces en un aeropuerto de la ciudad más importante del mundo.

Por Tony Rosado.

Queridos colegas,

Mi trabajo me lleva a prácticamente todos los rincones del mundo y desde luego esto quiere decir que hay que pasar por los aeropuertos de la ciudad de Nueva York constantemente.  Fue precisamente durante uno de estos viajes que al aterrizar en el aeropuerto de La Guardia, después de un vuelo desde California y mientras esperaba a que otros colegas bajaran del avión para irnos juntos al hotel, que puse atención a lo que realmente aparece escrito en los letreros oficiales del aeropuerto.   Ahí me enteré que “Baggage Claim” quiere decir “Reclamación de equipajes,”  “ReBooking Center” se traduce como “Acerca de reservación” (Por lo menos con acento en “reservación”) y “To Concourse C” se dice: “A concurso.”

 

No tengo idea de quién o quiénes habrán traducido esos letreros, pero quiero pensar que fueron traductores aficionados a quienes se les ofreció el trabajo para ahorrar dinero.  No es la primera vez que encuentro este tipo de traducciones y estoy seguro que todos ustedes han visto este tipo de barrabasadas en sus ciudades, lugares de trabajo, y en sus aeropuertos. Recuerdo un letrero en una cárcel de Colorado que leía: “Si tiene alguna queja dígale al diputado”  (If you have a complaint talk to a deputy) otro en el ayuntamiento de un pueblito que leía: “Departamento de Aguas” (Liquor License Department) y en un aeropuerto en California vi una pantalla con mensajes en la que se podía leer en inglés y luego en español: “Mr. Sánchez you are needed downstairs” “Quieren al Sr. Sánchez debajo de la escalera.”

 

Sin embargo, lo que me impactó en esta ocasión fue la ubicación de estas atrocidades, uno de los aeropuertos de la ciudad más importante del mundo, la capital del comercio internacional, la sede de la ONU.  La próxima vez que me encuentre en uno de los aeropuertos de la ciudad de Nueva York, o de alguna otra capital del mundo, me voy a fijar para ver si este problema es endémico o si se trató (como yo espero) de una aberración que se dio únicamente una vez. Les pido me ayuden en esta investigación y les invito a compartir otras traducciones nefastas que hayan encontrado durante su vida.  Quizá hasta podamos meterlas a un “Concourse C” que diga…a un concurso.

Interpreting a Live Broadcast.

Dear Colleagues,

During the past few weeks we have watched many movie award shows on TV. We have also been bombarded with political debates and town hall meetings. All of these events have been on live TV, and many of them have been simultaneously interpreted into Spanish and some other languages.  As I was watching if my favorite movies and actors won anything, I remembered the times when I have simultaneously interpreted some of these events.  Immediately, two things came to mind; the enormity of interpreting the broadcast of a presidential debate, and the live broadcast “5-second delay” factor that we have in the United States because of the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction during a Super Bowl half time show several years ago.  I will deal with the latter issue sometime in the future. For now I would like to talk about the former subject.

Interpreting political debates requires many skills that are not always necessary when we work doing other interpretation.  The candidates deal with questions on very different subjects, and their answers are somewhat spontaneous and sometimes unresponsive.  The interpreter needs to be ready for this type of work.  Reading about the issues, learning about the candidates’ background, views, and platform are needed parts of the interpreter’s preparation.  Besides political interpreting, a debate is also a media interpreting service.  As a media interpreter, you are required to work with technicians and radio or TV equipment, and you have to work with an awareness that many people are going to listen to your rendition, and that everything you say will be recorded and replayed over and over again.

I remember being at Mile-high Stadium in Denver, Colorado during the Democratic National Convention  interpreting President Obama’s acceptance speech live.  I remember the commotion, the crowd of “famous” politicians and broadcasters coming and going all over the broadcast center; and I remember the moment I stopped to think of what I was about to do: Interpret the nomination acceptance speech of the first African=American candidate from a major political party who had a very good chance of becoming President of the United States.    All of a sudden it hit me: There will be millions listening to my rendition, it will be broadcasted and replayed by Spanish language news organizations all over the world.  Wow!  Then, as I was getting a little uneasy about the historic significance of the task, I remembered something a dear colleague once told me about broadcast interpreting: Your rendition is to the microphone on the table in front of you. It is only you in that booth. I regained my confidence and composure and did the job.  I know that interpreting for a big crowd, or interpreting an important event, not only for a broadcast, but in the courtroom or a conference, can be very stressful and intimidating.  Please share with the rest of us your stories and how you overcame the pressure that goes with this type of interpreting.