@danixdefcon5 said:
In the context of translations, I find it funny when translators insist on translating technical acronyms. Things like "ISDN", "FTP", "TCP/IP" and "DSL" shouldn't really be changed, and while some of these are respected, some aren't.
I found it amusing to read an article some time ago on some Spain-based magazine. I was wondering what that fancy-looking RDSI line was all about. It wasn't until I was halfway through that article that I found that RDSI stands for "Red Digital de Servicios Integrados" (Integrated Services Digital Network). I'm pretty sure there will be a fair amount of IT workers in Spain that will give a blank face when told about ISDN. I've seen other examples, but I don't remember them. Hey, at least "PPP" is immune from acronym translation!
Terms that must remain untranslated usually refer to a name. Transfer Control Protocol names precisely a standard that is known by its name; while light-emitting diodes, for instance, refers to a generic class of materials that can emit light, as their name states.
While I'd understand anyone saying "une LED" ("a LED" in French), I'd prefer them to call it a DEL (diode électroluminescente), especially in an official document. Not translating a term that has a perfect equivalent just shows your translantor's a lazy bastard.
I'm perfectly fine with keeping terms for names of specific conventions/norms/standards. In fact, my eyes bleed whenever I see pseudocode written in French, with "si" instead of "if" and "tant que" instead of "while", because it's a convention that programming languages have English terms. It's also common knowledge that every time someone tries to translate something like HTTP, God kills a kitten. But seriously, there are things you should translate, too.
But to know if you're better to translate it or not, you have to know what it means first. Right?