There seems to be lots of mistakes in the transcription for this lesson … some examples:
at around 3mins30secs, Tamaki is written to say: ・・・発音に注意して話すように気を使っています。but that should be … 気を付けっています
and a few seconds later it is written she says: ・・・とにかく、言いたいことを言わないと思って but there should be another と making that ・・・とにかく、言いたいことを言わないとと思って.
Also, I don’t think the right kanji for わかる is used around 4:42 … it’s written as 解かる. Is that right? Not 分かる?
Anyway, there’s probably more I haven’t noticed yet. But these have confused me … whether this is important in the total scheme of things, perhaps not. But it’s a shame to see.
What you mentioned are absolutely right, except the last one, "わかる”.
「気を付ける」and 「気を使う」, these two are similar, but two different expressions.
Both have a meaning of “to pay attention”, and sometimes replaceable. Like here, it can be either「発音に注意して話すように気を使っています」or 「発音に注意して話すように気を付けています。」 and both mean “I try to be cautious about pronunciation when speaking English.” The person who did the transcription must have thought I said "気を使っています”。; however, when I listened to the conversation, I definitely said 気を付けています.
「とにかく、言いたいことを言わないとと思って」: Yes, there should be another 「と」just before 「と思って」。
「わかる」：This can be a bit tricky. It is said that we have three different Kanjis for 「わかる」meaning “to understand, recognize, realize, and so on”. These threes are
「分かる」／「判る」／「解る」
Among these three, ｢分かる｣ is the most general, and you can use it in any context. So, try using this one if you feel like using kanji for わかる。（Actually, you can use 「わかる」in Hiragana. Writing わかる in Hiragana doesn’t make you kanji-illiterate at all.）
The other two seem a little more specific than 「分かる」.
「判る」＝｢判明する, 判別する｣ : to be identified, to determine (This probably has the most specific meaning among the three.)
「解る」＝「理解する」：to understand, to find the answer
Therefore, here in this conversation, 解る is also right (except there is a mistake in 送り仮名!). But as explained above, ｢分かる｣ is always a safer choice, so I changed this as well.
We need to be indulgent when it comes to typos or mistakes in our texts. I often come across mistakes or even strange characters in some of our excellent content items. I just move on. I consume so much content that the odd error will have no impact. If all of our transcribers had to recheck their texts we would have a lot less content in our library. I am grateful for all content.
Of course if we see errors and point them out, and our correctors have time to correct them, so much the better, but in my view, it is not an area of concern.
Thanks for your reply Steve. I don’t agree with your point though. It took me a lot longer to get through this passage, and I’ve now decided I can’t risk using any of your content, at least until I can easily tell where errors like these lie.
I’m not asking for perfection … but this text had so many errors, both trivial, and important.
I wonder whether you would be defending the content if it wasn’t yours?
p.s. I am only relatively new to LingQ (at least as a paying user goes). The good news is that I have not experienced anywhere near as many errors in other content.
the important thing is not try to master any content but to expose yourself to a lot. You will draw your own conclusions. I can only tell of my experience in learning to speak 11 languages.
If you do not like a certain item of content, for whatever reason, simply choose another. We rely on our members for content. That is how the system works. We do not vet it. If the sound is comprehensible, and there are too many errors, just move on.
I use our content for a number of languages. I am not bothered by errors. I accept that other are, so please skip the content that you do not like.
I cannot agree that there is any “risk” in any of this.
It’s not a matter of liking or not liking the content. I’m looking for lots of comprehensible, mostly correct input. Where I can detect the errors, that’s not a problem … I can skip it and move on. But in this case, it caused confusion, and I had to ask a native speaker about it. I thought I was helping you improve your content by pointing out these errors, but didn’t expect to find myself under attack. I’ll leave these corrections to myself from now on.
p.s. Yes, I intentionally misspelt your name. Childish, I know, but the least you could do is get mine right.
I had a good look at this item. The transcript is rather bad. I agree . For example, right in the first few lines, 悠長 should be 流暢 . I take back what I said. This is unacceptably bad transcription.
Has anyone else noticed bad transcription in our Japanese texts? If so in which ones?
Thanks for pointing this out tyepric. This is a lot worse than I thought.
We have ten languages on the go and it is hard to control all the content. Thanks for pointing this out.
I noted errors, in the same transcript and others in the Japanese LingQ series (if I recall correctly, the one about building emma’s house was not great typo-wise either) . However, I still prefer to go on to other content rather than take time to get errors corrected … unless I can use the chance to report the error as a way to write in Japanese .
I cannot assure you that I did not intentionally misspell your name. I frequently make typos and even misspell in a number of languages here.
I tried to explain our view about errors in our texts. We need content and we cannot spend a fortune on transcription. We also do not vet all content. When we hear of problems, we usually try to fix them. There are a number of learners and native speakers who have “edit” functions and can go in and fix them. I also said that upon looking up this item, that I felt that it was unacceptably bad and asked our learners if they had seen similarly bad transcriptions.
Please tell me which of my comments you felt represented an attack on you.
Hi everyone, I feel deeply sorry about all this. As a Japanese native speaker and one of the speakers of this content, I feel responsible for this. As an English learner myself, I agree with you typeric; it IS frustrating when you don’t know whether certain terms are just errors or something else. However, as you can easily imagine, LingQ is not a giant company who can say “we’ll have someone fix it right away!” (Sorry, Steve!) On the same note, I really like about LingQ’s “helping & sharing” spirit among LingQ members. It wouldn’t have been created if LingQ is perfectly organized, already well-established system. (Sorry again, Steve!)
I will check the whole script of this content and the one about building Emma’s house when I have time… (in a few days!)
I hope the transcriber has gotten much better and no more “unacceptably bad” items!
Thanks for the fixes, WestEnder. I appreciate your efforts!
Steve, I apologise for being defensive, but ask that the site takes feedback seriously when given. I didn’t provide it to attack you, the site, the content provider, or the transcriber.
Perhaps this is an opportunity for a future extension to LingQ … user submitted corrections.
We have a system of user corrections in place. Anyone who volunteers as a corrector receives an editor’s pencil for those languages. The editors usually respond to problems raised at our forums.
I had not realized how bad this particular content was, as I said. I did go and have a look and came back to say that I had underestimated the seriousness of the problem.
I did not feel we were being attacked. I do, however,regularly advise people not to worry about the odd small error. However, if they are pointed out, usually one of our “editors” will correct them.
It is not possible for us to insist on perfect transcripts. However, the community usually respond to errors when they are pointed out.
