Like most people (I assume), I have a built-in spell-checker in my browser. This is especially relevant when doing EN>PT translations directly in Gengo's interface. In my particular case, I have it set for pre-Orthographic Agreement of 1990 European Portuguese. I understand that Gengo requires us to use AO90 spelling in our translations, and so I just do the mental conversion as I type, even as my pre-AO90 spell-checker tries to tell me to switch "ação" and "atividade" to "acção" and "actividade". This means that when I am done with the translation, of course, my spell-checker tells me that there are several spelling mistakes underlined in red, which I ignore.

All this is fine, and of my own design.

The thing is, when I then try to submit my translation, Gengo's own built-in spell-checker kicks in and signals those exact same words, like "ação" and "atividade", as spelling mistakes. This is a sign that despite requiring us to use AO90 spelling, Gengo's system itself is still using pre-AO90 spelling for European Portuguese and not actually doing anything to help me catch any old spellings that might have accidentally gotten through. It would be more useful to update the database with a more recent dictionary.


  • -1

    Here is an example.


    I too feel like those words might be misspelled, but that is because I think AO90 is a terrible agreement from a technical standpoint, not to mention its dubious legal standing at the moment. Regardless of how I feel about AO90, however, Gengo clearly requires us to use it in our translations. So, why is it that Gengo's spell checker is suggesting that I go back to using the (vastly superior) 1945 spelling?

    Is it normal to specifically require your translators to use one variant of the language only in the style guide, and then suggest the use of the opposite variant before we submit each and every single job?

  • -1

    Hi Nuno,

    Thanks for writing in about your concerns about the spell-checker.

    This would be better addressed by our Support team so could you please email them directly so someone can have a look at it, and if necessary notify the relevant teams?