Pascal Zotto said:

Is there a way to define these via regex as 1 word so they get counted as 1 word? The same would go for quite long Standard names (e.g. DIN 2137-1:2018-11 or even longer ones) or badly formatted URLs and some other strings.

Just to make sure: No, it’s not an option to convert them to tags or untranslatable text as they need to be adapted (e.g. adding word joiners and no-break spaces to avoid wrapping)

Pascal Zotto 

I understood that the numbers were the problematic part – do they also change in the translation, such as  "2137-1:2018-11" in the above example?

Hi Daniel Hug,

the numbers themselves should not change (although it happened that a client mixed up numbers of a standard and I had to correct it) but I need to replace and add other characters:

e.g. (the brackets only show which char was added/replaced)

DIN 535/2137-1:2018-11 > DIN(narrow nbsp)535/(word joiner)2137(non-breaking hyphen)1:(word joiner)2018(non-breaking hyphen)11

Pascal Zotto 

What I meant (see above) and how I understand Paul is that you modify the DIN standard notation as needed in the source, using CleanUp Task. Then you "protect" the numerical part of the standard (e.g. "535/2137-1:2018-11") as a tag. This would result in the standard being counted as one word, and in being written the way you need it. I agree with Paul, for special use cases like yours it might be desirable to be able to define word boundaries freely, but since that is not an option at this point, this looks like a viable workaround.

Daniel Hug

I know, but you always miss the point where I explained several times already that I MUST be able to replace the hyphens and add special space characters. So tags are NOT an option at all.

Pascal Zotto 

You do this IN THE SOURCE. You MODIFY THE SOURCE to match your requirements. THEN you make it a tag. Target will have the formatting you did to the source via CleanUp Task.

Daniel Hug 

Okay, but altering source text in pre-generated xliff exports or even sdlxliff files is again a problem with most clients as they do not allow this as else the files to import back differ from their CAT tool.

I would then have to reset everything back to initial state after translation is done as else the files to import differ from their memoQ or whatever files. On the other side, I’m not sure if that will then not cause internal issues when they import their files back. In theory it should not, but I⁠ had such issues in the past where I then had to use original files and re-run them against TM another time and fill in all tags manually to get them right. Sometimes this makes me lose hours on a single project.

Pascal Zotto 

I wonder if you could use the Term injector plugin to manipulate the format in the source and have it automatically exactly as you'd like in the target?

https://appstore.rws.com/Plugin/75

Or even better this version, although you'll have to speak to Tommi to get it:

https://tomminieminen.github.io/TermInjectorPlus/

Paul 

I already use TI+ and with the okay from Tommi within the last year I even programmed it way beyond the basic functionality it had but that does not help with this problem as fiddling with source is not allowed.

Pascal Zotto 

Why would you fiddle with the source?  Wouldn't you adjust the target translation result using Terminjector and leave the source alone?

It is a bit fiddly, but I think we'll soon have Terminjector Plus which looks a lot easier to manage... something to look forward to!

https://tomminieminen.github.io/TermInjectorPlus/

because it’s about counting source words, not about translation. I use my verion of TI+ to adjust target as needed. That’s not the problem at all.

I’m not sure about it coming out soon from Tommi as the thing I heard from him what that he does not work on it anymore as he’s busy with OPUS CAT. He even allowed me to use it under a license so that I could see the new product I created.

Pascal Zotto 

Pascal Zotto said:

because it’s about counting source words, not about translation.

Fair enough.  In that case I can confirm there is no solution other than to consider adopting a different tool for more of a standardised approach for wordcounts... Practicount for example.  I don't know how customisable that is, but at least you will have the same wordcount for all the tools you work with.  And if that doesn't help because  you simply want to be able to mirror the wordcount from a tool that you were provided with then I think you'd need to build your own plugin for that, or you can try submitting an idea for this in the ideas site.

Pascal Zotto said:

I’m not sure about it coming out soon from Tommi as the thing I heard from him what that he does not work on it anymore as he’s busy with OPUS CAT.

I spoke with him yesterday over email and he confirmed this morning ;-)

 Paul 

Thanks for the tip. I’ll have a look at Practicount but of course it would be best for me to have everything in one app (Trados). So maybe I’ll go for a new plugin.

Great to hear Tommi is getting back with TI+. My version became way too powerful to offer it to the broad public as it ended up in a grammar based MT with way better results than existing MT and AI combinations. At least for the language combinations which I started programming the grammar and spelling rules for.

Edit: Practicount does not help at all as it only counts words/chars/lines/pages but does not offer at least repetitions.

 Paul 

Thanks for the tip. I’ll have a look at Practicount but of course it would be best for me to have everything in one app (Trados). So maybe I’ll go for a new plugin.

Great to hear Tommi is getting back with TI+. My version became way too powerful to offer it to the broad public as it ended up in a grammar based MT with way better results than existing MT and AI combinations. At least for the language combinations which I started programming the grammar and spelling rules for.

Edit: Practicount does not help at all as it only counts words/chars/lines/pages but does not offer at least repetitions.