Guide preview
Preview: Eleven criteria that matter for rare-language translation
These sample checks show the level of detail inside the gated download. Request the full guide for the complete checklist, scorecard, red flags, and procurement questions.
Criterion
Rare-language production history: actual delivery, not a website list
What you gain: Evidence that the vendor has sourced, delivered, and quality-checked production work in genuinely rare languages, beyond claimed coverage.
Listing 300 or 500 languages is easy. Delivering production-grade translation in Bhojpuri, Maithili, or Kinyarwanda requires linguists who have completed real projects, project managers who understand the sourcing constraints, and QA processes adapted for low-resource pairs. Ask for specific languages, specific volumes, and specific timelines from recent engagements.
Ask: "For [your target rare language], how many projects have you delivered in the past 12 months? What was the volume, and can you share a redacted QA report from one of those projects?"
Criterion
Who actually sources the rare-language reviewer?
Where do your linguists actually come from? The answer determines your quality ceiling, continuity risk, and ethical standing - and for rare languages, it matters more than the linguist count.
Three models exist:
Ask: "For our target language, do you recruit linguists directly or subcontract? How long has your sourcing relationship with this language community been active?"
Criterion
Script and orthography expertise
Languages with non-Latin scripts, multiple orthographies, or no standardized written form require specialized expertise from the vendor.
Many rare languages use scripts that standard translation tools do not fully support. Some languages have competing orthographies (different communities writing the same language differently). Others are primarily oral, with recently developed writing systems that linguists may render inconsistently. A vendor handling these languages needs:
Ask: "Does our target language have a standardized orthography? If not, what convention will you follow, and how do you ensure consistency across linguists?"