11:35 May 3, 2011 

Yeah, I know what you are saying is correct Dave, only, one can delve deeper into what lies behind word choices, or not?, I mean, manikin, I only looked it up for 2 seconds, and I got it wrong, thinking it was derived from mannequin, when apparently, mannequin is the French take on the Dutch manikin, manikin being a little man. Manikin is derived from manneke.
In that way, then a manikin would relate to a doll-like idea, or would it not? Therefore someone along the line, decided to turn the doll-like idea - doll which indeed sounds far inferior to the professional sounding word manikin - into a term that would be better for business, but in my view, it is always a doll.
Doll wouldn't sound right/professional, indeed, but it is instantly understandable to everyone. And the Dutch term uses pop and not manneke or manikin. Brandpop, Brand manikin, Brand manneke, Brand vrouwke, Brand mannequin.
But Fire manikin, brandpop, are not descriptive terms.
It's only personal opinion, personally I'd go for the instant explanation. If not the done thing, doesn't mean it's a bad idea. The Dutch term does sound childish: brandpop.
If Fire Training Doll is inadequate so is brandpop.

11:17 May 3, 2011 

Terry, to be clear, a manikin or mannequin is not a doll. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mannequin

"a form representing the human figure"

I tend to specialise in technical texts - if I started making up my own terms for recognised technical terms, I doubt if I would get much work. Just because a technical term is correct it doesn't make it "flashy", it just makes it right in the eyes of the intended audience - in this case firefighters, (mannikin is the recognised term used within the vast majority of fire departments). I believe that if there is a recognised English noun for a Dutch one, then it should be used. Any translators that feel this is the wrong approach are without doubt vastly outnumbered by those that think it is right.

13:34 May 2, 2011 

In this particular context 'manikin' works better as the company also sells dummies for CPR training and they specifically used a different word for the 'doll' used for fire training.....as often is the case context has the final say!

13:25 May 2, 2011 

You are probably right Dave, still, my belief is that language ought to be as accessible to everyone as possible, without being unnecessarily complicated (unclear). I looked online for 2 seconds and got the same info you gave, before posting my opinion on it, I'd still say that fire manikin doesn't describe anything to those who do not know, so then "fire training manikin" would be better (clearer & then instantly) than fire manikin. Doll is what the thing in fact is, without a flashy term for it. What's a manikin? It's a doll. The word manikin does not qualify it as something connecting it exclusively to fire fighting.

13:05 May 2, 2011 

I can't imagine many average Joe's would want to buy a fire mannikin. This is directed at potential buyers of training equipment, in this case firefighters. They would know this as a fire mannikin. If the company called it a fire training doll they would immediately lose their credibilty as experts in the field. I think it's dangerous to make up our own terminology, especially in marketing. If I was selling an elephant, I would call it an elephant and not a big animal with a long nose.

12:58 May 2, 2011 

Dave,

Yes, after brief further enquiry, you are right, still, a doll is what it is and what an average native English speaker would instantly understand without having to carry out research, fire fighters may be familiar with that word but I doubt average Joe has ever heard of it. At times such as these I wonder what is in actual fact best, clarity or the use (perhaps correct) terminology that the average person doesn't know about.

We later adopted the French version of the Dutch word as well