| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | Is this sentence grammatically correct? Thread poster: Thomas Carey
|
|---|
| What about a semicolon? | Jun 12, 2013 |
In cases like this where two sentences are obviously related but there is some ambiguity to precisely how, or I can't decide which coordinating conjunction is best, I sometimes end up going with a semicolon. In doing so, I can kind of avoid the question all together, although I always have to consider the overall style of what I'm translating and whether or not using semicolons makes sense (but you have to do that with any word or phrase you use). One example might be:
XYZ has been ... See more In cases like this where two sentences are obviously related but there is some ambiguity to precisely how, or I can't decide which coordinating conjunction is best, I sometimes end up going with a semicolon. In doing so, I can kind of avoid the question all together, although I always have to consider the overall style of what I'm translating and whether or not using semicolons makes sense (but you have to do that with any word or phrase you use). One example might be:
XYZ has been manufacturing [Noun] and [Noun] for more than 10 years; more recently, they have also begun producing [Noun]. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Tatty 
Local time: 01:35
Spanish to English
+ ...
| "but" changes the meaning | Jun 12, 2013 |
I reckon so too. An unnecessary addition, IMO.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:35
Hebrew to English
| Not when used with "also" | Jun 12, 2013 |
Tatty wrote:
I reckon so too. An unnecessary addition, IMO.
You'll notice that I proposed "but" when it still wasn't clear that the new production was in addition to what they had been manufacturing for 10 years.
Regardless, as long as you maintain the addition (with an "also" for example) as I suggested you aren't changing the meaning, merely accentuating the contrast. I still think "and" on its own is a bit weak, leaving room for ambiguity. If that ambiguity exists in the French then fair enough, reproduce it, but if not, avoid creating it.
I actually like the semicolon idea. It's a much neglected bit of punctuation....but with Orrin's added "also" as otherwise it too creates ambiguity).
[Edited at 2013-06-12 18:20 GMT]
| | | | Tatty
Local time: 01:35
Spanish to English
+ ...
Another unnecessary addition IMO. French isn't shy to use also when it wants to.
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:35
Hebrew to English
| Not if you want/need to clarify | Jun 12, 2013 |
Tatty wrote:
Another unnecessary addition IMO. French isn't shy to use also when it wants to.
Neither is English. You speak French so if you say the ambiguity is there in French then I'd say merely using "and" is the way forward because just using "and" leaves a nugget of doubt over whether there is substitution or addition.
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 16:35
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| No ambiguity in the French | Jun 12, 2013 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Neither is English. You speak French so if you say the ambiguity is there in French then I'd say merely using "and" is the way forward because just using "and" leaves a nugget of doubt over whether there is substitution or addition.
For more than 10 years XYZ has been manufacturing two products and more recently added a third.
[Edited at 2013-06-12 19:03 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:35
Hebrew to English
| Thanks Michele, ...in that case... | Jun 12, 2013 |
Michele Fauble wrote: Ty Kendall wrote:
Neither is English. You speak French so if you say the ambiguity is there in French then I'd say merely using "and" is the way forward because just using "and" leaves a nugget of doubt over whether there is substitution or addition. For more than 10 years XYZ has been manufacturing two products and more recently added a third. [Edited at 2013-06-12 19:03 GMT]
Then I think the "addition" of a word or two in order to mirror the certainty of the source is not the crime of the century (if we're going down the "translate the meaning, not the words" route).
[Edited at 2013-06-12 19:10 GMT]
| | | | Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 01:35
Italian to English
In memoriam | For-depuis and since-depuis | Jun 12, 2013 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
No ambiguity in the French
Quite, as I said in my earlier post.
The confusion arises because while "depuis" can be used with "plus de 10 ans" and then understood with "plus récemment", English uses prepositions to distinguish duration (for) from point in time (since). The first phrase describes duration (for more than ten years) but the second, which indicates a point in time, requires an explicit "since" (since more recently).
If you project the grammar of English onto French, or vice versa for that matter, the result is unlikely to "sound right".
| | |
|
|
|
| I'do do it this way (pitch included) | Jun 12, 2013 |
'For 10 years now, Company has manufactured Product 1 and Product 1, and more recently also Product 3.'
'Now' and 'also' are semi-gratuitous additions, but we aren't translating a deposition here.
I'm not a particularly raving fan of the French sentence, but it's correct. Once 'plus récemment' triggers, 'depuis 10 ans' stops applying. That's a manner of speaking we employ in Polish too. It's a bit pencilled-in compared to the English way of saying the same.
[Edi... See more 'For 10 years now, Company has manufactured Product 1 and Product 1, and more recently also Product 3.'
'Now' and 'also' are semi-gratuitous additions, but we aren't translating a deposition here.
I'm not a particularly raving fan of the French sentence, but it's correct. Once 'plus récemment' triggers, 'depuis 10 ans' stops applying. That's a manner of speaking we employ in Polish too. It's a bit pencilled-in compared to the English way of saying the same.
[Edited at 2013-06-12 21:34 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Ty Kendall wrote: This is the dilemma that would determine the tense usage.... Did they in fact cease manufacturing what they had been manufacturing for 10 years and then start something else more recently OR did they continue with what they had been manufacturing, merely introducing new products? If it was the latter, I would have liked an "also" thrown in there to clarify, but how often are writers clear? (Not often, if my source texts are anything to go by  ) I don't think it's 100% clear from the sentence itself. I'd say this is a judgement call, presuming you don't have that information to hand/can't find out for sure. [Edited at 2013-06-12 14:36 GMT]
The imperfect would have been used in the French had the manufacturing of the first product ceased.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 05:05
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | "also" also distorts the meaning | Jun 13, 2013 |
Ty Kendall wrote: Did they in fact cease manufacturing what they had been manufacturing for 10 years and then start something else more recently OR did they continue with what they had been manufacturing, merely introducing new products? If it was the latter, I would have liked an "also" thrown in there to clarify, but how often are writers clear? (Not often, if my source texts are anything to go by )
The use of "also" will reduce the importance of the first two products, which is not intended in the original sentence. All that the original says is that the company xyz manufactures 3 products, of which the third one was a recent addition. Nothing is said about the relative importance of the 3 products.
There is a difference in the meaning of these two sentences:
XYZ manufactures Product 1 and Product 2, and since 10 years, Product 3.
XYZ manufactures Product 1 and Product 2, and since 10 years, also Product 3.
In the first, all three products are equal in importance.
In the second, the addition of also slightly changes the meaning, by reducing the importance of Product 3. The meaning conveyed is, the mainstay of company XYZ are products 1 and 2; now there is also a third one, product 3.
In English, in a list of things, with some items added to it with "also", there is a subtle pecking order, with the "also" items coming lower down in the importance scale.
Consider this sentence:
Sujata likes skiing, swimming and also reading.
Here, reading is much less preferred by Sujata than skiing and swimming, which is why "also" is there. If Sujata had liked all three equally, we would have:
Sujata likes skiing, swimming and reading.
Thus, in trying to make sentences read like native English, we should not compromise on their original meaning.
[2013-06-13 02:22 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:35
Hebrew to English
| Since 10 years???? | Jun 13, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
There is a difference in the meaning of these two sentences:
XYZ manufactures Product 1 and Product 2, and since 10 years, Product 3.
XYZ manufactures Product 1 and Product 2, and since 10 years, also Product 3.
In the first, all three products are equal in importance.
That's not even correct English! As Giles explained, "10 years" is a period, it requires "for", "since 10 years" sounds really odd.
The use of "also" will reduce the importance of the first two products, which is not intended in the original sentence.
No it won't, but it will eliminate the ambiguity I'm assured is not there in the French.
In English, in a list of things, with some items added to it with "also", there is a subtle pecking order, with the "also" items coming lower down in the importance scale.
"Also" most certainly does not introduce a pecking order. You really do read too much into things Bala. If I say "I like apples and also bananas and also grapes and also kiwis etc" that doesn't say anything about which one I like more. You might think the order implies preference (it may or may not), but there's nothing inherent about "also" which shows preference or importance.
[Edited at 2013-06-13 07:46 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Tatty
Local time: 01:35
Spanish to English
+ ...
An unnecessary addition. And it does change the meaning slightly. It can also be indicative of a pecking order, I agree with Bala.
And to Lukasz, "also product 3" is grammatically incorrect.
More recently can refer either to a point in time or to a period of time:
More recently, I have been having chest pains.
More recently, I went there.
I'm sure you could use several different constructions to translate this sentence. In fact, yo... See more An unnecessary addition. And it does change the meaning slightly. It can also be indicative of a pecking order, I agree with Bala.
And to Lukasz, "also product 3" is grammatically incorrect.
More recently can refer either to a point in time or to a period of time:
More recently, I have been having chest pains.
More recently, I went there.
I'm sure you could use several different constructions to translate this sentence. In fact, your choice would be guided by what came next, by what the text went on to highlight. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:35
Hebrew to English
| What about the ambiguity? | Jun 13, 2013 |
Tatty wrote:
An unnecessary addition. And it does change the meaning slightly. It can also be indicative of a pecking order, I agree with Bala.
I disagree. "Also" is not used to show preference or importance. "I like cats. I also like dogs"...there's no way of knowing which I actually like more, without telepathy. You can speculate I might like cats more that's why I said it first, but that's all it is, speculation.
However, ...the ambiguity, how do you propose to resolve this?
If you say "For more than 10 years, XYZ has been manufacturing noun and noun, and more recently, noun." then it isn't clear whether there was substitution or addition.
On the last page you suggested "has started to produce", which is fine, but is also an addition, which serves the same purpose as "also". So I'm not sure why you are so vehemently against "also" to clarify the addition seemingly on the basis of the French word for "also" not being there, when you advocate "has started to", which is also an addition, serving the same purpose and equally lacking in the French sentence?
[Edited at 2013-06-13 08:51 GMT]
| | | | Thomas Carey
Local time: 01:35
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | What follows | Jun 13, 2013 |
Thanks again for all the feedback. Grammar is always so interesting, and what I love about our profession is that there are always so many ways of conveying an idea.
The next part of the text focuses on a different point, the qualities of the manufacturer.
Another point which had to be taken into account - just to complicate things more - was that the text was to be flexible in time. One of the translatio... See more Thanks again for all the feedback. Grammar is always so interesting, and what I love about our profession is that there are always so many ways of conveying an idea.
The next part of the text focuses on a different point, the qualities of the manufacturer.
Another point which had to be taken into account - just to complicate things more - was that the text was to be flexible in time. One of the translations I proposed (in two sentences) included "a few years ago", so this solution wouldn't do. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Is this sentence grammatically correct? | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
