Feb 2, 2005 07:05
19 yrs ago
2 viewers *
English term
United Arab Emirates
Translation services company in Dubai
Native in: Arabic
Works in: English to Arabic, Arabic to English, Arabic
preset
English
Other
General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters
What does this word mean in the following context:
Taliban and Al Qaeda would fight side by side against the enemy. No division between the organizations was preset on the battlefield.
Thanks
Taliban and Al Qaeda would fight side by side against the enemy. No division between the organizations was preset on the battlefield.
Thanks
Responses
| 5 +1 | set up beforehand |
Misiaczek
|
| 5 +1 | arranged |
bigedsenior
|
| 1 +4 | present |
Nick Somers (X)
|
| 4 | established; drawn |
Susana Galilea
|
| 4 | I think it is indeed "preset" |
CMJ_Trans (X)
|
Responses
+1
2 mins
Selected
set up beforehand
set up (organized) beforehand (in advance)
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank you all colleagues"
+1
0 min
2 mins
Susana Galilea
United States
United States
United States
Customized Translation Services ENG>SPA
Native in: Spanish (Variants: Latin American, Standard-Spain, US) 
Works in: English to Spanish, Spanish
Related KudoZ points
:
8
established; drawn
No division between the organizations was drawn on the battlefield
37 mins
I think it is indeed "preset"
and means that they would fight side by side without any pre-established hierarchy, merging together as one unit for a common cause.
No preordained pecking order
No preordained pecking order
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
Nick Somers (X)
: drawn on the battlefield or preset for the battle/campaign (whatever), but preset on the battlefield ???
8 mins
|
|
they did not go out in any particular order on the battlefield
|
+4
4 mins
present
Sounds strange to me. Could it be a typo? Is it the kind of text with printing errors?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs 38 mins (2005-02-02 14:43:32 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Now that everyone\'s agreeing, I\'m having second thoughts. I think we can agree that the English is wrong. But the other (advanced planning) meaning would make sense if we rephrased the sentence thusly: \"There would be no preset division ... on the battlefield.\" The \"would\" in the previous sentence also makes it sound as if they are talking about advanced planning. Would be interesting to know if the author is a native speaker and if the text is one that is likely to have typos. There must be an easier way of making a living. :)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs 38 mins (2005-02-02 14:43:32 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Now that everyone\'s agreeing, I\'m having second thoughts. I think we can agree that the English is wrong. But the other (advanced planning) meaning would make sense if we rephrased the sentence thusly: \"There would be no preset division ... on the battlefield.\" The \"would\" in the previous sentence also makes it sound as if they are talking about advanced planning. Would be interesting to know if the author is a native speaker and if the text is one that is likely to have typos. There must be an easier way of making a living. :)
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Tony M
: I agree it sounds odd, and this typo was my first thought too....
28 mins
|
| agree |
Fuad Yahya
2 hrs
|
| agree |
Armorel Young
: "present" is the most likely explanation
3 hrs
|
| agree |
Laurel Porter (X)
4 hrs
|
Discussion