A language question for those of you whose native language is English

Dr. Eddies Wingman

Dr. Eddies Wingman

Brighter than thousand_suns
In my job I sometimes have to make documentation like user manuals. The review of one such manual contains a comment which might or might not be correct. The issue is that of listing several words. One place in the text, I write "Critical temperature and pressure", meaning "Critical temperature and critical pressure". The comment states the following:

"Critical temperature and -pressure if the meaning is critical temperature AND critical pressure".

In other words, he wants a dash to be added in front of the word "pressure". Is this correct? Should I add a dash when listing words in this way?
 
Yeah, the dash looks more like German to me. I agree that "critical temperature and pressure" is ambiguous, but it should be clear from the context.
 
So you both basically agree with me, then :) The dash would make more sense in Norwegian, and I know that German and Norwegian are similar with respect to compound words and related issues.

As for the ambiguity of these particular words: It is indeed very clear from the context. Critical temperature and critical pressure are two parameters that every chemical engineer is familiar with.
 
The dash does not look correct to me .. though I will note there is a difference between what would look correct in US versus UK English, maybe that would be okay in non-US English speaking countries.

I would expect to see it as you have it or written or as "critical pressure and critical temperature" if you want to be incredibly clear, though the extra "critical" seems redundant to me, but probably better to be as clear as possible in a manual.
 
I will add, if I was reading -temperature ... it would be less clear than "critical pressure and temperature" .... I would see the dash as a negative/minus sign in that context.
 
The dash is clunky & makes no sense.

By quoting "Critical temperature and -pressure if the meaning is critical temperature AND critical pressure" --are you saying this is what's being suggested you write? Is this context of the phrase? I don't really follow...

Either way, if "Critical temperature and pressure" is ambiguous (this is highly dependent on context &/or where the statement sits in a sentence, etc) --then just write, as you say, "Critical temperature and critical pressure"; as this is what you intend. Unless there's some limit in wording being imposed.
 
I'd say yes. It belongs there. In Germanic languages this is the case. Norwegian is a Germanic language as well.

Not sure who will need to work with the manual. Language is English but if the people involved are not having this language as a first language, you're taking a risk by leaving it out.

Most important you should take into consideration, imo:
You can't control if other people get the context. Better too much info instead of not enough.
 
The dash is wrong, don't add it. English speakers will think it is a typo. To remove the ambiguity over whether "critical" modifies "pressure," I'd use "critical" twice, even if it sounds clunky. Without more info, that's the only edit I can suggest.
 
Forostar said:
Not sure who will need to work with the manual. Language is English but if the people involved are not having this language as a first language, you're taking a risk by leaving it out.
Click to expand...

I think that is a dangerous assumption. English has rules, and they need to be followed no matter where a possible reader comes from. Otherwise, write it in their languages. This sort of consideration is rather a source for misunderstandings than anything else.
 
I think if you are going to translate into English, where possible use proper English. The dash is rarely used in English, the main case I can think of would be a hyphenated proper noun.


When I was in Europe bad translations into English stood out like a sore thumb. A restaurant had a soup with "chicken balls" ... beyond the fact chickens do not have balls, it made little sense. I am assuming it was dumplings or just chicken pieces in it.

The other one that stuck out is the use of "so called" in English, that would be a term of derision or sarcasm. For example a dictatorship holding elections with one person on the ballot ...we might say "the so-called free elections". In the Topography of Terror museum in Berlin, which was excellent and I would recommend going, they used "so-called" incorrectly in a few translations when stating a fact. I think one was the "so-called Waffen SS" ... it was the Waffen SS, it should just say "The Waffen SS". So-called makes it sound like the Waffen SS did not exist as the fighting force of the SS. The rest of the translations there were pretty spot on IMO.
 
Forostar said:
I'd say yes. It belongs there. In Germanic languages this is the case. Norwegian is a Germanic language as well.

Not sure who will need to work with the manual. Language is English but if the people involved are not having this language as a first language, you're taking a risk by leaving it out.

Most important you should take into consideration, imo:
You can't control if other people get the context. Better too much info instead of not enough.
Click to expand...

I don't know whether a dash would be okay in Dutch or Norwegian in this context but it's definitely wrong in English. By putting it there, you're not giving too much info, you're just making a mistake.

And making sure people get the context is part of the translator's job.
 
Your example, Bearfan, is a very good one. When you think about it, in the German example(s) you gave, they were using "so called" quite literally; but in an English context this phrase, as you point out, has taken on a less literal meaning in common conversational use, & is very much used in the manner you state. Although, in a more scientific context, for example, it would/could still be used literally, without the implication of sarcasm or derision.

Not really relevant to the point in hand, but interesting all the same! :)
 
It is tricky and I wanted to make really clear that the museum did a better job than most at translating, especially since most of what they had were long pieces of text ... literally 7-9 which brings about another use for the dash ... displaying a (usually numeric) range ... paragraphs on at least 100+ exhibits. It was very detailed.

But things like that either lead readers to draw the wrong conclusion. In the example I gave, if I did not know any better, I would think the Waffen SS really only existed on paper versus being a pretty large and significant force in the war.

I get that it is hard to do and on things like menus it is funny, but on serious topics (and technical manuals) it is easy to give readers the wrong meaning or make them assume that the writer does not know the subject well and you lose trust in the rest of what they are saying.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Your example, Bearfan, is a very good one. When you think about it, in the German example(s) you gave, they were using "so called" quite literally;
Click to expand...
Yeah, but "so-called" has the same connotations in German as it does in English, so I really can't explain that mistake other than with a lack of understanding for English idiomology.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
The dash is clunky & makes no sense.

By quoting "Critical temperature and -pressure if the meaning is critical temperature AND critical pressure" --are you saying this is what's being suggested you write? Is this context of the phrase? I don't really follow...

Click to expand...


Yes, this is what the reviewer suggested. (don't know who he is or where he comes from. This is a project where we are a sub-contractor to a Korean company, which deliver the main project to a Norwegian customer. I'm not sure which one has done the review, but I am inclined to believe it is a Norwegian).

I notice that I've triggered a real discussion here, which is good :) The example I included was just that - an example. The reviewer seems to think that as a rule, this dash should be included. I have always thought it should not, and I'm happy to see that I am not alone in believing this.

I also discussed this briefly with one of my office-mates. He said he had once been corrected by his English teacher for including a dash in a similar context (i.e. he should not have included it).
 
To be honest with you, the example you give with the dash is, in my opinion, incredibly uncommon English usage; I'm not sure what "rule" they're referring to. In my opinion that usage is very unusual looking. I don't recall the last time I read a sentence written like that. Then again, I don't read a lot of manuals...
 
I maintain my opinion.

I see see theorists (and language fanatics specialists ;-) here. Let's not forget that one should be practical because we're talking about a manual here.

The people who'll use those manuals do not have English as a first language. They are no experts of the English language.
They should be instructed as well as possible. That's a rule, I hope. You are not doing that when you leave something (however small that is) to their imagination.

The sentence "Critical temperature and pressure" leaves open more possibilities than "Critical temperature and -pressure".
Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
Critical temperature and critical pressure are two parameters that every chemical engineer is familiar with.
Click to expand...
Yes, but pressure is also a parameter (or at least a well known term).
 
The dash makes no sense in conventional English. Absolutely none. And whereas the file is being produced for a Korean and a Norwegian, it really should not include the dash. English has rules for a reason, and someone who is fluent in English will look at the sentence and be much more confused - especially if the person has English as a second language and aren't from a Germanic language tradition.
 
Here is the thing. You have stated that this belongs in a technical manual, yes? You have to have your audience in mind. I have done translation work from English to Spanish on technical manuals and while I do not have an official certification in translation, I've tutored Spanish for 8 years which requires grammatical knowledge of English of course and I did read the articles my mom was assigned when she did her translator certification.

When it comes to language you have to keep in mind the register of your audience, either high or low. In other words. Low: Yo dawg, this thingamajig right her' moves in circles 'n' shit. v. High: The lever rotates counterclockwise allowing the vent to open and close as needed.

When it comes to translation work of medical, technical or academic journals/manuals, there is a specific language and register used. If I am writing an English paper for a college class, the hyphen is not needed, however I do not know if it is a specific technical notation needed in a technical manual. I think it is comparable to using a period (.) to represent multiplication in higher level math instead of an "x" so as to not mistake it for a variable, it is a specific technical notation. So who is to say the hyphen in this case IS correct due to the nature of the subject at hand?

In short, I'd do a little more research. If you lack the time or the interest I'd say leave the hyphen in place as that is what they desire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top