Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
FR > EN : Switchover
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Lanarcam
May 2, 2012, 4:40:52 AM5/2/12
to
A function dealing with reading of alarms signals is performed by
using a pair of electronic boards. One is in active mode, i.e.
actually performing the function, the other one is in standby mode,
waiting for a failure of the active one to take its place.
"If the normal XXX board is unhealthy and the standby board is
healthy
a switchover is performed, i.e. a standby acquisition command is
sent to the normal XXX board and the number of the normal
XXX board is modified."
Should we say instead : "a switchover occurs". That seems better, but
can we express the fact that the switchover is the result of an
action
performed by this function.
using a pair of electronic boards. One is in active mode, i.e.
actually performing the function, the other one is in standby mode,
waiting for a failure of the active one to take its place.
"If the normal XXX board is unhealthy and the standby board is
healthy
a switchover is performed, i.e. a standby acquisition command is
sent to the normal XXX board and the number of the normal
XXX board is modified."
Should we say instead : "a switchover occurs". That seems better, but
can we express the fact that the switchover is the result of an
action
performed by this function.
Albert ARIBAUD
May 2, 2012, 12:33:01 PM5/2/12
to
past the line in this respect, and more into documentation writing.
If you want to express the fact that (in the described conditions) the
function performs an action which results in a switchover, then you
should just write it plainly, i.e. "the function performs [some action]
which results in a switchover" (although usually "functions" do not
perform "actions", but again, context etc.)
Notes:
1. I would suggest cutting the sentence after "... switchover" with a
semicolon or period and then describing the switchover in detail in a
new sentence.
2. Is the description of the switchover complete? I'm asking because it
seems to describe only what is done with the unhealthy board, not what
is done with the backup/standby one.
Amicalement,
--
Albert.
Lanarcam
May 2, 2012, 1:14:29 PM5/2/12
to
Le 02/05/2012 18:33, Albert ARIBAUD a écrit :
> Le 02/05/2012 10:40, Lanarcam a écrit :
>> A function dealing with reading of alarms signals is performed by
>> using a pair of electronic boards. One is in active mode, i.e.
>> actually performing the function, the other one is in standby mode,
>> waiting for a failure of the active one to take its place.
>>
>> "If the normal XXX board is unhealthy and the standby board is
>> healthy
>> a switchover is performed, i.e. a standby acquisition command is
>> sent to the normal XXX board and the number of the normal
>> XXX board is modified."
>>
>> Should we say instead : "a switchover occurs". That seems better, but
>> can we express the fact that the switchover is the result of an
>> action
>> performed by this function.
>
> Well, this goes beyond translation per se, but it seems you are already
> past the line in this respect, and more into documentation writing.
That's true, I am not translating, I am writing directly in English.
> Le 02/05/2012 10:40, Lanarcam a écrit :
>> A function dealing with reading of alarms signals is performed by
>> using a pair of electronic boards. One is in active mode, i.e.
>> actually performing the function, the other one is in standby mode,
>> waiting for a failure of the active one to take its place.
>>
>> "If the normal XXX board is unhealthy and the standby board is
>> healthy
>> a switchover is performed, i.e. a standby acquisition command is
>> sent to the normal XXX board and the number of the normal
>> XXX board is modified."
>>
>> Should we say instead : "a switchover occurs". That seems better, but
>> can we express the fact that the switchover is the result of an
>> action
>> performed by this function.
>
> Well, this goes beyond translation per se, but it seems you are already
> past the line in this respect, and more into documentation writing.
But I am asking those questions here because I know there are
knowlegeable people hanging around!
>
> If you want to express the fact that (in the described conditions) the
> function performs an action which results in a switchover, then you
> should just write it plainly, i.e. "the function performs [some action]
> which results in a switchover" (although usually "functions" do not
> perform "actions", but again, context etc.)
In fact, the switchover is performed, not by the board itself, but by
> If you want to express the fact that (in the described conditions) the
> function performs an action which results in a switchover, then you
> should just write it plainly, i.e. "the function performs [some action]
> which results in a switchover" (although usually "functions" do not
> perform "actions", but again, context etc.)
the control software which monitors the boards status and decides
which one should be the master. This is achieved through two requests
sent to the boards, one for the standby one to become master and one
for the master one to become slave, if it is still able to react to
requests.
This operation is called "basculement" in French which I call switchover
here. The software controls this operation.
>
> Notes:
>
> 1. I would suggest cutting the sentence after "... switchover" with a
> semicolon or period and then describing the switchover in detail in a
> new sentence.
>
> 2. Is the description of the switchover complete? I'm asking because it
> seems to describe only what is done with the unhealthy board, not what
> is done with the backup/standby one.
See above. If it is able to react to requests it will stop scanning the
> Notes:
>
> 1. I would suggest cutting the sentence after "... switchover" with a
> semicolon or period and then describing the switchover in detail in a
> new sentence.
>
> 2. Is the description of the switchover complete? I'm asking because it
> seems to describe only what is done with the unhealthy board, not what
> is done with the backup/standby one.
acquisition devices that are attached through a serial link.
>
Lanarcam
May 2, 2012, 1:57:55 PM5/2/12
to
Le 02/05/2012 18:33, Albert ARIBAUD a écrit :
> Le 02/05/2012 10:40, Lanarcam a écrit :
>> A function dealing with reading of alarms signals is performed by
>> using a pair of electronic boards. One is in active mode, i.e.
>> actually performing the function, the other one is in standby mode,
>> waiting for a failure of the active one to take its place.
>>
>> "If the normal XXX board is unhealthy and the standby board is
>> healthy
>> a switchover is performed, i.e. a standby acquisition command is
>> sent to the normal XXX board and the number of the normal
>> XXX board is modified."
>>
>> Should we say instead : "a switchover occurs". That seems better, but
>> can we express the fact that the switchover is the result of an
>> action
>> performed by this function.
>
> Well, this goes beyond translation per se, but it seems you are already
> past the line in this respect, and more into documentation writing.
The sentence in French would look like:
>> A function dealing with reading of alarms signals is performed by
>> using a pair of electronic boards. One is in active mode, i.e.
>> actually performing the function, the other one is in standby mode,
>> waiting for a failure of the active one to take its place.
>>
>> "If the normal XXX board is unhealthy and the standby board is
>> healthy
>> a switchover is performed, i.e. a standby acquisition command is
>> sent to the normal XXX board and the number of the normal
>> XXX board is modified."
>>
>> Should we say instead : "a switchover occurs". That seems better, but
>> can we express the fact that the switchover is the result of an
>> action
>> performed by this function.
>
> Well, this goes beyond translation per se, but it seems you are already
> past the line in this respect, and more into documentation writing.
"Si la carte XXX normale* est en défaut et si la carte veille est
fonctionnelle, un basculement est ordonné : une commande d'acquisition
veille est transmise à la carte XXX normale et le numéro de carte
XXX normale est modifié".
* Were are not allowed anymore to use the "Master/slave" terms
for ethical reasons, if you can believe that.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
May 2, 2012, 2:59:19 PM5/2/12
to
On 2012-05-02 17:57:55 +0000, Lanarcam said:
> Le 02/05/2012 18:33, Albert ARIBAUD a écrit :
>> Le 02/05/2012 10:40, Lanarcam a écrit :
>>> A function dealing with reading of alarms signals is performed by
>>> using a pair of electronic boards. One is in active mode, i.e.
>>> actually performing the function, the other one is in standby mode,
>>> waiting for a failure of the active one to take its place.
>>>
>>> "If the normal XXX board is unhealthy and the standby board is
>>> healthy
>>> a switchover is performed, i.e. a standby acquisition command is
>>> sent to the normal XXX board and the number of the normal
>>> XXX board is modified."
>>>
>>> Should we say instead : "a switchover occurs". That seems better, but
>>> can we express the fact that the switchover is the result of an
>>> action
>>> performed by this function.
>>
>> Well, this goes beyond translation per se, but it seems you are already
>> past the line in this respect, and more into documentation writing.
>
> The sentence in French would look like:
>
> "Si la carte XXX normale* est en défaut et si la carte veille est
> fonctionnelle, un basculement est ordonné :
This makes it much plainer that the switchover is commanded than "a
> Le 02/05/2012 18:33, Albert ARIBAUD a écrit :
>> Le 02/05/2012 10:40, Lanarcam a écrit :
>>> A function dealing with reading of alarms signals is performed by
>>> using a pair of electronic boards. One is in active mode, i.e.
>>> actually performing the function, the other one is in standby mode,
>>> waiting for a failure of the active one to take its place.
>>>
>>> "If the normal XXX board is unhealthy and the standby board is
>>> healthy
>>> a switchover is performed, i.e. a standby acquisition command is
>>> sent to the normal XXX board and the number of the normal
>>> XXX board is modified."
>>>
>>> Should we say instead : "a switchover occurs". That seems better, but
>>> can we express the fact that the switchover is the result of an
>>> action
>>> performed by this function.
>>
>> Well, this goes beyond translation per se, but it seems you are already
>> past the line in this respect, and more into documentation writing.
>
> The sentence in French would look like:
>
> "Si la carte XXX normale* est en défaut et si la carte veille est
> fonctionnelle, un basculement est ordonné :
switchover occurs" suggests, so you probably need to say something like
"a switchover is activated". Independent of that, I don't much like "a
switchover occurs", because "occurs" is a weak word that is usually
better avoided (though plenty of native writers use it): "there is a
switchover" would be more natural.
> une commande d'acquisition
> veille est transmise à la carte XXX normale et le numéro de carte
> XXX normale est modifié".
>
> * Were are not allowed anymore to use the "Master/slave" terms
> for ethical reasons, if you can believe that.
>>
>> If you want to express the fact that (in the described conditions) the
>> function performs an action which results in a switchover, then you
>> should just write it plainly, i.e. "the function performs [some action]
>> which results in a switchover" (although usually "functions" do not
>> perform "actions", but again, context etc.)
>>
>> Notes:
>>
>> 1. I would suggest cutting the sentence after "... switchover" with a
>> semicolon or period and then describing the switchover in detail in a
>> new sentence.
>>
>> 2. Is the description of the switchover complete? I'm asking because it
>> seems to describe only what is done with the unhealthy board, not what
>> is done with the backup/standby one.
sci.lang.translation back to life. Now we need to convince other people
to raise topics for discussion! (Most of my writing is in English, so I
don't often need translation help, but I'll try to remember to ask here
next time I need to write something in French or Spanish (or to
understand something in Portuguese or German)).
--
athel
Lanarcam
May 2, 2012, 3:09:47 PM5/2/12
to
to convey the idea that this the result of anction from the
control software.
>
>> une commande d'acquisition
>> veille est transmise à la carte XXX normale et le numéro de carte
>> XXX normale est modifié".
>>
>> * Were are not allowed anymore to use the "Master/slave" terms
>> for ethical reasons, if you can believe that.
>
> I can believe it, but it's ridiculous.
>
>>>
>>> If you want to express the fact that (in the described conditions) the
>>> function performs an action which results in a switchover, then you
>>> should just write it plainly, i.e. "the function performs [some action]
>>> which results in a switchover" (although usually "functions" do not
>>> perform "actions", but again, context etc.)
>>>
>>> Notes:
>>>
>>> 1. I would suggest cutting the sentence after "... switchover" with a
>>> semicolon or period and then describing the switchover in detail in a
>>> new sentence.
>>>
>>> 2. Is the description of the switchover complete? I'm asking because it
>>> seems to describe only what is done with the unhealthy board, not what
>>> is done with the backup/standby one.
>
> Finally, I congratulate you on single-handedly bringing
> sci.lang.translation back to life. Now we need to convince other people
> to raise topics for discussion! (Most of my writing is in English, so I
> don't often need translation help, but I'll try to remember to ask here
> next time I need to write something in French or Spanish (or to
> understand something in Portuguese or German)).
>
I think there is hope since people still read it.
>> une commande d'acquisition
>> veille est transmise à la carte XXX normale et le numéro de carte
>> XXX normale est modifié".
>>
>> * Were are not allowed anymore to use the "Master/slave" terms
>> for ethical reasons, if you can believe that.
>
> I can believe it, but it's ridiculous.
>
>>>
>>> If you want to express the fact that (in the described conditions) the
>>> function performs an action which results in a switchover, then you
>>> should just write it plainly, i.e. "the function performs [some action]
>>> which results in a switchover" (although usually "functions" do not
>>> perform "actions", but again, context etc.)
>>>
>>> Notes:
>>>
>>> 1. I would suggest cutting the sentence after "... switchover" with a
>>> semicolon or period and then describing the switchover in detail in a
>>> new sentence.
>>>
>>> 2. Is the description of the switchover complete? I'm asking because it
>>> seems to describe only what is done with the unhealthy board, not what
>>> is done with the backup/standby one.
>
> Finally, I congratulate you on single-handedly bringing
> sci.lang.translation back to life. Now we need to convince other people
> to raise topics for discussion! (Most of my writing is in English, so I
> don't often need translation help, but I'll try to remember to ask here
> next time I need to write something in French or Spanish (or to
> understand something in Portuguese or German)).
>
Albert ARIBAUD
May 3, 2012, 2:08:52 AM5/3/12
to
Le 02/05/2012 19:57, Lanarcam a écrit :
> "Si la carte XXX normale* est en défaut et si la carte veille est
> fonctionnelle, un basculement est ordonné : une commande d'acquisition
> veille est transmise à la carte XXX normale et le numéro de carte
> XXX normale est modifié".
>
> * Were are not allowed anymore to use the "Master/slave" terms
> for ethical reasons, if you can believe that.
I can believe that, which is why I am going to ask if you can, rather
> "Si la carte XXX normale* est en défaut et si la carte veille est
> fonctionnelle, un basculement est ordonné : une commande d'acquisition
> veille est transmise à la carte XXX normale et le numéro de carte
> XXX normale est modifié".
>
> * Were are not allowed anymore to use the "Master/slave" terms
> for ethical reasons, if you can believe that.
than suggest that you should, use "main" and "backup", possibly with
"active" denoting the one board currently in use.
If you can, then I am still concerned that nothing above says anything
about making the backup board the active one -- unless this is what is
meant by "le numéro de carte XXX normale est modifié", but that makes
the description heterogeneous in that it describes detail for the main
board, not for the backup board.
Globally, I would have expected something like this:
"Si la carte XXX normale est en défaut et si la carte veille est
fonctionnelle, un basculement est effectué [par l'unité de contrôle] :
une commande d'acquisition veille est transmise à la carte XXX normale
et une commande d'acquisition normale [active?] est transmise à la carte
veille. [Le numéro de carte XXX normale est modifié]".
Which I would have expressed as (XXX is assumed to be a number):
If main board XXX is unhelathy and backup board XXX is healthy, then the
[controlling unit] operates a switchover: a [de-activation command] is
sent to main board XXX and an activation command is sent to backup board
XXX. [Main board number XXX is modified]".
Additional side note: not sure "Le numéro de carte XXX normale est
modifié" is really clear. What is its new value supposed to be? Readers
may want, or need, to know that.
Amicalement,
--
Albert.
Lanarcam
May 3, 2012, 2:40:10 AM5/3/12
to
looks
perfect, I will adopt it.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
May 4, 2012, 8:45:12 AM5/4/12
to
On 2012-05-02 20:59:19 +0200, I <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> said:
[ ... ]
turned out to be today, and although I know perfectly well what "sûre"
means, I was alerted by your other thread to the fact that I was
spelling it wrongly. I had thought that although the masculine "sûr"
needed a circumflex to avoid confusion with the preposition, the
feminine didn't need one. Come to that, why on earth is "valeur"
feminine in the first place? It looks masculine, and its Spanish
cognate "valor" is masculine.
--
athel
[ ... ]
>
> Finally, I congratulate you on single-handedly bringing
> sci.lang.translation back to life. Now we need to convince other people
> to raise topics for discussion! (Most of my writing is in English, so I
> don't often need translation help, but I'll try to remember to ask here
> next time I need to write something in French or Spanish (or to
> understand something in Portuguese or German)).
As it happened, the next day I needed to write a letter in French
> Finally, I congratulate you on single-handedly bringing
> sci.lang.translation back to life. Now we need to convince other people
> to raise topics for discussion! (Most of my writing is in English, so I
> don't often need translation help, but I'll try to remember to ask here
> next time I need to write something in French or Spanish (or to
> understand something in Portuguese or German)).
turned out to be today, and although I know perfectly well what "sûre"
means, I was alerted by your other thread to the fact that I was
spelling it wrongly. I had thought that although the masculine "sûr"
needed a circumflex to avoid confusion with the preposition, the
feminine didn't need one. Come to that, why on earth is "valeur"
feminine in the first place? It looks masculine, and its Spanish
cognate "valor" is masculine.
--
athel
Lanarcam
May 4, 2012, 8:56:03 AM5/4/12
to
On May 4, 2:45 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
correct
anymore. Apparently, this is the result of the 1990 orthographic
reform.
Some have rebelled:
"J’hésite cependant à unir pour mieux désunir. Si l’on veut
garder l’opposition entre sur et sûr, pourquoi la limiter à certaines
occurrences du lemme et ne pas écrire sûre et sûreté — mais que faire
alors d’assurer et d’assurance ? Les experts ont bien sûr fait sept
fois
le tour de la question avant de décider que la marque diacritique
devait
simplement prévenir des confusions accidentelles."
www.asmp.fr/fiches_academiciens/textacad/zemb/orthographe.pdf
I find it illogical to write sûr for the masculine and sûre for the
feminine.
But à chacun ses goûts.
About "valeur", in the TLFi, you find :
ca 1175 valor « bravoure, vaillance »
The genre of bravoure and vaillance have perhaps influenced that of
valeur.
You have also words such as humeur which are feminine. I am happy
not to have to learn French!
> On 2012-05-02 20:59:19 +0200, I <acorn...@imm.cnrs.fr> said:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
>
> > Finally, I congratulate you on single-handedly bringing
> > sci.lang.translation back to life. Now we need to convince other people
> > to raise topics for discussion! (Most of my writing is in English, so I
> > don't often need translation help, but I'll try to remember to ask here
> > next time I need to write something in French or Spanish (or to
> > understand something in Portuguese or German)).
>
> As it happened, the next day I needed to write a letter in French
> turned out to be today, and although I know perfectly well what "s re"
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
>
> > Finally, I congratulate you on single-handedly bringing
> > sci.lang.translation back to life. Now we need to convince other people
> > to raise topics for discussion! (Most of my writing is in English, so I
> > don't often need translation help, but I'll try to remember to ask here
> > next time I need to write something in French or Spanish (or to
> > understand something in Portuguese or German)).
>
> As it happened, the next day I needed to write a letter in French
> means, I was alerted by your other thread to the fact that I was
> spelling it wrongly. I had thought that although the masculine "s r"
> needed a circumflex to avoid confusion with the preposition, the
> feminine didn't need one. Come to that, why on earth is "valeur"
> feminine in the first place? It looks masculine, and its Spanish
> cognate "valor" is masculine.
>
In fact, I didn't know about "sure" that the circumflex was not
> feminine didn't need one. Come to that, why on earth is "valeur"
> feminine in the first place? It looks masculine, and its Spanish
> cognate "valor" is masculine.
>
correct
anymore. Apparently, this is the result of the 1990 orthographic
reform.
Some have rebelled:
"J’hésite cependant à unir pour mieux désunir. Si l’on veut
garder l’opposition entre sur et sûr, pourquoi la limiter à certaines
occurrences du lemme et ne pas écrire sûre et sûreté — mais que faire
alors d’assurer et d’assurance ? Les experts ont bien sûr fait sept
fois
le tour de la question avant de décider que la marque diacritique
devait
simplement prévenir des confusions accidentelles."
www.asmp.fr/fiches_academiciens/textacad/zemb/orthographe.pdf
I find it illogical to write sûr for the masculine and sûre for the
feminine.
But à chacun ses goûts.
About "valeur", in the TLFi, you find :
ca 1175 valor « bravoure, vaillance »
The genre of bravoure and vaillance have perhaps influenced that of
valeur.
You have also words such as humeur which are feminine. I am happy
not to have to learn French!
JM
May 4, 2012, 1:02:16 PM5/4/12
to
Lanarcam wrote:
>
> I find it illogical to write sûr for the masculine and sûre for the
> feminine.
> But à chacun ses goûts.
>
Est-ce vraiment ce que vous vouliez dire ?
>
> I find it illogical to write sûr for the masculine and sûre for the
> feminine.
> But à chacun ses goûts.
>
/Sûr/ et son féminin /sûre/ (avec accent) ont le sens de /certain/
/Sur/ et son féminin /sure/ (sans accent) ont le sens de /aigre/
J.
Lanarcam
May 4, 2012, 2:04:29 PM5/4/12
to
Le 04/05/2012 19:02, JM a écrit :
> Lanarcam wrote:
>>
>> I find it illogical to write sûr for the masculine and sûre for the
>> feminine.
>> But à chacun ses goûts.
>>
>
>
> Est-ce vraiment ce que vous vouliez dire ?
Non, bien sûr ! en fait je voulais dire qu'il était illogique
> Lanarcam wrote:
>>
>> I find it illogical to write sûr for the masculine and sûre for the
>> feminine.
>> But à chacun ses goûts.
>>
>
>
> Est-ce vraiment ce que vous vouliez dire ?
d'écrire sûr au masculin et sure au féminin pour le même sens.
>
> /Sûr/ et son féminin /sûre/ (avec accent) ont le sens de /certain/
> /Sur/ et son féminin /sure/ (sans accent) ont le sens de /aigre/
>
Ce deuxième sens est peu connu. Merci de nous le rappeler.
> /Sûr/ et son féminin /sûre/ (avec accent) ont le sens de /certain/
> /Sur/ et son féminin /sure/ (sans accent) ont le sens de /aigre/
>
Albert ARIBAUD
May 4, 2012, 3:16:00 PM5/4/12
to
Le 04/05/2012 14:56, Lanarcam a écrit :
> Apparently, this is the result of the 1990 orthographic
> reform.
I may be beating a dead horse there, but whenever I read or hear about
> Apparently, this is the result of the 1990 orthographic
> reform.
the 1990 reform, I have a knee-jerk reaction... This 'reform' is
anything but one, since in France, the language is not governed by the
legislative power, much less so by the executive power; it cannot be
'reformed' except by usage.
Thus the 1990 reform can only be enforced on state employees of France;
for the rest of us French speakers (in France and elsewhere) there is no
obligation to adhere to what I personally consider as the sad result of
some people confusing their own shortcomings with some intrinsic
difficulty, and promoting their own lack of logic as 'common sense'.
Amicalement,
--
Albert.
Lanarcam
May 4, 2012, 3:24:36 PM5/4/12
to
Le 04/05/2012 21:16, Albert ARIBAUD a écrit :
> Le 04/05/2012 14:56, Lanarcam a écrit :
>
>> Apparently, this is the result of the 1990 orthographic
>> reform.
>
> I may be beating a dead horse there, but whenever I read or hear about
> the 1990 reform, I have a knee-jerk reaction... This 'reform' is
> anything but one, since in France, the language is not governed by the
> legislative power, much less so by the executive power; it cannot be
> 'reformed' except by usage.
>
I agree with that in principle but there is the fact that spelling
> Le 04/05/2012 14:56, Lanarcam a écrit :
>
>> Apparently, this is the result of the 1990 orthographic
>> reform.
>
> I may be beating a dead horse there, but whenever I read or hear about
> the 1990 reform, I have a knee-jerk reaction... This 'reform' is
> anything but one, since in France, the language is not governed by the
> legislative power, much less so by the executive power; it cannot be
> 'reformed' except by usage.
>
will be taught at school along that "reform". And the "dictée" is
bound to be favored in the future because of the poor state of
spelling performances right now here among pupils.
> Thus the 1990 reform can only be enforced on state employees of France;
> for the rest of us French speakers (in France and elsewhere) there is no
> obligation to adhere to what I personally consider as the sad result of
> some people confusing their own shortcomings with some intrinsic
> difficulty, and promoting their own lack of logic as 'common sense'.
>
mentioned the "Reförmschen" (la réformette), compared to what
they have in Germany, "Rechtschreibreform".
0 new messages