Long-term vs long-range
Laurie Berman
strategy" is generally more appropriate than "long-term strategy"--
for the same reason that "long-range thinking" sounds better than
"long-term thinking." Then I Googled both (just now) and found that
"long-term strategy" is about 10 times more common. Am I all wet? Or
should I just take this as evidence of my own superiority? ;-)
Laurie Berman
Jeremy Whipple
Of course.
But I'd lowercase "google" as a verb. ;p
--
Jeremy Whipple <jwhi...@gol.com>
Setagaya-ku, Tokyo
Brian Chandler
> On 10/11/30 4:20 +0900 (JST), Laurie Berman wrote:
>
> > In translating 長期戦略, I have always thought that "long-range
> > strategy" is generally more appropriate than "long-term strategy"--
> > for the same reason that "long-range thinking" sounds better than
> > "long-term thinking." Then I Googled both (just now) and found that
> > "long-term strategy" is about 10 times more common. Am I all wet? Or
> > should I just take this as evidence of my own superiority? ;-)
>
> Of course.
there is much in it: "term" refers only to temporal extent, where
"range" could conceivably have a broader meaning. But only "long-range
forecast" sounds right to me.
> But I'd lowercase "google" as a verb. ;p
that proper names can't be verbs? ... "She Hoovered the living room"
and the like. (Not that many come to mind)
Brian Chandler
Alan Siegrist
> I think that if anything "long-term thinking" sounds better.
I agree.
> Not that there is
> much in it: "term" refers only to temporal extent, where "range" could
> conceivably have a broader meaning. But only "long-range forecast" sounds
> right to me.
If you are talking about the weather, a "long-range forecast" would cover a
long spatial extent, but naturally since changes in the weather relate to
both time and distance, it also refers to its temporal extent. But with
things like foreign exchange rates, a "long-term forecast" is better and
more natural since only the temporal extent is meaningful.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Carmel, CA, USA
Derek1022
into the future (keyword: *time*). Long-range is usually used for
*distance* and *space* (e.g., long-range weapon; compare: wide-range).
Hope this helps.
Mika J.
short termに対比しているともいえるはず。その一方で
Long rangeはある時点から先、ではないでしょうか。
文脈にもよりますが日本語の長期計画はterm、
長期構想はrangeを想定しているように感じます。
長期戦略についてはその戦略の内容によりけりですが
語感的には「いくさのはかりごと」のニュアンスがつきまとうのでrangeを意識してしまいます。
ただ日本語もこの頃は英語のstrategyにあたるものを「戦略」と呼ぶようなので
LaurieさんがGoogleヒット数でご確認のとおり
長期戦略をlong term strategy の意で使っている例が増えているかもしれません。
肝心の原文の文脈（戦略の具体内容）はいかがですか。
Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
English to Japanese Translator
http://inJapanese.us
Laurie Berman
On Nov 30, 2010, at 1:18 AM, Derek1022 wrote:
> Long-term strategy/thinking are usually used for plans much further
> into the future (keyword: *time*). Long-range is usually used for
> *distance* and *space* (e.g., long-range weapon; compare: wide-range).
> Hope this helps.
I don't think this distinction is a valid one. If you can have a long-
range forecast, you can have a long-range strategy.
If there's a difference in nuance, I think Mika has pretty much
nailed it: "long-term" stresses the period of time covered, while
"long-range" stresses the target. And I think this is probably why I
intuitively preferred "long-range" when it came to thinking and
strategizing. On the other hand, if the 戦略 in question is a
formal plan that is officially adopted and implemented over a period
of x years, then "long-term" might have the edge.
In any case, today, after sleeping on it and reading all these
insightful comments, I am inclined to think it makes almost no
different, and if that's the case, I'm better off using the term that
my Japanese clients are most comfortable with (i.e., long-term).
Laurie Berman
John Fry
(statistically significant word combinations) in a large corpus. If
you look at the Corpus of Contemporary American English (http://
corpus.byu.edu/coca/) you get the following collocates of LONG-TERM:
CARE, EFFECTS, HEALTH, INTEREST, GOALS, CONSEQUENCES, CAPITAL,
COMMITMENT, RELATIONSHIP, GOAL.
For LONG-RANGE, the top ten collocates are PLANNING, MISSILES, PLAN,
MISSILE, PLANS, NUCLEAR, BOMBERS, BALLISTIC, GOALS, GOAL.
There seems to be some overlap, but I wonder if LONG-TERM things are
more abstract in nature, and LONG-RANGE things are more concrete and
specific.
I wonder if the reason that you don't like "long-term thinking" is
because it's ambiguous between having a thought for a long time, vs.
having a thought (perhaps for a short time) about a long-term goal.
Anyway, to me "long-term strategy" sounds better than "long-range
strategy".
John
Mikako Miyahara
長期的/時間的な長さを表す。
> LONG-TERM:
> CARE, EFFECTS, HEALTH, INTEREST, GOALS, CONSEQUENCES, CAPITAL,
> COMMITMENT, RELATIONSHIP, GOAL.
どれも時間の経過を意識したものだと考えるとしっくりきます。
長期目標、長期的効果、長期的利益、長期的関係…
それに対して、物理的な長さ、対象範囲の広さを表す。
> LONG-RANGE, the top ten collocates are PLANNING, MISSILES, PLAN,
> MISSILE, PLANS, NUCLEAR, BOMBERS, BALLISTIC, GOALS, GOAL.
例えばここで、long-range ballistic missiles は、長距離弾道ミサイルと定訳が有ります。
long-range planning 広範な計画
long-range goals 多岐に渡る目標
この様に考えると
> long-term strategy 長期戦略
も
> long-range strategy 幅広い戦略
どちらも可能。（意味が違ってくるだけ。）
したがってBermanさんの最初の質問にもどると、長期戦略はヤッパリlong-term strategyだと思います。
Mikako Miyahara
m.miy...@peacelink.jp
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Honyaku Mailing list.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku?hl=en?hl=en
Laurie Berman
On Dec 1, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Mikako Miyahara wrote:
> もっとシンプルに理解できる気がしますがどうでしょうか？
It is more simple, to be sure. However . . .
> それに対して、物理的な長さ、対象範囲の広さを表す。
>> LONG-RANGE, the top ten collocates are PLANNING, MISSILES, PLAN,
>> MISSILE, PLANS, NUCLEAR, BOMBERS, BALLISTIC, GOALS, GOAL.
>
> 例えばここで、long-range ballistic missiles は、長距離弾
> 道ミサイルと定訳が有ります。
> long-range planning 広範な計画
> long-range goals 多岐に渡る目標
I really don't think these are good translations. Yes, the "long-
range" in "long-range missiles" refers to distance. But the "long-
range" in "long-range goals" and "long-range planning" refers to
time. (Trust me!!)
Laurie Berman
宮原美佳子
On Dec 1, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Mikako Miyahara wrote:
もっとシンプルに理解できる気がしますがどうでしょうか？
It is more simple, to be sure. However . . .
それに対して、物理的な長さ、対象範囲の広さを表す。
LONG-RANGE, the top ten collocates are PLANNING, MISSILES, PLAN,
MISSILE, PLANS, NUCLEAR, BOMBERS, BALLISTIC, GOALS, GOAL.
例えばここで、long-range ballistic missiles は、長距離弾道ミサイルと定訳が有ります。
long-range planning 広範な計画
long-range goals 多岐に渡る目標
I really don't think these are good translations. Yes, the "long-range" in "long-range missiles" refers to distance. But the "long-range" in "long-range goals" and "long-range planning" refers to time. (Trust me!!)
Laurie Berman
Mika J.
思いこみというものは誰にでもあるもので、
書き出して見るまで気づかないこともよくありますね。
私も思いつくままに投稿することがよくありますが
皆さんにはいつもお世話になっています。
Obvious as it may seem, Laurie's questions is about translation and not about English writing.
I somehow think her instinct is good, as she is the one with the context in whatever shape or form it came to her. When I write in Japanese I am constantly making conscious choices (not always with certainty) on how contracted or expanded my Japanese output should be. I mean, constantly. If the 長期戦略 is 長期的な視野に基づく戦略構想, would it not be a long-range strategy? If it's something more specific instead, such as 長期間にわたって展開する予定になっている戦略 then it is a long-term strategy. (Do I hear booing from chokuyaku believers?)
Often, contracted form is more desirable. With proper context, expanded expressions can do more harm. Contrary to popular sentiment (especially among translators?) of more words make it clear, unwanted clutter can obstruct the effective delivery of the intended message.
日本の方、いかがご覧になりますか？