Words I hate: Douitsu
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Warren Smith
Nov 12, 2009, 6:56:30 PM11/12/09
to hon...@googlegroups.com
It is always the simplest terms that cause me the most problems. How often,
in the past quarter-century doing this, have I run across the word, 同一?
How do the rest of you folks deal with this pesky word?
Case in point, in a claim of a patent for litigation (requiring a bit more
of a direct translation than a patent for filing):
"Steps A, B, and C are performed on 同一製造措置。"
"... performed on the same manufacturing equipment" begs the question of
"the same as what?"
"... identical manufacturing equipment" seams to my ear to mean that the
steps are performed on separate machines having identical designs.
I am leaning towards "selfsame manufacturing equipment," but that is not a
word I use to often, so I am not entirely comfortable with it. I am also
uncomfortable with lengthy work-arounds that introduce verbiage not found in
the original formulation (such as "... are all performed on a single piece
of equipment).
Does anybody have a more elegant solution to this one?
Thanks.
Warren Smith
in the past quarter-century doing this, have I run across the word, 同一?
How do the rest of you folks deal with this pesky word?
Case in point, in a claim of a patent for litigation (requiring a bit more
of a direct translation than a patent for filing):
"Steps A, B, and C are performed on 同一製造措置。"
"... performed on the same manufacturing equipment" begs the question of
"the same as what?"
"... identical manufacturing equipment" seams to my ear to mean that the
steps are performed on separate machines having identical designs.
I am leaning towards "selfsame manufacturing equipment," but that is not a
word I use to often, so I am not entirely comfortable with it. I am also
uncomfortable with lengthy work-arounds that introduce verbiage not found in
the original formulation (such as "... are all performed on a single piece
of equipment).
Does anybody have a more elegant solution to this one?
Thanks.
Warren Smith
Alan Siegrist
Nov 12, 2009, 7:07:59 PM11/12/09
to hon...@googlegroups.com
Well, first, I think you mean 装置 not 措置.
> "... performed on the same manufacturing equipment" begs the question of
> "the same as what?"
Is it possible that steps A, B and C are all performed on the same piece of
equipment? By this I mean they do not change equipment between steps. They
do not move the material from one machine to another.
That would be my first guess. Unfortunately I would need more context to be
sure.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Carmel, CA, USA
> "... performed on the same manufacturing equipment" begs the question of
> "the same as what?"
equipment? By this I mean they do not change equipment between steps. They
do not move the material from one machine to another.
That would be my first guess. Unfortunately I would need more context to be
sure.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Carmel, CA, USA
Warren Smith
Nov 12, 2009, 7:11:00 PM11/12/09
to hon...@googlegroups.com
Yes. I am quite sure that is the case.... I am just wondering the best way
to express this in English.
W
--
To post: mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com List home:
http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku
FAQ: http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku/web
Posters assume all responsibility for their posts; list owners do not review
messages and accept no responsibility for the content of posts.
to express this in English.
W
To post: mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com List home:
http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku
FAQ: http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku/web
Posters assume all responsibility for their posts; list owners do not review
messages and accept no responsibility for the content of posts.
Mark Spahn
Nov 12, 2009, 7:49:19 PM11/12/09
to hon...@googlegroups.com
>> "Steps A, B, and C are performed on 同一製造装置。"
the ambiguity is in the preposition.
Consider
(1) Shaking and baking are performed on the same fritters.
(2) Shaking and baking are performed on the same agitation griddle.
In case (1) "perform X on Y" means
"apply operation X to object Y";
in case (2) "perform X on Y" means
"carry out operation X using tool Y".
I take "Steps A, B, and C are performed on 同一製造装置。"
to mean that steps A, B, and C are all applied to the
same manufacturing device, not that steps A, B, and C
are all carried out by means of the same manufacturing device.
To answer Warren's question "the same as what?",
the same as each other: that is, each of steps A, B, and C
operates on the (very) same manufacturing device that the
other two steps operate on.
But that's not the only possible interpretation.
It could be that each of these steps is applied
to the same manufacturing device as an earlier
referred-to manufacturing device.
Offhand, I don't see a way to squeeze out all the ambiguity.
-- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
GermaniaもTeutoniaも同一国です。
>
>> "... performed on the same manufacturing equipment" begs the question
>> of "the same as what?"
>
> Is it possible that steps A, B and C are all performed on the same piece
> of
> equipment? By this I mean they do not change equipment between steps. They
> do not move the material from one machine to another.
>
> That would be my first guess. Unfortunately I would need more context to
> be
> sure.
>
> Regards,> Alan Siegrist> Carmel, CA, USA
Now this is an interesting ambiguity:
>> "... performed on the same manufacturing equipment" begs the question
>> of "the same as what?"
>
> Is it possible that steps A, B and C are all performed on the same piece
> of
> equipment? By this I mean they do not change equipment between steps. They
> do not move the material from one machine to another.
>
> That would be my first guess. Unfortunately I would need more context to
> be
> sure.
>
> Regards,> Alan Siegrist> Carmel, CA, USA
the ambiguity is in the preposition.
Consider
(1) Shaking and baking are performed on the same fritters.
(2) Shaking and baking are performed on the same agitation griddle.
In case (1) "perform X on Y" means
"apply operation X to object Y";
in case (2) "perform X on Y" means
"carry out operation X using tool Y".
I take "Steps A, B, and C are performed on 同一製造装置。"
to mean that steps A, B, and C are all applied to the
same manufacturing device, not that steps A, B, and C
are all carried out by means of the same manufacturing device.
To answer Warren's question "the same as what?",
the same as each other: that is, each of steps A, B, and C
operates on the (very) same manufacturing device that the
other two steps operate on.
But that's not the only possible interpretation.
It could be that each of these steps is applied
to the same manufacturing device as an earlier
referred-to manufacturing device.
Offhand, I don't see a way to squeeze out all the ambiguity.
-- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
GermaniaもTeutoniaも同一国です。
Dale Ponte
Nov 12, 2009, 8:31:05 PM11/12/09
to Honyaku E<>J translation list
Warren Smith writes:
> Case in point, in a claim of a patent for litigation (requiring a bit more
> of a direct translation than a patent for filing):
>
> "Steps A, B, and C are performed on $BF10l@=B$A<CV!# (B"
> Case in point, in a claim of a patent for litigation (requiring a bit more
> of a direct translation than a patent for filing):
>
How about some use of "all of steps (a, (b, and (c, are performed on
[such and such] equipment"? Parentheses punctuation may vary,
apparently.
~
Dale Ponte
Minoru Mochizuki
Nov 12, 2009, 8:33:20 PM11/12/09
to hon...@googlegroups.com
Language in general is an inaccurate tool to convey an idea.
That's why legal documents often look very clumsy trying to achieve
accuracy. Sometimes legal sentences can be replaced by numerical formula to
be more efficient and accurate.
That is why there can be fights based on misunderstanding between husband
and wife, friends, and nations.
Although English and other European languages are more articulate in
structure than Japanese in terms of identifying singularity/plurality,
gender, etc., the chances of misunderstanding are equally rampant among
users of different languages.
That's why I honor those rules existing in English language only from the
practical standpoint but without any real respect. I despise those guys who
enjoy nitpicking for the same reason.
Minoru Mochizuki
That's why legal documents often look very clumsy trying to achieve
accuracy. Sometimes legal sentences can be replaced by numerical formula to
be more efficient and accurate.
That is why there can be fights based on misunderstanding between husband
and wife, friends, and nations.
Although English and other European languages are more articulate in
structure than Japanese in terms of identifying singularity/plurality,
gender, etc., the chances of misunderstanding are equally rampant among
users of different languages.
That's why I honor those rules existing in English language only from the
practical standpoint but without any real respect. I despise those guys who
enjoy nitpicking for the same reason.
Minoru Mochizuki
Alan Siegrist
Nov 12, 2009, 8:36:22 PM11/12/09
to hon...@googlegroups.com
Um, how about "Steps A, B and C are performed on the same piece of
manufacturing equipment"?
This is simple enough without ambiguity.
> Yes. I am quite sure that is the case.... I am just wondering the best way
> to express this in English.
>
> > "Steps A, B, and C are performed on 同一製造装置."
manufacturing equipment"?
This is simple enough without ambiguity.
> Yes. I am quite sure that is the case.... I am just wondering the best way
> to express this in English.
>
Fred Uleman
Nov 12, 2009, 8:40:23 PM11/12/09
to hon...@googlegroups.com
This non-patent translator does not think "Steps A, B, and C are performed on the same whatever" begs any questions. Step A is performed on the same whatever as steps B & C, step B is performed on the same whatever as steps A & C, and step C is performed on the same whatever as steps A & B.
=> Steps a, b, and c are all performed on the same whatever.
--
Fred Uleman
=> Steps a, b, and c are all performed on the same whatever.
--
Fred Uleman
Warren Smith
Nov 12, 2009, 8:41:38 PM11/12/09
to hon...@googlegroups.com
AUGH!
Mark spotted an ambiguity I did not spot, in that my structuring of this
sentence left ambiguity as to the role played by the machine -- is it that
agent that performs the steps, or the direct object on which the steps are
performed. (Now I have something else to worry about).
OK.... The answer to this one is easy: "using" the [same/identical/selfsame]
manufacturing equipment.
The point of the patent is that these three steps used to be performed using
three different machines, and now they are performed continuously all using
the same machine. (Hmmm... Maybe the solution to the problem here is the
introduction of the word "all" into the translation as I just did when I was
thinking in English without my thoughts being clouded by the Japanese ...
Steps A, B, and C are ALL performed using the same manufacturing equipment.
Thinking about this again... Perhaps I have been thinking too hard. If A and
B are the same as C, then A and B are the same as each other, so if we say
"A and B are the same" (in the absence of referencing a "C"), then we have
really have no problem assuming that we mean "A and B are the same AS EACH
OTHER." Here saying that "Steps A, B, and C are performed on the same
equipment" (in the absence of any reference to any other equipment) must
refer to some sort of mutual sameness, I suppose.
On the other hand, I think I am moving more towards "selfsame," in this
case, just because this seems to be self-referential, which is what I am
trying to achieve here....
Unless somebody has better ideas, that is.
Does this same problem exist in the Japanese?
Warren
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Spahn [mailto:mark...@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 7:49 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Words I hate: Douitsu
Mark spotted an ambiguity I did not spot, in that my structuring of this
sentence left ambiguity as to the role played by the machine -- is it that
agent that performs the steps, or the direct object on which the steps are
performed. (Now I have something else to worry about).
OK.... The answer to this one is easy: "using" the [same/identical/selfsame]
manufacturing equipment.
The point of the patent is that these three steps used to be performed using
three different machines, and now they are performed continuously all using
the same machine. (Hmmm... Maybe the solution to the problem here is the
introduction of the word "all" into the translation as I just did when I was
thinking in English without my thoughts being clouded by the Japanese ...
Steps A, B, and C are ALL performed using the same manufacturing equipment.
Thinking about this again... Perhaps I have been thinking too hard. If A and
B are the same as C, then A and B are the same as each other, so if we say
"A and B are the same" (in the absence of referencing a "C"), then we have
really have no problem assuming that we mean "A and B are the same AS EACH
OTHER." Here saying that "Steps A, B, and C are performed on the same
equipment" (in the absence of any reference to any other equipment) must
refer to some sort of mutual sameness, I suppose.
On the other hand, I think I am moving more towards "selfsame," in this
case, just because this seems to be self-referential, which is what I am
trying to achieve here....
Unless somebody has better ideas, that is.
Does this same problem exist in the Japanese?
Warren
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Spahn [mailto:mark...@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 7:49 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Words I hate: Douitsu
Warren Smith
Nov 12, 2009, 8:45:15 PM11/12/09
to hon...@googlegroups.com
OK then.
Both
Fred and Alan (whose opinions I have learned to respect deeply over the
many years they have been on this list), both seem to agree that there is little
ambiguity in the construction of "Steps A, B, and C are all performed using the
same manufacturing equipment," so I guess I have been over-thinking
it.
Thanks
for the help!
Warren
Roland Hechtenberg
Nov 12, 2009, 7:28:36 PM11/12/09
to hon...@googlegroups.com
Warren Smith wrote:
> It is always the simplest terms that cause me the most problems. How often,
> in the past quarter-century doing this, have I run across the word, 同一?
>
> How do the rest of you folks deal with this pesky word?
Would "one and the same" work?
> It is always the simplest terms that cause me the most problems. How often,
> in the past quarter-century doing this, have I run across the word, 同一?
>
> How do the rest of you folks deal with this pesky word?
Have fun,
Roland Hechtenberg
Uwe Hirayama
Nov 13, 2009, 8:23:53 AM11/13/09
to hon...@googlegroups.com
Hi Warren,
i suppose it is not a good idea to
hate words but please be sure I
guess i know what you mean. :-)
I am pretty sure that the problem
you are feeling to be confronted
with is a result of that concept of
"direct" translation.
It don't matters what kind of purpose
a translation of a patent may have,
a patent has a text describing a
technical solution for a problem.
And if the technical contents is
reflected in the translation in a way
that both the readers of the original
and the readers of the translation
understand this technical content in the
same way the translation will be ok
(IMHO). One should 'stick' to the
contents encoded by the words and
should not 'stick' to the individual
words.
Well, back to 同一:
Obviously, "Steps A, B, and C are
performed on 同一製造装置。" means that
there is one (and no other) manufacturing
appliance used for the excecution of
the three steps.
What do you think of "Steps A, B, and C are
performed on ***one and the same ***
manufacturing appliance"?
Just my two spoons of fresh wasabi,
Uwe Hirayama
JP2GER TRSL
hira...@t-online.de
i suppose it is not a good idea to
hate words but please be sure I
guess i know what you mean. :-)
I am pretty sure that the problem
you are feeling to be confronted
with is a result of that concept of
"direct" translation.
It don't matters what kind of purpose
a translation of a patent may have,
a patent has a text describing a
technical solution for a problem.
And if the technical contents is
reflected in the translation in a way
that both the readers of the original
and the readers of the translation
understand this technical content in the
same way the translation will be ok
(IMHO). One should 'stick' to the
contents encoded by the words and
should not 'stick' to the individual
words.
Well, back to 同一:
Obviously, "Steps A, B, and C are
performed on 同一製造装置。" means that
there is one (and no other) manufacturing
appliance used for the excecution of
the three steps.
What do you think of "Steps A, B, and C are
performed on ***one and the same ***
manufacturing appliance"?
Just my two spoons of fresh wasabi,
Uwe Hirayama
JP2GER TRSL
hira...@t-online.de
Uwe Hirayama
Nov 13, 2009, 8:38:43 AM11/13/09
to hon...@googlegroups.com
Dear Minoru,
you wrote:
> Language in general is an inaccurate tool to convey an idea.
do you have a more accurate one to share so that I can
understand you better :-) ?
you wrote:
> Language in general is an inaccurate tool to convey an idea.
understand you better :-) ?
Mark Spahn
Nov 13, 2009, 10:11:45 AM11/13/09
to hon...@googlegroups.com
> Obviously, "Steps A, B, and C are
> performed on 同一製造装置。" means that
> there is one (and no other) manufacturing
> appliance used for the excecution of
> the three steps.
>
> What do you think of "Steps A, B, and C are
> performed on ***one and the same ***
> manufacturing appliance"?
>
> Just my two spoons of fresh wasabi,
>
> Uwe Hirayama
and put "same" not with the "steps" but with
the 装置: [With this great new invention,]
the same manufacturing device performs
steps A, B, and C.
This wording takes care of the "perform on"
ambiguity as well.
(In my opinion, "selfsame" sounds too Biblical,
and "the very/exact same" and "one and
the same" are overkill.)
Uwe Hirayama
Nov 13, 2009, 11:11:48 PM11/13/09
to hon...@googlegroups.com
Hi Marc,
> (In my opinion, "selfsame" sounds too Biblical,
> and "the very/exact same" and "one and
> the same" are overkill.)
In legal documents one will always encounter
"overkill" because the writers intend to
"kill" all ambiguity (Minoru wrote about it,
already).
BTW this is one of the few cases in which
I consider German to be more "practicle" than
English because German has the adjective
'gleich' (related to English 'like') and
the adjective-pronoun der/die/das selbe
(usually written in one word, 'selb' is related
to English 'self'). Both mean 'same' but the
latter indicates identity and would be used
in the situation Warren wrote about.
BR,
> (In my opinion, "selfsame" sounds too Biblical,
> and "the very/exact same" and "one and
> the same" are overkill.)
"overkill" because the writers intend to
"kill" all ambiguity (Minoru wrote about it,
already).
BTW this is one of the few cases in which
I consider German to be more "practicle" than
English because German has the adjective
'gleich' (related to English 'like') and
the adjective-pronoun der/die/das selbe
(usually written in one word, 'selb' is related
to English 'self'). Both mean 'same' but the
latter indicates identity and would be used
in the situation Warren wrote about.
BR,
Mark Spahn
Nov 14, 2009, 10:10:40 AM11/14/09
to hon...@googlegroups.com
> Hi Mar[k],
> ...
Thanks for this further enlightenment about ドウイツ語.
I actually thought of this gleich/derselbe distinction when
pondering Warren's question. Consider how you would
translate into German the sentence
"Those two women are wearing the same dress."
If translated with "gleich", it would mean that the
two women are wearing exactly similar copies
of the same dress-design. If translated with "derselbe",
it would evoke an image of two women, possibly
Siamese twins, inside one large two-woman dress.
If this, uh, same distinction in meaning were observed in
English and Japanese as in German, then we would have
gleich/derselbe = same/identical = 同じ/同一.
Alas, this is not the case (as far as I know).
> ...
> BTW this is one of the few cases in which
> I consider German to be more "practical" than
> English because German has the adjective
> 'gleich' (related to English 'like') and
> the adjective-pronoun der/die/das selbe
> (usually written in one word, 'selb' is related
> to English 'self'). Both mean 'same' but the
> latter indicates identity and would be used
> in the situation Warren wrote about.
>
> BR,
> Uwe Hirayama
Hi Uwe,
> 'gleich' (related to English 'like') and
> the adjective-pronoun der/die/das selbe
> (usually written in one word, 'selb' is related
> to English 'self'). Both mean 'same' but the
> latter indicates identity and would be used
> in the situation Warren wrote about.
>
> BR,
> Uwe Hirayama
Thanks for this further enlightenment about ドウイツ語.
I actually thought of this gleich/derselbe distinction when
pondering Warren's question. Consider how you would
translate into German the sentence
"Those two women are wearing the same dress."
If translated with "gleich", it would mean that the
two women are wearing exactly similar copies
of the same dress-design. If translated with "derselbe",
it would evoke an image of two women, possibly
Siamese twins, inside one large two-woman dress.
If this, uh, same distinction in meaning were observed in
English and Japanese as in German, then we would have
gleich/derselbe = same/identical = 同じ/同一.
Alas, this is not the case (as far as I know).
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages