medium-lowとlow-medium

[shoko fukui]

お世話になっております。

犯罪行為を起こした加害者が被害者に対してどの程度の偏見を抱いていたかという文章を訳していましたら、
medium-low level prejudice
と出てきたのですが、これは、「偏見の程度が中の下」ということになるのでしょうか。
それとも、「中から下の程度の偏見」ということでしょうか。

また、この言葉には、
The reversal of low-medium to medium-low reflects the likelihood of prejudices being at the medium part of the scale.
という脚註がついていて
「（偏見が） low-medium から medium-low へと変わるのは、その偏見が中程度である可能性を示している」
という意味になると思うのですが、そうだとすると、ここに出てくる low-medium と medium-low はどういう訳になるのでしょうか。

もし、最初に挙げた medium-low level prejudice の意味が「偏見の程度が中の下」であれば、 low-medium と medium-low も「下の中」と「中の下」となり、脚註は、偏見が少し強くなったということかと思うのですが、「中から下の程度の偏見」という意味であれば、脚註が理解できません。

そう考えると、 medium-low level prejudice は「偏見の程度が中の下」でよいように思えてくるのですが、いまひとつ確信が持てません。

ご教示いただけましたら幸いです。よろしくお願いいたします。

福井しょう子

**********************************
shoko fukui
shk....@gmail.com

[Mark Spahn]

Shoko, what a puzzling task you face,
with no information to guide you.
For what it's worth, to me,
"medium-low level" hints at a three-level
ranking (high, medium, low), in which
each of those levels (degree of prejudice)
is further divided into three sub-levels.
The scale that comes to mind is:

Level of prejudice Economic class (rich to poor)
(high, medium, low) (upper, middle, lower)

high-high level upper upper class (the richest 1/9)
medium-high level middle upper class
low-high level lower upper class

high-medium level upper middle class
medium-medium level middle middle class
low-medium level lower middle class

high-low level upper lower class
medium-low level middle lower class
low-low level lower lower class (the poorest 11.1%)

This is my guess.
The short answer to your questions is:
We don't know (because the writer
didn't tell us).
The writer probably knows exactly
what the ranking scale is. If only
he would let the reader see the
bureaucratic document that defines
these nine levels (or however many
levels there are), the translator's job
would be easier.
A similar ranking might be devised
for the brightness of colors (e.g.,
bright red, medium-bright green,
dark-dark yellow).
-- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

[Geoffrey Trousselot]

「（偏見が） low-medium から medium-low へと変わるのは、その偏見が中程度である可能性を示している」

This may just confuse you, but I would be inclined to write 反対にする for 変わる as I think that if this interpretation is right, then it is just talking about the expression rather than the value. I think this because of the use of the word "reversal"

Geoffrey Trousselot

shoko fukui
shk....@gmail.com




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Herman]

On 3/6/2015 17:46, shoko fukui wrote:
> お世話になっております。
>
> 犯罪行為を起こした加害者が被害者に対してどの程度の偏見を抱いていたかという文章を訳していましたら、
> medium-low level prejudice
> と出てきたのですが、これは、「偏見の程度が中の下」ということになるのでしょうか。
> それとも、「中から下の程度の偏見」ということでしょうか。
>
> また、この言葉には、
> The reversal of low-medium to medium-low reflects the likelihood of prejudices being at the medium part of the scale.
> という脚註がついていて
> 「（偏見が） low-medium から medium-low へと変わるのは、その偏見が中程度である可能性を示している」
> という意味になると思うのですが、そうだとすると、ここに出てくる low-medium と medium-low はどういう訳になるのでしょうか。

For "The reversal of low-medium to medium-low..." you could say for
instance "「低中」を逆に「中低」としたのは..."

Herman Kahn


　

[Mika J.]

Markさんの書かれたようなupper middle class/lower middle classなどの用法が私も一般的だと思います。仮に偏見の度合いに０～９の度数をつけてみるとすると
low-medium は中の下（4）
medium-lowは下の中（2）ですね。
（日本語とは語順が逆なんだわ。）

The reversal of low-medium to medium-low reflects the likelihood of prejudices being at the medium part of the scale.

おそらく態度や反応などから人の偏見の度合いを判断できるなんらかの方法があって、
「（最初は）low-mediumだったものが、
（後で調べたときには）medium-lowに戻っていた
（普通の状態に近づいていた）
ということから判断して、この人物の偏見は（さほど強いというほどではなく）
中程度のものであろうと考えられる。

ぐらいで、前後の文脈からしていかがでしょう？

9    high-high　目の敵
8    med-high
7    low-high
6    high-med
5    med-med
4    low-med
3    high-low
2    med-low
1    low-low
0  　 偏見なし

Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
        English to Japanese Translator
        http://inJapanese.us

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[shoko fukui]

Markさん、Geoffreyさん、Hermanさん、美香さん

ご教示をどうもありがとうございました。
Markさんや美香さんが書いてくださったように、一覧にしてみたらわかりやすいですね…
自分では思いつかなかったです。
もちろんそれ以前の問題もありますが、英語（外国語）を正しく理解するのは本当に難しいなと改めて実感しています。
（でもめげません）
今後もよろしくお願いいたします。

**********************************
shoko fukui
shk....@gmail.com




> 2015/03/07 17:03、Mika J. <mik...@gmail.com> のメール：

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Herman]

On 3/7/2015 00:03, Mika J. wrote:
> Markさんの書かれたようなupper middle class/lower middle classなどの用法

> が私も一般的だと思います。仮に偏見の度合いに０～９の度数をつけてみるとすると
> low-medium は中の下（4）
> medium-lowは下の中（2）ですね。
> （日本語とは語順が逆なんだわ。）
>
> The reversal of low-medium to medium-low reflects the likelihood of
> prejudices being at the medium part of the scale.
>
> おそらく態度や反応などから人の偏見の度合いを判断できるなんらかの方法が
> あって、
> 「（最初は）low-mediumだったものが、
> （後で調べたときには）medium-lowに戻っていた
> （普通の状態に近づいていた）
> ということから判断して、この人物の偏見は（さほど強いというほどではなく）
> 中程度のものであろうと考えられる。
>
> ぐらいで、前後の文脈からしていかがでしょう？
>
> 9 high-high　目の敵
> 8 med-high
> 7 low-high
> 6 high-med
> 5 med-med
> 4 low-med
> 3 high-low
> 2 med-low
> 1 low-low
> 0 　 偏見なし

That interpretation does not seem to match the wording of the source
text, which could be rephrased as "The reason for evaluating the
prejudice level as "medium-low" instead of "low-medium" is because the
prejudice level was more likely near the middle of the scale".

Herman Kahn

[Mika J.]

Herman,

Thanks for taking a closer look, but as you say, that back translation does not match the source text because it reversed the order of reasoning.

My rendition, which was:

（最初は）low-mediumだったものが、
（後で調べたときには）medium-lowに戻っていた
（普通の状態に近づいていた）
ということから判断して、この人物の偏見は（さほど強いというほどではなく）
中程度のものであろうと考えられる。

back translates, using some of your words, into:
Judging from the (earlier/original assessment of) low-medium reverting (down) to medium-low, the prejudice level is/was more likely near the middle of the scale."

Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
        English to Japanese Translator
        http://inJapanese.us

Herman Kahn

[Herman]

On 3/7/2015 09:48, Mika J. wrote:
> Herman,
>
> Thanks for taking a closer look, but as you say, that back translation
> does not match the source text because it reversed the order of reasoning.
>
> My rendition, which was:
> （最初は）low-mediumだったものが、
> （後で調べたときには）medium-lowに戻っていた
> （普通の状態に近づいていた）
> ということから判断して、この人物の偏見は（さほど強いというほどではなく）
> 中程度のものであろうと考えられる。
> back translates, using some of your words, into:
> Judging from the (earlier/original assessment of) low-medium reverting
> (down) to medium-low, the prejudice level is/was more likely near the
> middle of the scale."
>
>

You are assuming that "low-medium" represents a higher level than
"medium-low". I think that is highly unlikely in terms of English usage,
nor does it match the logic of the source sentence. Especially given the
dash, "low-medium" should not be read as an adjective-noun sequence
signifying "a low type of medium". It can be read as either "low to
medium (but more likely on the low side, since low comes first)" or as
"category Low, subcategory Medium".

Herman Kahn

[Mika J.]

On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Herman <sl...@lmi.net> wrote:

You are assuming that "low-medium" represents a higher level than "medium-low".

Indeed I did, and if you say that's highly unlikely, then your view counts higher than mine, for I'm not a native English speaker.

Let's say then that the interpretation might be:

Judging from the (earlier/original assessment of) low-medium reverting

(up) to medium-low, the prejudice level is/was more likely near the
middle of the scale."

The translator should not make assumptions as to whether "low-medium" means "low to medium (but more likely on the low side, since low comes first)" or as "category Low, subcategory Medium".  But either way, the source sentence seems to suggest that the author clearly knows which is higher, enough to make that point in his argument. 

So, the translator should find more clues in the context, hopefully, and carry her  understanding forward to the target language readers who don't deserve short changed, unless the source language readers are equally short changed by the original author.

[Mark Spahn]

Without context, "low-medium" could mean either

[1] low to medium

[2] the Low subcategory of category Medium

     (cf. "lower-middle class")

[3] category Low, subcategory Medium

 

This is one instance in which Japanese punctuation

is clearer than English punctuation, because

"low~medium" could mean only [1].

-- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Geoffrey Trousselot]

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Mark Spahn <mark...@verizon.net> wrote:

Without context, "low-medium" could mean either

[1] low to medium

[2] the Low subcategory of category Medium

     (cf. "lower-middle class")

[3] category Low, subcategory Medium

 

This is one instance in which Japanese punctuation

is clearer than English punctuation, because

"low~medium" could mean only [1].

-- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

I don't know whether you would include this in [1], but I think it could also mean "low and medium," as in "A and B" as opposed to A to B. The assumption that there is a range between A and B is an assumption. 

Geoffrey Trousselot

 

[hip...@gmail.com]

Hello Esteemed Yakkers,

I have been struggling with 非含有 as used in a SoC RoHS context over the last couple of days.

アスベスト非含有 ＝ asbestos-free
Seems to be pretty straightforward, but I was wondering how one might translate:

非含有確認（の）結果
非含有を確認

hopefully without mentioning the substances in question or the item being verified for such content. If needed though, I think I can get away with "these substances" for the former, and "the part" for the latter.

Any ideas or write-arounds will be greatly appreciated!

Thank you,
Hiroshi Ishibata

[Wataru Tenga]

Hiroshi Ishibata wrote...

>I have been struggling with 非含有 as used in a SoC RoHS context over the
>last couple of days.
>
>アスベスト非含有 ＝ asbestos-free
>Seems to be pretty straightforward, but I was wondering how one might
>translate:
>
>非含有確認（の）結果
>非含有を確認
>

I wonder if you could get away with "compliance" as in compliance
checking.


[As an aside, please start new list threads as new messages, not as
replies to other messages. Your message looks awfully funny in a
threading email program.]

Wataru Tenga, Tokyo

[Herman]

On 3/10/2015 16:24, hip...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello Esteemed Yakkers,
>
> I have been struggling with 非含有 as used in a SoC RoHS context over the last couple of days.
>
> アスベスト非含有 ＝ asbestos-free
> Seems to be pretty straightforward, but I was wondering how one might translate:
>
> 非含有確認（の）結果
> 非含有を確認
>
> hopefully without mentioning the substances in question or the item being verified for such content. If needed though, I think I can get away with "these substances" for the former, and "the part" for the latter.
>

I believe the term you are seeking is "non-inclusion"

Herman Kahn

[hip...@gmail.com]

Hello Wataru,
Thank you for your input.
I thought the subject line would take care of the threading. Sorry for the confusion.
All the best,
Hiroshi Ishibata

[hip...@gmail.com]

Hi Herman,
Thank you for your feedback. This is exactly where I've been stumped.
Do you know if this actually the wording used in RoHS? If so, that would make this much easier.

I can see how "non-inclusion" would be used for 含まれない such as where a certain substance would not be included in a certain category of substances, but can this actually be used to mean 含有しない as in lead-free?

I do see a lot of hits for "non-inclusion" used in the latter context, but they predominantly seem to be on .jp sites.
Otherwise, hits for searches for "non-inclusion of" do not seem to be examples of "xxx-free"

Thanks again,
Hiroshi Ishibata

[Herman]

On 3/10/2015 18:46, hip...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Herman,
> Thank you for your feedback. This is exactly where I've been stumped.
> Do you know if this actually the wording used in RoHS? If so, that would make this much easier.
>

As far as I know, "non-inclusion" is not a term used in RoHS - it is
just a way to translate 非含有 in phrases such as "非含有確認".

Herman Kahn

[Mark Spahn]

As far as I know, "non-inclusion" is not a term used in RoHS - it is
just a way to translate 非含有 in phrases such as "非含有確認".

Herman Kahn

- - - - - - - - -
I am in the habit of translating "含mu" as "include"
and "含有suru" as "contain". Here, a literal translation
of 非含有確認 would be "confirmation of
non-containment".
What is interesting is that "containment" has
a geopolitical meaning of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment
i.e., making sure that Communism is contained
within its present territory and does not spread
outside it.
With this connotation, we could speak about
the "containment" of acetic acid in a drug,
meaning that the acetic acid in the drug is kept
within the drug, while "non-containment" would
mean that the acetic acid leaks out of the drug.
So "confirmation of non-containment" would
mean verifying that drug components migrate
out of the drug. Whereas "confirmation of
non-inclusion" would mean verifying that
the drug does not contain given components
(e.g., acetic acid, arsenic) to begin with.

Ordinarily, include = contain, but here
non-inclusion =/= non-containment.
In this case, "non-containment" would be
misleading.

[Tom Donahue]

> アスベスト非含有 ＝ asbestos-free
> Seems to be pretty straightforward, but I was wondering how one might translate:
>
> 非含有確認（の）結果
> 非含有を確認

Ideally I would like to go with a parallel expression using "free".
Except that they probably don't say what it's free of. Would it be OK
to supply "substance" and say "substance-free confirmation"?
Or if it's a specific substance, supply the name of that substance.

--
Tom Donahue

[Wataru Tenga]

Hiroshi Ishibata wrote...

>Hello Wataru,
>Thank you for your input.
>I thought the subject line would take care of the threading. Sorry for the
>confusion.

The technical reason why just changing the header is not enough: Your
message includes a header "In-Reply-To:" followed by an identifier of
the message you "replied" to. In many programs this will cause your
message to be threaded under the replied-to message.

Wataru Tenga, Tokyo

[hip...@gmail.com]

Thank you all for your thoughtful replies to this thread.
I decided to go with "non-inclusion" and included a note to describe what it meant.

Hiroshi Ishibata