low carbon society dilemma
Mari Hodges
Mari Hodges
Edward Lipsett /t
I'm a tad busy, but I suspect if you Google "carbon bank" (in quotes) you'll
find out what the English-speaking world uses to talk about this.
----------
Edward Lipsett, Intercom, Ltd.
translation @intercomltd.com
Publishing: http://www.kurodahan.com
Translation & layout: http://www.intercomltd.com
Tom Donahue
Well, you could point out that they are missing the indefinite
article, and even with it, when they capitalize it like that,
it sounds like an organization.
Like we have a Japan Society to give scholarships to the
Japanologists, so we need a Low Carbon Society
to promote Low Carbon.
--
Tom Donahue
petercl...@hotmail.com
There is a lot of discussion about the kind of 'economy' we should
have for a sustainable future. I have a feeiling we (NSEs) use
'economy' in a similar way Japanese writers use "社会" in this case.
I googled "carbon free economy" (which would be carbon-free economy in
the real world) and "carbonless economy" and found plenty of
legitimate-looking resources.
Personally, I am looking forward to a hydrogen economy.
Peter Clark
Jeremy Angel
Yes, I had the same resistance to "ubiquitous society" (and
"ubiquitous broadband society"), and put my foot down until every last
mention of it was changed. In general, I agree with your views on
avoiding like the plague chokying 何とか社会 , and generally follow the
same rule, but I don't feel the same antagonism towards "low carbon
society" because it makes a lot more sense that "ubiquitous society"
and its ilk. In fact Google Desktop Search just informed me on the
results page that I have used the very same wording (minus the
ridiculous capitals) twice so far in actual jobs (which put me among
the guilty, eh?)
I don't have time to dig up any definitive evidence, but I can't help
feeling that "low carbon society" was around before Japan got its
hands on it, and that the large number of Japanese hits it generates
is due to it having become a kind of buzzword here more than in other
countries.
Nevertheless, your client's suggestion has glaring problems. If your
client insists on low carbon society, I suggest that you try to get
them to at least use it a little more sensibly.
Jeremy Angel
2008/7/3 Mari Hodges <ma...@marihodges.com>:
--
Jeremy Angel
Nagano, Japan
Alan Siegrist
I guess "low carbon" is pretty high lately on the buzzword list among the
professional word buzzers, with low carbon this and low carbon that being
all the rage. There was even a "Low Carbon Economy Act" introduced into the
US Congress in 2007. So government types in Japan like to append "society"
to their buzzwords. What else is new?
It's all environmental policy pooh-bah gobbledygook to me, so I refuse to
get worked up about it.
There even happens to be a certain Dr. Neil Strachan, Senior Research Fellow
at King's College London that appears to be quite happy with "Low Carbon
Society" (capitalized as if this were some sort of Important New Concept).
See:
http://www.azocleantech.com/details.asp?newsID=2791
But if Mari wants this to be the cross she wants to die on, by all means
please be my guest.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Orinda, CA, USA
Mari Hodges
Mari Hodges
Mari Hodges
> Fellow
> at King's College London that appears to be quite happy with "Low Carbon
> Society" (capitalized as if this were some sort of Important New Concept).
> But if Mari wants this to be the cross she wants to die on, by all means
> please be my guest.
> Regards,
>
> Alan Siegrist
> Orinda, CA, USA
<G> Yes, it is the particular one I have chosen to make a crusade about!
Aside from anything else it could have wrong with it, it just sounds plain
wrong.
Mari Hodges
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
送信者 : "Alan Siegrist" <AlanFS...@Comcast.net>
宛先 : <hon...@googlegroups.com>
送信日時 : 2008年7月3日 13:56
件名 : RE: low carbon society dilemma
>
> I personally am not completely sure what Mari is getting so excited about.
>
> I guess "low carbon" is pretty high lately on the buzzword list among the
> professional word buzzers, with low carbon this and low carbon that being
> all the rage. There was even a "Low Carbon Economy Act" introduced into
> the
> US Congress in 2007. So government types in Japan like to append "society"
> to their buzzwords. What else is new?
>
Small lightbulb here. Japanese, and maybe others, tend to use "society" in
situations in which Americans, and maybe others, would use "economy." I had
never thought of that.
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Jim Lockhart
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 21:56:59 -0700
Alan Siegrist wrote:
> I personally am not completely sure what Mari is getting so excited about.
>
> I guess "low carbon" is pretty high lately on the buzzword list among the
> professional word buzzers, with low carbon this and low carbon that being
> all the rage. There was even a "Low Carbon Economy Act" introduced into the
> US Congress in 2007. So government types in Japan like to append "society"
> to their buzzwords. What else is new?
I tend to agree with Alan here (and Jeremy) on low carbon society, though
I believe "low carbon economy" is more common in native English.
I think Marie's hunch about 社会 ≒ economy, although information
society seems to be the exception.
I suspect Mari's suggestions may have been rejected by the client by her
suggestions focused on carbon-based inputs, whereas the focus of "low
carbon economy" tends to be on emissions, specifically of CO2. Less
dependency on carbon-based fuels is one of several ways, but not the
only way, to achieve a "low carbon economy". (Another expression I
recall seeing is "low carbon-intensity.)
Unlike Alan, though, I don't think this is just gobbledegook--I'm all
for hydrogen, closed-loop materials, zero-waste/zero-emissions, and renewable
fuels, environmentally friendly, low-stupidity economies.
--Jim Lockhart
Matt Stanton
http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=48535
Nice idea, but how on earth are we going to survive without food?
Matt Stanton
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
送信者 : "Matt Stanton" <matt...@gmail.com>
宛先 : "Honyaku E<>J translation list" <hon...@googlegroups.com>
送信日時 : 2008年7月3日 16:08
件名 : Re: low carbon society dilemma
>
> Cambridge University is already talking about a "zero carbon society":
>
> http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=48535
>
> Nice idea, but how on earth are we going to survive without food?
>
http://autofeed.msn.co.in/pandoraV15/output/30833603-F7A3-43B9-8D4B-C46CD80D933D.asp
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Kurt (www.jtranslate.com)
words such as "carbon neutral" or "sustainability" . Another
frequently used term is simply.
Low carbon is not a term I have used.
What does this "low carbon" actually mean? It means "reduce carbon
emissions" - therefore, you might also consider "reduced carbon
emission society" or something similar.
As others have posted, English writers typically don't use this
"society" word as much as their Japanese counterparts, so if I were
doing a full edit job with lots of room for creativity, I would
probably ditch the word "society" altogether and opt for something
else like "a carbon neutral economy" or "green growth."
> 送信者 : "Matt Stanton" <mattst...@gmail.com>
> 送信日時 : 2008年7月3日 16:08
> 件名 : Re: low carbon society dilemma
>
> > Cambridge University is already talking about a "zero carbon society":
>
> >http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=48535
>
> > Nice idea, but how on earth are we going to survive without food?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Thieme- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
>I would probably ditch the word "society" altogether and opt for something
>else like "a carbon neutral economy" or "green growth."
The more important thing to wonder in this case is whether the term
'society' refers to more than just an economic market.
When you say economy you already invoke the image of buying and selling,
market working, capitalism, and so on.
If you use society you are moving beyond that and into the normal lives of
everybody and you are not just talking about economics. In my understanding,
which might be flawed of course, society is a superset of economy.
Hypothesis: does a Japanese person view the world around him in a more
humanist (I am missing a more adequate word to properly express what I mean)
form and thus referring to it at large with 'society' and does an American
person look at it through the lens of capitalism?
Do note I do not mean it in any way short of trying to determine if it is a
cultural bias towards the words used, which does have its repercussions for
the terms with which to translate it.
--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai
イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン
http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B
No one can find me, here in my Soul...
Darren Cook
> 'society' refers to more than just an economic market.
> Hypothesis: does a Japanese person view the world around him in a more
> humanist (I am missing a more adequate word to properly express what I mean)
Holistic?
Interesting idea.
Darren
--
Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer
http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic
open source dictionary/semantic network)
http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work)
http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...)
Jim Lockhart
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:56:26 +0200
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> Do note I do not mean it in any way short of trying to determine if it is a
> cultural bias towards the words used, which does have its repercussions for
> the terms with which to translate it.
In German, what the Japanese call 循環型社会 is called
Kreislaufwirtschaft--i.e., Wirtschaft, not Gesellschaft.
Further, in AmE (at least), when we say something like "green economy,"
"economy" includes the societal aspects as well as the business aspects
of trying to go green. For example, households separating their garbage
into recyclables and combustables, is seen as an economic activity
rather than a "social/社会的" activity. I don't think this has much to
do with capitalism or the capitalistic nature of, say, American society.
Similarly, I think it is a misunderstanding to interpret 社会 as
referring exclusively to societal activities--I think it encompasses
economic ones as well--the societal aspects of business activity, if you
will.
HTH,
--Jim Lockhart
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
>In German, what the Japanese call 循環型社会 is called
>Kreislaufwirtschaft--i.e., Wirtschaft, not Gesellschaft.
Very interesting Jim, I need to make a mental note of that.
>Further, in AmE (at least), when we say something like "green economy,"
>"economy" includes the societal aspects as well as the business aspects
>of trying to go green. For example, households separating their garbage
>into recyclables and combustables, is seen as an economic activity
>rather than a "social/社会的" activity. I don't think this has much to
>do with capitalism or the capitalistic nature of, say, American society.
So the term economy in AmE seems to involve more than just what we here
call 'economie'. I think the term is even more encompassing than what
economy stands for in Australian or British English (can a native from there
please verify this claim of mine).
Such recycling and related things are commonly categorized here having to do
with the 'milieu'. (What was that common term in Japan for not wasting
things, もてない?)
You have a point there Jim when describing it as an economic activity.
>Similarly, I think it is a misunderstanding to interpret 社会 as
>referring exclusively to societal activities--I think it encompasses
>economic ones as well--the societal aspects of business activity, if you
>will.
Yes, sorry, perhaps I was not overly clear there when I said superset. I
meant society at large, including businesses as well.
--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai
イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン
http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B
Lead us to the place, guide us with your grace, to a place where we'll
be safe...
Jim Lockhart
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:47:42 +0200
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> So the term economy in AmE seems to involve more than just what we here
> call 'economie'. I think the term is even more encompassing than what
> economy stands for in Australian or British English (can a native from there
> please verify this claim of mine).
Perhaps so+ I can't say as I have no real feel for Nl: economie. But my
impression of AmE: economy is that it is broader than, i.e., De:
Oekonomie, which--like Jp: 経済--would be more like "business" in AmE.
(I write AmE here because I don't know whether my visceral understanding
extends to BrE/CommE, though I think it probably does.)
> Such recycling and related things are commonly categorized here having to do
> with the 'milieu'. (What was that common term in Japan for not wasting
> things, もてない?)
> You have a point there Jim when describing it as an economic activity.
もったいない is the expression I think you mean.
> >Similarly, I think it is a misunderstanding to interpret 社会 as
> >referring exclusively to societal activities--I think it encompasses
> >economic ones as well--the societal aspects of business activity, if you
> >will.
>
> Yes, sorry, perhaps I was not overly clear there when I said superset. I
> meant society at large, including businesses as well.
No, I was agreeing with you. My point was meant as a generalization
about what I see as most people's (translators') understand of 社会.
HTH,
--Jim Lockhart
Laurie Berman (Sekiguchi)
Aside from the erroneous grammar and stilted sentence that that leaves us with, I am emphatically against the use of "xx society," which is a lazy chokuyaku of 何とか社会. We don't express that in the same way in English.
Alan Siegrist
> Unlike Alan, though, I don't think this is just gobbledegook--I'm all
> for hydrogen, closed-loop materials, zero-waste/zero-emissions, and
> renewable fuels, environmentally friendly, low-stupidity economies.
Please do not misunderstand me. I too am quite convinced of the reality of
the crisis of global climate change that we are facing. I respect the work
of the good environmental scientists that have identified the problem and
now we must come up with efficient solutions to the problem without wrecking
the global economy. But all the slogans, ecobabble and environmental
gobbledygook in the world will not solve the problem.
"Zero carbon society" indeed. Are we humans now supposed to stop respiring
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? Shall we now transform into
silicon-based lifeforms?
Jean-Christophe Helary
On 3 juil. 08, at 20:47, Jim Lockhart wrote:
> Similarly, I think it is a misunderstanding to interpret 社会 as
> referring exclusively to societal activities--I think it encompasses
> economic ones as well--the societal aspects of business activity, if
> you
> will.
Societies are markets where all the goods are not monetized. Human
activity is all about exchanges. That results in modifications of each
and every one's (financial/cultural/intellectual/...) capital.
We tend to see "economy" as limited to the monetized aspect of the
exchanges but 1) much more than appears to be is monetized and thus
linked to that specific vision of "economy" and 2) most of non
monetized exchanges are closely linked to monetized exchanges.
So translating 社会 as economy should not be an issue in a lot of
cases.
Besides, in the example given (low carbon society) it is specifically
the model of economic development that is targeted: permanent growth
through the use of unlimited carbon based fossil energy, readily
available at a very low price.
Jean-Christophe Helary
------------------------------------
http://mac4translators.blogspot.com/
Jean-Christophe Helary
On 3 juil. 08, at 22:41, Alan Siegrist wrote:
> "Zero carbon society" indeed. Are we humans now supposed to stop
> respiring
> carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? Shall we now transform into
> silicon-based lifeforms?
No need for that, but eating much less beef, will definitely
contribute to lowering the level of fart-produced green-house gases...
Jim Lockhart
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 06:41:36 -0700
Alan Siegrist wrote:
> Jim Lockhart writes:
>
> > Unlike Alan, though, I don't think this is just gobbledegook--I'm all
> > for hydrogen, closed-loop materials, zero-waste/zero-emissions, and
> > renewable fuels, environmentally friendly, low-stupidity economies.
>
> Please do not misunderstand me. I too am quite convinced of the reality of
> the crisis of global climate change that we are facing. I respect the work
> of the good environmental scientists that have identified the problem and
> now we must come up with efficient solutions to the problem without wrecking
> the global economy. But all the slogans, ecobabble and environmental
> gobbledygook in the world will not solve the problem.
My take is closer to yours than you think, hence the list item in my
list! <g>
Now there saying it's all because of carbon dioxide. But remember how
just a few years ago, it was chlorofluorocarbons? Now that they've
smashed the CFC industry, now they're turning to CO2!
> "Zero carbon society" indeed. Are we humans now supposed to stop respiring
> carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? Shall we now transform into
> silicon-based lifeforms?
Some lefties are probably thinking just that. I'd sure like to see them
demonstrate it.
Later,
----------------------------------------------
Jim Lockhart
40-6 Myoken
Kamikoiji, Miyano-shita
Yamaguchi, Yamaguchi 753-0011 JPN
http://picasaweb.google.co.jp/JamesALockhart
Tel. 050-5539-8028
Skype: jamesalockhart
----------------------------------------------
Matt Stanton
thoughts. I would like to do that now, though it may be too late.
"Global warming is expected to cause drastic changes in our Earth’s
environment in the future, and Low Carbon Society is urgently needed
if we are to stave off its effects."
"Global warming is expected to cause drastic changes in our Earth’s
their dependency on carbon if we are to stave off its effects."
would be better.
But I think
"Global warming is expected to cause drastic changes in our Earth’s
captures the writer's intention better, as it emphasizes his/her
feeling that we need to create a completely new way of living. As is
often the case, what you sacrifice in elegance you make up for in
fidelity.
Whether the phrase "low carbon society" originated in Japan or not, I
don't know. But the Google search shows that it has a lot of currency
in English, especially in the UK. My prime minister even used the term
in a speech he gave on Saturday:
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page15846.asp
"The fact is that a low carbon society will not emerge from thinking
business as usual."
So, if I were you I'd be cooperative. Just say that while you
personally don't like the expression because you feel it sounds a bit
stilted in English, if the client really wants to use it, they can use
it this way or that way.
BTW, "towards a *** society" also has a lot of currency in English. I
searched for such expressions on Google and found loads of them:
"Towards a (smokefree, post carbon, happier, post-secular, data
analytic, sustainable information, wisdom based, global, learning,
just, successful, fully literate, etc.) society"
None of these originated in Japan.
Limiting the frequency of chokuyakus is what's important when trying
to create translations that read naturally. The odd "it cannot be
denied that" or "it is no exaggeration to say" is fine (the fact that
the chokuyaky even pops into your head means it WILL have some
currency), but if you let them get onto every page, the document can
start to drift into the realm of translationese. The key is knowing
when enough's enough.
Matt Stanton
Laurie Berman (Sekiguchi)
a "xx society" construction that is accepted and widely used in
current English (in Googits, it has a slight edge over "sustainable
economy). It follows that there could be others.
That said, I still get stuck on 循環型社会.
Laurie Berman
berma...@comcast.net
Don Graham
You have communicated your dislike of the term "Low Carbon Society" to
the client but at the end of the day it is their document and they are
free to follow their own preferences over those of their translator.
Cheers,
Don
Mari Hodges wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Global warming is expected to cause drastic changes in our Earth $B!G (Bs environment in the future, and Low Carbon Society is urgently needed if we are to stave off its effects.
> You can guess which part the client changed (read 'Low Carbon Society').
>
>
> What do others think about this? I have already mentioned to my contact that if the sentence is kept that way, I don't want my name in any way associated with the translation (I have a good relationship with my contact and can trust that they will convey that appropriately!). This translation of XX $B<R2q (B really, really irks me.
Mari Hodges
<g>
Thank you everyone for lots of great imput and an interesting and
informative discussion.
Best regards,
Mari
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Graham" <dcgr...@optusnet.com.au>
To: "Honyaku E<>J translation list" <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: low carbon society dilemma
>
> Mari,
>
> You have communicated your dislike of the term "Low Carbon Society" to
> the client but at the end of the day it is their document and they are
> free to follow their own preferences over those of their translator.
>
> Cheers,
> Don
>
>
> Mari Hodges wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Well, the phrase is a dead giveaway of who the client is, but I really
>> need some opinions on this one. I am fighting use of the phrase 'low
>> carbon society' and proposed a couple alternative write-arounds like
>> 'decarbonization' (which was rejected), 'our societies must reduce their
>> dependency on carbon,' 'society must use less carbon,' and 'greatly
>> reduced use of carbon is urgently needed...' The client went ahead and
>> printed up the final draft of something that is going to be printed for
>> the public as:
>> Global warming is expected to cause drastic changes in our Earth’s
>> environment in the future, and Low Carbon Society is urgently needed if
>> we are to stave off its effects.
>>
>> You can guess which part the client changed (read 'Low Carbon Society').
>>
>> Aside from the erroneous grammar and stilted sentence that that leaves us
>> with, I am emphatically against the use of "xx society," which is a lazy
>> chokuyaku of 何とか社会. We don't express that in the same way in
>> English. But as the client pointed out, it gets a lot of Google hits. A
>> good majority of these are related to Japan, so it is clear that this
>> chokuyaku is being used by others, including the media. And in fact, some
>> of the Google hits are US and UK sites that use the phrase "Low Carbon
>> Society." I think this is also lazy media picking up on a lazily
>> translated catch phrase used by a certain international company.
>>
>> What do others think about this? I have already mentioned to my contact
>> that if the sentence is kept that way, I don't want my name in any way
>> associated with the translation (I have a good relationship with my
>> contact and can trust that they will convey that appropriately!). This
>> translation of XX社会 really, really irks me.
pg...@gol.com
crops, such as the principal component of baked beans. <g>
But perhaps we woulsn't want to cut down too much on such hi-C dairy
products as milk for children and yoghurt and cheeses for adults.
Perry Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Christophe Helary" <fus...@mx6.tiki.ne.jp>
To: <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: low carbon society dilemma
>
>
Dale Ponte
I like the sound of "society that conforms to" for starters. As for
tying on the 循環 concept, ideas without context abound..
I contemplate "civilization" for 社会, given the right english in the
right situation. For example a certain couching could tone it down.
Plop it into a lazy-boy of words.
~
Dale
Jeremy Whipple
> That said, I still get stuck on 循環型社会.
Indeed. I see that I've translated it as "recycling-oriented society" in the
past.
Japan's Ministry of the Environment seems to like "recycling-based society,"
as in "Basic Law on Establishing a Recycling-Based Society."
http://www.env.go.jp/recycle/low-e.pdf
Meanwhile, the EU apparently thinks that "recycling society" is OK (though
of course they're not specifically translating the above Japanese term). See
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/1673&format=HT
ML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
It's interesting to look at how the EU handles this in various other
languages. Of the ones I checked my favorite is the Italian version: " una
società che ricicla," literally, "a society that recycles" -- which I think
may more natural in English than any of the above!
FWIW
--
Jeremy Whipple
Setagaya-ku, Tokyo
Mari Hodges
society. That's what I don't like about these 'low carbon,' 'ubiquitous,'
etc. (sorry, nothing's coming to me at the moment) (ubiquitous society
because it's not society that is ubiquitous). It doesn't usually make sense
to line up nouns in English.
Mari Hodges
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Whipple" <jwhi...@gol.com>
To: <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: low carbon society dilemma
>
> On 2008-07-04 2:30 +0900 (JST), Laurie Berman wrote:
>
>> That said, I still get stuck on $Bj@%'mr!<i~6i!"%;h>!& (B
>
> Indeed. I see that I've translated it as "recycling-oriented society" in
> the
> past.
>
> Japan's Ministry of the Environment seems to like "recycling-based
> society,"
> as in "Basic Law on Establishing a Recycling-Based Society."
> http://www.env.go.jp/recycle/low-e.pdf
>
> Meanwhile, the EU apparently thinks that "recycling society" is OK (though
> of course they're not specifically translating the above Japanese term).
> See
> http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/1673&format=HT
> ML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
>
> It's interesting to look at how the EU handles this in various other
> languages. Of the ones I checked my favorite is the Italian version: " una
> societ $B%F (B� che ricicla," literally, "a society that recycles" -- which I
Leanne Ogasawara
carbon society. It is a slogan that when really broken down probably--
as Alan is hinting-- breaks down. At the same time, if I read the
phrase in a document it would not stop me in my tracks. I personally
would keep it. And, this is just my take, but I think low-carbon
society has quite a different nuance than low-carbon economy. In this
case, probably you could go with either, but I do think the former has
more of a nuance of societal efforts including conservation
activities, while the latter brings to mind the carbon-trading issue.
Just some thoughts,
All the best,
Leanne Ogasawara
Tochigi
Matt Stanton
> society. That's what I don't like about these 'low carbon,' 'ubiquitous,'
> etc. (sorry, nothing's coming to me at the moment) (ubiquitous society
> because it's not society that is ubiquitous). It doesn't usually make sense
> to line up nouns in English.
>
> Mari Hodges
what to like and what not to like, but the above argument doesn't make
any sense. You're basically saying that "low-carbon society" would be
OK if recast as "low-carbon-using/consuming/emitting" society. But to
me, the latter ideas are just unnecessarily wordy.
Do you object to "low-cost carrier"? Do you think it should be "low-
costing carrier"?
Matt Stanton
Tom Donahue
last year by Mick Corliss, who was translating the report of
the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
He didn't care for "low carbon society" either.
But when you look at the official announcement about this group
www.env.go.jp/earth/ondanka/2050proj/press/index.html
低炭素社会 (LCS) is mentioned at the very top, in 5 out of
the 6 goals (目的).
It also occurs all over the place in documents from the
British members of the group. So it looks to me like the
Japanese and British governments have decided that this
is what it's going to be, and there's not a lot of choice
about it.
That said, there is still stuff we can do. To me
"a low carbon society is urgently needed" sounds unbearably
clunky (Great idea, where can we get one? I'll take one
myself. In fact, I'll take two.)
It needs to be rewritten. Perhaps by adding "realization",
as suggested by Matt, or by finding a better home for
"urgent". For example "urgent action" gets lots of
hits when paired with "low carbon society".
Probably too late to help with the printed version, but
just some thoughts about general operating procedures.
--
Tom Donahue
Dale Ponte
> >循環型社会
Jeremy Whipple writes:
>"a society that recycles"
Clean, shiny even.
D
Matt Stanton
ways of using "low carbon society" in a natural way. If there weren't,
it would never have gained the currency in English it seems to have
now. If the basic idea is "become low carbon society fast", here are
some ideas.
We must:
urgently/rapidly/swiftly become/build/achieve/create/realize/make the
transition to/reinvent society as/transform ourselves into a low
carbon society
achieve/effect/realize a rapid/swift transition to a low carbon
society
not waste any time in making the transition to/reinventing society as/
fostering the emergence of a low carbon society
accelerate/catalyze/kick start the emergence/establishment/foundation
Jim Lockhart
When we're under deadline pressure, we usually don't have time to do
detailed research on terms like 低炭素社会 or 循環型社会, which is why
(unlike in my younger days) I am a bit loath to jump on colleagues for
reaching for quick-and-easy English terms; so I'm glad Marie started
this thread. It's been interesting to see the different ways you folks
have been dealing with these terms.
That said....
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 18:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
Leanne Ogasawara wrote:
> And, this is just my take, but I think low-carbon
> society has quite a different nuance than low-carbon economy. In this
> case, probably you could go with either, but I do think the former has
> more of a nuance of societal efforts including conservation
> activities, while the latter brings to mind the carbon-trading issue.
As far as I'm concerned, the two are the same thing--whether you call it
"society" or "economy," efforts on the part of the public ("societal
efforts") and carbon trading schemes are all part of the same thing. I
have to agree, though, the "society" does sound more encompassing (or,
as it seems to be popular to sat these days, "inclusive") than economy.
But consider these articles, which I think might be good sources for how
some of this stuff is worded:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbon_economy
Fwiw, this article even has a definition of zero-carbon economy, and as
long as the term is understood within the parameters of its definition,
it is not all that ridiculous, regardless of any deconstruction of the
term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutral
The categories these articles belong to can be useful for getting leads
on how associated terms of art are used as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Environmental_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Energy_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Climate_change
This category can also often be helpful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Buzzwords
Now to 循環型社会。
This term, too, has a clear definition. Ever since Dan Kanagy first
started grappling with the term, I too have been trying to pin it
down--especially since it started to turn up in a lot of the work I do.
A lot of people are unhappy with the "recycling society" translation,
not because they don't like the "XXXX society" parlance (something that
doesn't bother me much either--I remember the days when translators were
screaming that "information society" was unnatural English, only to have
Japanese clients who I'd tried to dissuade from using it point it out to
me in plenty of reputable native-English publications [THAT was
embarrassing, and taught me not to act of whatever Japlish complaints
were in vogue among my colleagues or to trust my personal feelings on
usage without first checking the English literature]).
They are unhappy with "recycling society" because the _recycling_ part
is inadequate. That's because the 循環 part is supposed to go beyond
just recycling to cover other means of reducing raw resource consumption,
and is based on concepts of closed-loop resource or materials usage.
"Closed loop" seems to be a term of art and means that once a virgin resource
is harvested, it should be used over and over again minimal or (ideally)
no new harvesting of virgin material.
So what 循環型 is referring to is called (depending on who you listen
to) the Three Rs of reduce, reuse and recycle (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
/Waste_hierarchy), or the Five Rs of reduction, recovery, renewal, and
reuse (or "reuse and recycling" for the final two).
Like most of you, I still haven't been able to come up with (i.e., find
in existing literature or cook up myself) a pithy, slogan-oriented term
for 循環型社会, so I have used, variously, "closed-loop material society/economy",
"closed-loop resources society/economy", and a couple of other things
that I could persuade clients to use (usually in lieu of <i>junkan-gata
shakai</i>, recycling-based society, etc.) and defined it on first
mention as follows: "A society/economy informed by reduction, recovery,
renewal (reuse), and recycling of resources".
Fwiw, German seems to have a pithy term--Kreislaufwirtschaft (lit.,
"[resource]-cycle/circulation economy"--but I don't think it's caught
on in common parlance. But Germany's 循環型社会法 is called the _Gesetz
zur Forderung der Kreislaufwirtschaft und Sicherung der umweltvertraeglichen
Beseitigung von Abfaellen_ (a mouthful that is shortened to _Kreislaufwirtschaf
ts- und Abfallgesetz_; http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreislaufwirtschafts-_und_Abfallgesetz).
For those who'd like to research this further, I suggest 吉田文和著『循
環型社会ー持続可能な未来への経済学』、中公新書 1743 2004年4月25日発行
ISBN4-12-101743-9.
HTH,
Ray Roman
So what 循環型 is referring to is called (depending on who you listen
to) the Three Rs of reduce, reuse and recycle (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
/Waste_hierarchy), or the Five Rs of reduction, recovery, renewal, and
reuse (or "reuse and recycling" for the final two).
Like most of you, I still haven't been able to come up with (i.e., find
in existing literature or cook up myself) a pithy, slogan-oriented term
for 循環型社会, so I have used, variously, "closed-loop material society/economy",
"closed-loop resources society/economy", and a couple of other things
that I could persuade clients to use (usually in lieu of <i>junkan-gata
shakai</i>, recycling-based society, etc.) and defined it on first
mention as follows: "A society/economy informed by reduction, recovery,
renewal (reuse), and recycling of resources".
Yamaguchi, Yamaguchi 753-0011 JPN
----------------------------------------------
--
Ray Roman J.D.
Japanese to English legal translation
japane...@gmail.com
minoru
On 7月3日, 午後12:49, "Mari Hodges" <m...@marihodges.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
> Aside from the erroneous grammar and stilted sentence that that leaves us with, I am emphatically against the use of "xx society," which is a lazy chokuyaku of 何とか社会. We don't express that in the same way in English.
to that question, I would still wander about its significance.
If a client wishes to coin a word, that's their prerogative. Maybe
Low Carbon Society is a new term with a succint and strong
impact.
I guess you must have had an emotional problem with a term
airplane. What does air + plane means to your quisitive mind?
Minoru Mochizuki
Mika Jarmusz
と思っていた矢先に、これなんだからもう。
(Great idea, where can we get one? I'll take one
いいことおっしゃってたじゃないですか。
単に定訳（？）のlow carbon societyを使えば
それで英語が書けたというわけにはいかねぇんだぜ、
という話だったんじゃあ、なかったんですか？
Or is he still wandering about its significance?
--
Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
English to Japanese Translator
http://inJapanese.us
Tom Donahue
> 単に定訳（？）のlow carbon societyを使えば
> それで英語が書けたというわけにはいかねぇんだぜ、
> という話だったんじゃあ、なかったんですか？
Yes, sorry. I guess I just wanted to say that 定訳 or
not, I still sympathize completely with Mari's original
sentiment, namely that I wouldn't want to let this go to
print.
No need to be brutal about it, but if there is a tendency
to think that maybe it really isn't that bad, then
sometimes you have to admit to yourself, yes
it really is that bad.
--
Tom Donahue
Jim Lockhart
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:41:31 +0900
Tom Donahue wrote:
> > 単に定訳（？）のlow carbon societyを使えば
> > それで英語が書けたというわけにはいかねぇんだぜ、
> > という話だったんじゃあ、なかったんですか？
>
> Yes, sorry. I guess I just wanted to say that 定訳 or
> not, I still sympathize completely with Mari's original
> sentiment, namely that I wouldn't want to let this go to
> print.
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I don't catch your drift here.
Within the context of environmental issues, and especially global
warming, I would think that any informed reader* of English would be
able to intuitively appreciate the nuances of either _low-carbon
economy_ or _low-carbon society_ and recognize that these are not
knee-jerk translations of some PR tripe cooked up in Japan.
* Informed reader: someone who regularly reads enough about the issue to
be familiar with the associated terminology.
What part of these combinations would you not want to see in print? "Low"
and "carbon", "low-carbon" and "society/economy"?
I can understand translators' being cautious about introducing yet
another _XXXX society_ into English on yet another half-baked Japanese
moral panic or PR wonk's wishful hubris about his company's product and
its affect on the world, but I think we also need to avoid being
so hypervigilant that we even trash existing terms or perfectly
intuitive (or otherwise valid) neologisms--especially terms of
art--because we think they sound "funny": Terms of art often _are_ funny
sounding and even sometimes illogical, but once they're defined and in
common use, it really ain't up to us translators to refuse to use them.
(Incidentally, though I too might not like them--because I think they
sound silly or illogical--I still see nothing ungrammatical about terms
like "XXXX society," btw.)
--Jim Lockhart @ trying to adopt a low-carbon lifestyle. Take it as you
will--the term is good enough for _The Economist_.
Mika Jarmusz
> not, I still sympathize completely with Mari's original
> print.
*this: My understanding is that the problem Tom was referring to was
not the phrase "low carbon society." He showed us we need to
re-examine Mari's original sentence as a whole, which was "and Low
Carbon Society is urgently needed if we are to stave off its effects."
To me, it was like a light bulb went on.
> 単に定訳（？）のlow carbon societyを使えば
> それで英語が書けたというわけにはいかねぇんだぜ、
> という話だったんじゃあ、なかったんですか？
My colorful wording was to draw attention of misguided Japanese who
think they can tell NES how to write English. I admit I was also
venting at Mochizuki-san who either ignored or missed points made by
Tom and Matt and went on to harass Mari. I was aiming to tell them
(not sure if I succeeded) "You're missing it big time. Quit focusing
on 'low carbon society' in its glorious isolation and look at the
whole sentence. "
Jim Lockhart
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 00:42:47 -0700
Mika Jarmusz wrote:
> Quit focusing
> on 'low carbon society' in its glorious isolation and look at the
> whole sentence. "
Gotcha. Sorry.
--Jim Lockhart ＠ m(._.)m
Laurie Berman (Sekiguchi)
society."
(as in「サスティナブル・ユビキタス社会実現のための要素技術に関す
る研究」)
Laurie Berman
berma...@comcast.net
David J. Littleboy
From: "Laurie Berman (Sekiguchi)" <berma...@comcast.net>
>
> Oy. Don't look now, but here comes the "sustainable ubiquitous
> society."
>
> (as in「サスティナブル・ユビキタス社会実現のための要素技術に関す
> る研究」)
Yep. "サスティナブル ユビキタス 社会" gets 150 googits. Sigh.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Mick Corliss
The Japanese legislation was actually penned based on the German legislation, I think.
At the time I was covering the Environment Ministry and the bureaucrats their came to me in the press club with the German word and asked me for a suitable English equivalent.
FWIW,
Mick
Kawaratani Robert
the Japanese Container and Packaging Recycling Law which was the first
in a series of recycling laws enacted during the 1990s. However, local
governments in Japan are still complaining that the Japanese
legislation is inadequate in the sense that it increases costs for
local governments that responsible for collection more than it does
for corporations unlike the German system that requires companies to
pay the costs for collection and recycling. The Junkan Gata Shakai Ho
(referred to as the Circular Society Law in some Ministry of
Environment materials) was enacted later to provide a framework for
the Waste Management Law and the various recycling laws.
2008/7/8 Mick Corliss <mjco...@gmail.com>:
Alan Siegrist
> The Junkan Gata Shakai Ho (referred to as the Circular Society Law
Now that is a really hilarious translation! Is it the society that is
circular or is it the law? Or is something else circular? Does it have
something to do with social dancing or the distribution of circulars?
If I did not know it had something to do with recycling, I would have no
idea at all what a "Circular Society Law" meant.
You see, this is exactly why I think that this environmental legislation and
the like is largely twaddle.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Orinda, CA, USA
Kawaratani Robert
the low environmental burden sustainable society is the objective and
closed material loops or recycling is one of the processes that needs
to be implemented to achieve the objective. From the point of view of
a bureaucracy (government or corporate), it's easier to communicate
that X% of something was recycled than to discuss a multiple parameter
life cycle assessment results that documents how various parameters
improved (or got worse) by changing types of packaging or processes.
2008/7/6 Ray Roman <japane...@gmail.com>:
Dale Ponte
There's also "material cycling society":
http://www.nies.go.jp/kanko/annual/ae-8/ae-8-policy.pdf
Maybe within our lifetimes we'll hear talk of a "recyclist society."
~
Dale