sindy cremer Sep 18, 2014:

no apologies necessary; I am used to it and meant it as a joke

katerina turevich (asker) Sep 18, 2014:

ok, thank you everybody! and Sindy, sorry! I deserve that last one from you! :))

Barend van Zadelhoff Sep 18, 2014:

@Richard Thank you!

Barend van Zadelhoff Sep 18, 2014:

@Katerina I'm not concerned about your using my suggestion or not.
If you want to use telraam's suggestion please go ahead, I am not going to enter any answer anyway.

It is just that I could not accept there was some essential difference between the options (I prefer mine :-)) and that my interpretation was flawed.

I did not see why.

sindy cremer Sep 18, 2014:

@ Caterina Yep, I omitted to 'copy' that part. The fact that the machine (whatever machine it is) has to be driven to a specific spot emphasises that human intervention is still needed, but only up to a certain point. 'Nauwelijks nog', dus.

Richard Purdom Sep 18, 2014:

The mind boggles as to why the asker wants a construction similar to the Dutch.
'Thanks to XXXX, human intervention is barely needed anymore to control a machine'?
It is horrible in ENG. That isn't translating an idea.
Just use Barend's suggestion.

telraam Sep 18, 2014:

@ Katerina I have no problem whatsoever with you using Barend's suggestion. I simply made my suggestion in order to satisfy your request for a translation that was closer to the original sentence structure. And I have pointed out that the Dutch is sloppy and ambiguous. I cannot do any more. I hope my contribution has been of some help to you.

katerina turevich (asker) Sep 18, 2014:

@ Cindy Well done. It's been on the web since a long time from what I understand. But there is more to it, this particular sentence refers to equipment for picking apples in a fruit garden. That does require getting the machine to the place where it will then operate automatically.

sindy cremer Sep 18, 2014:

The info about the company and their machinery is on the web, for everyone to see. As their website explains, the equipment works according to a 'teach and playback' system. That explains the words 'nauwelijks nog' in the source text => a person has to teach the machine what to do and when, but once that's done and stored in the machine's software, the machine can work autonomously. In other words: human input is required only once, i.e. to train the machine. After that it can operate autonomously.

Barend van Zadelhoff Sep 18, 2014:

@Katerina Ik heb in ieder geval het idee dat ik begrijp wat er staat.

En meende dat begrip te kunnen weergegeven met de door mij voorgestelde vertaling.

Die vertaling sluit andere vertalingen niet uit maar naar mijn idee geeft die mijn begrip van de zin goed weer.

Maar ja, wie ben ik?

katerina turevich (asker) Sep 18, 2014:

@ Barendt You are a native speaker. And just like other native speakers in this discussion, you have finally managed to convince me that this sentence is not only crystal clear, but maybe even most appropriate here. I wasn't convinced of that in the beginning.

Barend van Zadelhoff Sep 18, 2014:

Voor mij zegt

"almost/virtually eliminates human operation of machines"

dat mensen nauwelijks nog aan de machines hoeven te staan/machines hoeven te besturen.

Maar ja, wie ben ik?

katerina turevich (asker) Sep 18, 2014:

Ambuguity 2 Actually, I think the main word in this sentence is zorgt ervoor. The text is about inventing new technology with minimum control necessary for operations. If this was about ‘eliminating control’, then ‘almost eliminate’ sounds like they did a really bad job. They tried to eliminate this one factor, but didn’t succeed. How does one 'almost eliminate human error'? It's still there. If I had to translate it back to Dutch, I would use the word ‘overbodig’ . Thankfully, that’s not the case.
One could use ‘virtually eliminate’, but that is again not the case here. Perhaps, we are back to minimizing the experience. People can indeed go do something else.
The equipment in question is meant to assess the state of ditches, and pick apples and pears. You still have to drive it to the ditch or the tree, and set it in motion.

sindy cremer Sep 18, 2014:

As a Dutch native speaker I have to agree with Barend here. The Dutch is crystal clear. No ambiguity whatsoever.

Barend van Zadelhoff Sep 18, 2014:

@telraam Ik heb het allemaal gelezen maar ik zie niet wat je probleem is.

Zou je dan in het Nederlands uit kunnen leggen wat er volgens jou staat en wat jij er dubbelzinnig aan vindt?

telraam Sep 18, 2014:

Ambiguity I have already explained the ambiguity several times over. Have you not read those explanations? Or are you simply choosing to ignore them?

Barend van Zadelhoff Sep 18, 2014:

An ambiguity that you read into it then.
At least, I don't understand which ambiguity you actually refer to and how it would affect my reading of the sentence.

Actually, I don't see an essential difference in message of both options.

And you can't really explain this difference.

You only say there is a difference.

telraam Sep 18, 2014:

A Barend I understand what you are saying; I simply disagree, as your interpretation ignores the ambiguity of the original source.

This discussion is becoming pointless. I have better things to do.

Barend van Zadelhoff Sep 18, 2014:

XXX zorgt ervoor dat de mens nauwelijks nog een machine hoeft te besturen.

Wat betekent dit?

mensen hoeven nauwelijks nog machines te besturen
stonden mensen eerder nog in een bepaalde mate aan de machine/machines dan is dit nu vrijwel niet meer het geval

mensen die aan de machines staan = human operation of machines

"vrijwel niet meer het geval"

virtually eliminates human operation of machines

Misschien zou jij eens moeten proberen mij te volgen?

telraam Sep 18, 2014:

@ Barend It means the following, that which follows. Thus you have eliminated the possible intention that follows from the sentence. Does that clarify things?

Barend van Zadelhoff Sep 18, 2014:

Heel verhelderend, telraam.
Ik zou het op prijs stellen als jij het zou toelichten, dan weet ik ook meteen in welke betekenis jij het gebruikt.

telraam Sep 18, 2014:

@ Barend

You can find it in the OED.

Barend van Zadelhoff Sep 18, 2014:

Could you first explain to me what "segue" means?

... You have changed it to eliminate the segue I suggested

telraam Sep 18, 2014:

@ Barend

I shall give it a second try. The Dutch sentence is ambiguous. As it stands it could suggest:"... people are hardly ever required to operate a machine" and this leave them time to work on other things. It is also about what the PEOPLE do. You have changed it to eliminate the segue I suggested (and thus stray from the original), by placing the emphasis on the MACHINE. And that is why I suggest your interpretation is flawed.

Barend van Zadelhoff Sep 18, 2014:

@Katerina "XXX almost eliminates human operation of machines" conveys the same meaning as

"XXX ensures that people are hardly ever required to operate a machine"

In short, my suggestion does represent the meaning of the source sentence, certainly it does, however you object against my English wording: 'almost eliminates' "does not exist"

Then I would like to invite you to have a look at site:uk: http://tinyurl.com/kzblj2v

Anyway, it sounds OK to me.

And I invite telraam to explain the "subtlety of the distinction", which they claim I don't understand.

Thank you both.

katerina turevich (asker) Sep 18, 2014:

And another comment on the sentence itself what I thought most funny is that if I run “de mens hoeft te” on google, I get minimal results. Does that mean that it is a highly unusual construction? Clear, but not often used. One of the results is “Uniek is dat er vrijwel niet door de mens hoeft te worden ingegrepen”. That kind of parallels my sentence better than any other result, and on that parallel we get back to ‘intervention’.

katerina turevich (asker) Sep 18, 2014:

To clear it all up Or not ;))
@ Barendt: I did ask for a “translation closer to the original structure”. Moreover, “almost eliminating” doesn’t exist. The word ‘eliminate” is a strong word, and there are lots of other single words you can find to convey the meaning of ‘almost eliminate’: that’s like ‘almost pregnant /aborted’. In that case, I would have chosen simple ‘decrease’ or ‘minimize’. As far as sticking to the Dutch syntax, you are absolutely correct, of course: my own versions were based just on that principle. But interpreting loosely works only sometimes. Thankfully, it works in this case, too, but then only because it is a sort of a marketing text.
@ Telmaart: please put your sentence up as an answer. I like it. I like it because it incorporates all the elements of the original sentence, and doesn’t stray too much away from the intention of the writer.
Yeah, basically, of course, with a sentence like this, probably anything goes as long as it sounds well in English and gives the general idea of minimizing human control. Now, the only thing people have to do is push that one start button.

telraam Sep 18, 2014:

@ Barend
I'm sorry you are unable to understand the subtlety of the distinction. Perhaps if you gave it more thought?

Barend van Zadelhoff Sep 18, 2014:

Sorry, I don't see your point.

You gave the sentence a meaning it does not have ???

"Eliminates" means removes completely, rather than "hardly ever".

I suggested almost eliminates.

telraam Sep 18, 2014:

@ Barend
That's very good of you, Barend. But in your enthusiasm you allowed yourself to wander into a territory that was, unfortunately, incorrect. I repeat, you interpreted the sentence, and gave it a meaning that is does not have. And both the asker and Natasha supported my suggestion.

Barend van Zadelhoff Sep 18, 2014:

By the way, I deliberately choose to ignore this request.

Because sticking to the Dutch syntax is hardly ever advisable.

Barend van Zadelhoff Sep 18, 2014:

I thought I suggested 'almost eliminates', didn't I?

XXX almost eliminates human operation of machines.

As Tina said: I agree with Barend's suggestion - it is simple and represents the exact meaning of the source sentence.

telraam Sep 18, 2014:

@ Barend
I would refer you to the asker's request: can someone come up with something closer to the original sentence structure; I attempted to do this, but you chose to ignore it.
And I do not agree that my translation is simply a rewording of yours; there is a fundamental (although, I admit, subtle) difference in meaning. "Eliminates" means removes completely, rather than "hardly ever". So it strays from the original in a rather significant way. You interpreted the sentence; I translated it.

Barend van Zadelhoff Sep 18, 2014:

@telraam You seem to prefer a translation that more closely follows the Dutch syntax but conveys the same message as my suggestion does.

XXX almost eliminates human operation of machines

XXX ensures that people are hardly ever required to operate a machine

Apparently XXX concerns technology that eliminates the need for human intervention: "It's about eliminating human error."

telraam Sep 18, 2014:

@Barend: I did not ignore "de mens" but chose to translate it (as is most usually done) as "people". And I am afraid the sentence in no way raises any concerns about incriminating matters. Or perhaps you might have meant "imply" rather than "implicate"?

telraam Sep 18, 2014:

@ Barend: Sorry, this time you might be wrong. It might help if you were to try to translate what was written instead of what you might have thought was written. Then you might give an answer closer to the original.

Barend van Zadelhoff Sep 17, 2014:

@telraam Quote: "This is closer to the original than any of the suggestions made thus far."

Is it?

Why not say: This might be closer ...

Barend van Zadelhoff Sep 17, 2014:

@telraam I think telraam does not appreciate that it says 'de mens'.

XXX zorgt ervoor dat de mens nauwelijks nog een machine hoeft te besturen.
What does this implicate?

This means 'human operation of machines' is virtually eliminated by XXX.

katerina turevich (asker) Sep 17, 2014:

@ Natasha Intervention and processes are words I came up with after some considerable thinking. The context is about inventing semi-autonomous technology, but the source is so nonchalantly put in Dutch that though it is crystal clear as a thought, it took some effort on my part to render it in English. In the end, I came up with a cliché for this. It's about eliminating human error. I agree, telraam has the best phrasing, closest to the original.

Natasha Ziada (X) Sep 17, 2014:

Helemaal eens met telraam Also, Katerina, your example translations suggest you have some context that makes you use the words intervention and processes - this is not immediately clear from the ST sentence

telraam Sep 17, 2014:

XXX ensures that people are hardly ever required to operate a machine. This is closer to the original than any of the suggestions made thus far. In fact, the Dutch is sloppy and ambiguous. It clearly says that XXX ensures that people (de mens)... and NOT ensures that a machine... To me it suggests that XXX has given people better work than operating a machine (which is not, I suspect, what the writer intended).

Tina Vonhof (X) Sep 17, 2014:

Why make it so complicated? I agree with Barend's suggestion - it is simple and represents the exact meaning of the source sentence.

Barend van Zadelhoff Sep 17, 2014:

XXX almost eliminates human operation of machines

philgoddard Sep 17, 2014:

Context, please What is XXX? And what does it say before and after this?