This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
English translation: ensures that people are hardly ever required to operate a machine
14:11 Sep 17, 2014
Dutch to English translations [PRO] Management / Innovation Management
Dutch term or phrase:nauwelijks nog een machine hoeft te besturen
I am having some problems translating the following phrase:
"XXX zorgt ervoor dat de mens nauwelijks nog een machine hoeft te besturen I have two running versions: 1) "XXX works to minimize the need for intervention during operations" and 2) XXX "enables production/working processes which require a minimum of human intervention"
I am happy with the way it sounds in English, but I wonder if someone can come up with something closer to the original sentence structure. Thanks.
Thank you telraam! Thank you everybody! This is what I was looking for, considering that neither I nor anybody else here had any doubts about the meaning: it was only about how to put it nicely without changing ithe sentence completely. 4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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"
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’.
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.
@ 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 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: 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"?
@ 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.
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)
Australia
Helemaal eens met telraam
20:22 Sep 17, 2014
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
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)
Canada
14:58 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.
ensures that people are hardly ever required to operate a machine
Explanation: This satisfies, I think, the asker's request for a translation closer to the original Dutch sentence.
telraam Local time: 14:42 Specializes in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 4
Grading comment
Thank you telraam! Thank you everybody! This is what I was looking for, considering that neither I nor anybody else here had any doubts about the meaning: it was only about how to put it nicely without changing ithe sentence completely.
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.