imprint smears and of course culture
Arabic translation: لطاخة انطباعية ومزرعة
| GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 04:39 Sep 14, 2003 |
| English to Arabic translations [PRO] Medical - Medical (general) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
|  Selected response from: Fuad Yahya | |||
Grading comment
| ||||
| Summary of answers provided | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 +2 | لطاخة انطباعية ومزرعة |
| ||
| 1 +1 | لفحص الأنسجة وعمل مزرعة بطبيعة الحال |
|
Answers
2 hrs confidence: 
peer agreement (net): +1
peer agreement (net): +1لفحص الأنسجة وعمل مزرعة بطبيعة الحال Explanation: - -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2003-09-14 13:08:13 (GMT) -------------------------------------------------- smear= a thin tissue or blood sample spread on a glass slide and stained for cytologic examination and diagnosis under a microscope -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2003-09-14 14:45:34 (GMT) -------------------------------------------------- :استراحة مترجم تساءل أحد المترجمين منذ فترة :هل يضحك المترجم؟, وأظن أن الأخ عامر وغيره قد علقوا على هذا التساؤل الوجيه, فالترجمة عمل شاق يتسم بشعور كثيف بالمسئولية خصوصا مع غياب أي معيار مؤكد للتقييم ناهيك عن أن اللغة هي أعقد ظاهرة إنسانية على الإطلاق, وغالباً ما يؤدي ذلك إلى حالة من التحفظ الدائم خشية أن ترتد السهام إلى صاحبها, لكن ذلك لا يمنع تصور رد فعل مريض مصري استخدم معه معمل التحليل المصطلح الصحيح الذي صكه صاحب \"المعجم الطبي الموحد\", وأظن أن اللهجة المصرية معروفة للجميع. |
| |
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
2 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): +2
peer agreement (net): +2لطاخة انطباعية ومزرعة Explanation: smear: لطاخة imprint smear: لطاخة انطباعية culture: زرع أو مزرعة -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2003-09-21 19:51:06 (GMT) Post-grading -------------------------------------------------- Note on AhmedAMS\'s comment below: The email notifying me of your agree vote had a link to this question, so I clicked on it and was able to see Shazly\'s comment. Shazly had written to me before about his view on the matter, and I have responded to him, but I had not seen his added note. So, I am doubly grateful for your agree vote, because it alerted me to Shazly\'s comment. Let me address the points in your comment on my answer and on Shazly\'s answer: I think that we all agree that neither the Unified Medical Dictionary nor any other dictionary is a holy book. I have written about this matter on many occasions. Citing the name of the dictionary that was used in formulating the answer does not mean elevating the dictionary to such a staus. It just means acknowledging the work of the linguists who put it together. I think that credit should be given where credit is due. Naming the source also helps the asker and other readers find out about useful dictionaries. There are many dictionaries in the market, and they vary in quality. It helps to know that a particular dictionary is worth buying. Citing a dictionary can also serve as a hint to the asker that, considering the amount of medical translation he/she is doing, it may be time to acquire a medical dictionary. KudoZ will always be here to supplement deficiencies, but most everyday needs can be served by a dictionary. In fact, I don\'t see how one can accept a medical translation job without having a bilingual medical dictionary. What about the issue of patient comprehension? As I explained in my email to Shazly, this falls under the general issue of register. When a medical report (radiology, hematology, microbiology, chemistry, pathology, or surgery) is translated, patient comprehension is not an issue at all. Medical reports are intentionally written in a highly technical language, because they are addressed to professionals. In many places, patients are not even allowed to see their medical charts. Although this is an extreme measure, it does clearly show the nature of medical records. They are formulated to facilitate professional work, not as communication with patients. So if the translation sounds strange, that is because it reflects the register of the original text, as it should. If the translator is specifically asked to adapt the text to a different purpose, that would be a different situation. If the adaptation is extreme, we would not even call it translation. In a medical interpreting situation, the language used is different. Not only does the interpreter uses patient-friendly terms, but the care provider is supposed to avoid needless jargon as well. If the care provider speaks in highly technical manner (as most recent medical graduates tend to), the interpreter should ask for a pause to consult with the provider about the register issue. My approach goes something like this: \"Before we proceed further, perhaps you and I can agree on the best way to communicate this information to the patient. As a professional interpreter, I am trained to communicate the information you present in the same manner that you present it. In other words, if you use a highly technical phrase, I will naturally assume that you have a reason for doing so, and I will use the equivalent technical term as well. I know there are times when you must speak in such a manner to make a particular point or to educate the patient about his condition or his treatment plan. If, however, that is not your intention, then I would like to ask you to consider speaking to the patient in a less technical manner, because I am sensing that despite my accurate translation, he is not gaining as much understanding as you would desire, and is becoming somewhat apprehensive, although the information is not bad news.\" I have found that most care providers appreciate such a reminder. They will either change the register of their statements, or explain that in this particular case they wish to be very precise regardless of emotional repercussions, because they had used a less technical approach before, which only led to furthering the patient\'s own tendency to deny the seriousness of his condition. If the provider insists on speaking in a highly technical manner but at the same time asks the interpreter to use a less technical language, the interpreter needs to clarify that this is a rather risky approach, because adaptation involves editorial decisions in which some elements are omitted as nonessential. Most interpreters are expected to be willing and able to perform this adapting role. Because of the risks involved in adapting, it is to the interpreter\'s advantage to have this kind of heart-to-heart as a \"caveat emptor.\" In my experience, whenever a patient care problem arises in a medical institution and the patient involved is a non-English-speaking patient, the tendency is to blame the problem on \"communication,\" which typically means the interpreter failed to fully communicate the information. Considering the liability involved, it is helpful for the interpreter to proacively define his/her role. In their medical training, doctors are counseled to speak to patients in a non-technical, non-threatening manner, but this counsel is not emphasized enough. In the end, many physicians turn out to be not patient-care-oriented anyway. They end up doing scientific (non-clinical) research. Shazly has communicated to me that the Arabic term suggested by the cited dictionary has negative connotations in the Egyptian dialect. As I told him, I am not aware of that. ������ ����� ������ |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
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. KudoZ™ translation helpThe KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.
See also: Search millions of term translations Your current localization setting
English
Select a language Close search
| ||
