| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | Is this sentence grammatically correct? Thread poster: Thomas Carey
|
|---|
Tatty 
Local time: 18:01
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Difficult to convey | Jun 13, 2013 |
It is difficult to convey opinions about translation using the written word.
IMO, there is no ambiguity in the French sentence and a direct translation of it is perfectly fine IMO, and there is nothing ambiguous about the sentence in English either. They were producing two products and latter on they added another product - 3 in total. I don't see any room in that sentence for substitution, personally.
But there is something stunted about the sentence. If you add "has s... See more It is difficult to convey opinions about translation using the written word.
IMO, there is no ambiguity in the French sentence and a direct translation of it is perfectly fine IMO, and there is nothing ambiguous about the sentence in English either. They were producing two products and latter on they added another product - 3 in total. I don't see any room in that sentence for substitution, personally.
But there is something stunted about the sentence. If you add "has started to produce" or "has started producing", while this may appear at first glance to be an addition it is in fact a necessary grammatical adjustment if the aim is to make the sentence flow better and rid it of its stuntedness. Therefore it does not qualify as an addition to the text. "also" would be. BTW, as I pointed out earlier, "also" may or may not introduce a pecking order. So if you add "also" to the text you are introducing ambiguity into a sentence where there wasn't any previously.
Now that we know that the next part of the text focusses on the qualities of the manufacturer (the process) as opposed to a result (the result of the process - no. of shoes sold for example), if the asker decides to use the extended sentence it would be preferable to use "has started producing" because it focusses on the process.
Happy translating! ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:01
Hebrew to English
| Can't say that I agree | Jun 13, 2013 |
Tatty wrote:
IMO, there is no ambiguity in the French sentence and a direct translation of it is perfectly fine IMO, and there is nothing ambiguous about the sentence in English either. They were producing two products and latter on they added another product - 3 in total. I don't see any room in that sentence for substitution, personally.
But there is something stunted about the sentence. If you add "has started to produce" or "has started producing", while this may appear at first glance to be an addition it is in fact a necessary grammatical adjustment if the aim is to make the sentence flow better and rid it of its stuntedness. Therefore it does not qualify as an addition to the text. "also" would be. BTW, as I pointed out earlier, "also" may or may not introduce a pecking order. So if you add "also" to the text you are introducing ambiguity into a sentence where there wasn't any previously.
It really doesn't introduce a "pecking order" in the sentence I was proposing. The only "order" it elucidated was a temporal one. (Here's what they have been manufacturing for 10 years and here's what they're also manufacturing now).
Not sure I really buy your argument about a "grammatical adjustment" not being an addition. I could just as easily argue "also" to be a lexical adjustment, hence not a real "addition" either.
Guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.
| | | | | Key words of present perfect | Jun 13, 2013 |
Hi everyone.
When I used to teach English; I used to tell my studemts that among the key words or clues of the present perfect are for/since and recently. I see both for and recently are used here correctly. Reading the sentence I can understand that the factory has been producing products a and b for 10 years prior to the present date as well product c. However product see has been produced sometime later during these 10 years.
I seen nothing wrong with the grammar.
| | | | Kay Denney
France
Local time: 18:01
French to English
| I like Michele's version best | Jun 13, 2013 |
Michele Fauble wrote: Ty Kendall wrote:
Neither is English. You speak French so if you say the ambiguity is there in French then I'd say merely using "and" is the way forward because just using "and" leaves a nugget of doubt over whether there is substitution or addition. For more than 10 years XYZ has been manufacturing two products and more recently added a third. [Edited at 2013-06-12 19:03 GMT]
Michele your suggestion seems to have been ignored while Ty and Bala fight it out, but it's definitely the best so far. The point is that with "more recently" being a point in time (albeit vague), the pesky present perfect will no longer do.
I wouldn't start with "for" either actually. So I would suggest
"XYZ has been manufacturing Product1 and Product2 for over ten years and more recently introduced Product3"
I toyed with dropping "more", in that the third was probably added in the past five years or so - I would want to make sure of that point before taking that liberty.
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:01
Hebrew to English
| "More recently" | Jun 13, 2013 |
Texte Style wrote: Michele Fauble wrote: Ty Kendall wrote:
Neither is English. You speak French so if you say the ambiguity is there in French then I'd say merely using "and" is the way forward because just using "and" leaves a nugget of doubt over whether there is substitution or addition. For more than 10 years XYZ has been manufacturing two products and more recently added a third. [Edited at 2013-06-12 19:03 GMT] Michele your suggestion seems to have been ignored while Ty and Bala fight it out, but it's definitely the best so far. The point is that with "more recently" being a point in time (albeit vague), the pesky present perfect will no longer do. I wouldn't start with "for" either actually. So I would suggest "XYZ has been manufacturing Product1 and Product2 for over ten years and more recently introduced Product3" I toyed with dropping "more", in that the third was probably added in the past five years or so - I would want to make sure of that point before taking that liberty.
"More recently"...it's a strange one. I like your sentence, and Michele's and the simple past seems natural there, but I'd be lying if I said it doesn't sound right with the present perfect too. Must be because it is quite vague, as you said.
P.S. My boxing gloves have been put away now
| | | | Kay Denney
France
Local time: 18:01
French to English
| even more recently! | Jun 13, 2013 |
Ty Kendall wrote: Texte Style wrote: Michele Fauble wrote: Ty Kendall wrote:
Neither is English. You speak French so if you say the ambiguity is there in French then I'd say merely using "and" is the way forward because just using "and" leaves a nugget of doubt over whether there is substitution or addition. For more than 10 years XYZ has been manufacturing two products and more recently added a third. [Edited at 2013-06-12 19:03 GMT] Michele your suggestion seems to have been ignored while Ty and Bala fight it out, but it's definitely the best so far. The point is that with "more recently" being a point in time (albeit vague), the pesky present perfect will no longer do. I wouldn't start with "for" either actually. So I would suggest "XYZ has been manufacturing Product1 and Product2 for over ten years and more recently introduced Product3" I toyed with dropping "more", in that the third was probably added in the past five years or so - I would want to make sure of that point before taking that liberty. "More recently"...it's a strange one. I like your sentence, and Michele's and the simple past seems natural there, but I'd be lying if I said it doesn't sound right with the present perfect too. Must be because it is quite vague, as you said. P.S. My boxing gloves have been put away now
We can say "we have been doing x recently" of course. It's the change of verb ("added" in Michele's suggestion and "introduced" in mine) that makes the simple past compulsory and "recently" a point in time.
The more I think about it, the more I want to drop the "more". Especially if there's no longer the risk of being swatted with a boxing glove
"XYZ has been manufacturing Product1 and Product2 for over ten years and recently introduced Product3"
I mean, when was the last time any of you used "more recently" apart from in this thread?
I just googled it actually and I got loads of dictionary entries on the first page, which to me means that it isn't really used spontaneously. Ah, no, there are two "spontaneous" instances: "still more recently read books" and "Been seeing this a lot more recently": in both instances "more" goes with the preceding word rather than with "recently".
So if ever the introduction of Product3 was not all that recent I would put "at a later date" instead or ask the client when the bally thing actually was introduced
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:01
Hebrew to English
| You're right | Jun 13, 2013 |
Texte Style wrote: The more I think about it, the more I want to drop the "more". Especially if there's no longer the risk of being swatted with a boxing glove ..... I mean, when was the last time any of you used "more recently" apart from in this thread?
"More recently" is a bit odd, I never stopped to question whether it was idiomatic or not. The more I think about it and say it in my head the more I think "huh?".
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 09:01
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
Ty Kendall wrote:
"More recently" is a bit odd, I never stopped to question whether it was idiomatic or not. The more I think about it and say it in my head the more I think "huh?".
I think "more" is sort of a hedge word in this context. Not as recent as "recently".
Compare
For more than 10 years XYZ has been manufacturing two products and more recently added a third.
with
For more than 10 years XYZ has been manufacturing two products and later added a third.
and
For more than 10 years XYZ has been manufacturing two products and recently added a third.
"Later" could have been as soon as a few weeks or months after the first two products. "Recently" would have been not too long ago. "More recently" is a vaguer time frame, stretching back in time further than "recent", but not stretching back as far as "later" could.
[Edited at 2013-06-13 19:41 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Kay Denney
France
Local time: 18:01
French to English
| more or less recently??? | Jun 13, 2013 |
I love this thread!!!
We could simply say that the introduction of Product3 was "more recent" than that of Products1+2, i.e. less than ten years ago.
Michele Fauble wrote:
"Later" could have been as soon as a few weeks or months after the first two products. "Recently" would have been not too long ago. "More recently" is a vaguer time frame, stretching back in time further than "recent", but not stretching back as far as "later" could.
Actually, "more recently" is not as long ago as "recently", as in:
"I bought a new car recently, in about 2008, and my neighbour more recently, must have been in 2010 because it was before his wife walked out on him."
In the original sentence, "more recently" is in comparison to the "ten years ago". It could have been in 2006, after all, seven years is nothing XYZ would brag about. Then again, the same would apply to four years. The point is that if it were just a few months after the "more than ten years", they could probably have dared to say "for ten years" or "for nearly ten years".
IOMS: recently doesn't absolutely require the present perfect like for or since. It's merely a clue that there could still be relevance with the present. However, it can also be considered to be a time marker, as in my example just above.
[Edited at 2013-06-13 22:02 GMT]
| | | | Tatty
Local time: 18:01
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Boxing gloves might need to come out again | Jun 13, 2013 |
I agree with Michele. What's more, there is absolutely no need to leave out "more" from "more recently".
Let's just ask the original poster what he put in the end...
| | | | Randy CUI
China
Local time: 00:01
English to Chinese
+ ...
| Grammaticallly acceptable, but better for "more recently" to be placed at the end of the sentence. | Jun 14, 2013 |
Thomas Carey wrote:
Hi all,
I have a problem with these sentences (both languages) and would like your opinions.
Depuis plus de 10 ans, XYZ fabrique des [Nom], des [Nom] et plus récemment des [Nom].
XYZ has been manufacturing [Noun] and [Noun] for more than 10 years, and more recently [Noun].
If there was a specific date I'd have no problem (... since 2001, and more recently...) or if the sentence was XYZ began manufacturing... 10 years ago, and more recently ...
But "for more than 10 years" + "more recently" doesn't sound right although this structure is often used.
De meme, "Depuis plus de 10 ans" + "et plus récemment" me semble bizarre également.
Thanks for your thoughts
Tom
Your English rendition of the sentence seems to me acceptable grammatically despite its reasonable ambiguity, for the second half starting with "and more recently" can be intepreted as an elliptical structure. Perhaps it would be better to place "more recently" at the end of the sentence.
| | | | Randy CUI
China
Local time: 00:01
English to Chinese
+ ...
| "More" not to be deleted from "more recently" | Jun 14, 2013 |
Tatty wrote:
I agree with Michele. What's more, there is absolutely no need to leave out "more" from "more recently".
Let's just ask the original poster what he put in the end...
I can't agree with you and Michele more. And I haven't found any reason why "more" should be leaved out from "more recently', for "more recently", the example of which can be found under the enty"recent" in English dictionary, seems acceptable at least if not idiomatic.
Moreover, we are translators instead of authors, we shouldn't leave anything untranslated unless there is an obvious and good reason to do so.
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 21:31
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | A simple solution | Jun 14, 2013 |
The English sentence reads odd because of the part that has been left out as understood. Re-inserting the left out part would be the simplest way to correct the awkwardness of the sentence.
This is the original:
XYZ has been manufacturing [Noun] and [Noun] for more than 10 years, and more recently [Noun].
This is the complete version, which reads better:
XYZ has been manufacturing [Noun] and [Noun] for more than 10 years, and more recently i... See more The English sentence reads odd because of the part that has been left out as understood. Re-inserting the left out part would be the simplest way to correct the awkwardness of the sentence.
This is the original:
XYZ has been manufacturing [Noun] and [Noun] for more than 10 years, and more recently [Noun].
This is the complete version, which reads better:
XYZ has been manufacturing [Noun] and [Noun] for more than 10 years, and more recently it has been manufacturing [Noun].
The sentence still could do with improvement, though grammatically it may be more or less correct, but it still leaves a doubt on that account.
The reason for this is, "recently" does not go well with the verb "has been" tense-wise.
Correcting this would mean making additions/deletions which comes with the imminent danger of a knock on the nose with a hard pair of gloves, so I won't venture to propose anything further. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:01
Hebrew to English
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Correcting this would mean making additions/deletions which comes with the imminent danger of a knock on the nose with a hard pair of gloves, so I won't venture to propose anything further.
I was the one advocating an addition!!! And getting thoroughly browbeaten for daring to do so. I'm hardly going to criticize anyone else for doing it, unless the addition is totally nonsensical.
It sounds like you're finally realizing that:
XYZ has been manufacturing [Noun] and [Noun] for more than 10 years, and more recently it has been manufacturing [Noun].
...is fine, except it kind of sounds like they stopped manufacturing X and X and are now manufacturing Y, which we're being told by the French speakers is not a possible interpretation of the French sentence.
The sentence still could do with improvement, though grammatically it may be more or less correct, but it still leaves a doubt on that account....Correcting this would mean making additions/deletions
Welcome to the dark side.
[Edited at 2013-06-14 06:26 GMT]
| | | | Kay Denney
France
Local time: 18:01
French to English
| oh the sacrosanct source text! | Jun 14, 2013 |
awakening16 wrote:
Moreover, we are translators instead of authors, we shouldn't leave anything untranslated unless there is an obvious and good reason to do so.
It depends on the point of the translation! It's not the Word of God we're translating here!
It's highly likely that it's part of a boilerplate or a website describing the company and hoping to attract English-speaking customers.
If this is the case, then it's more important to come up with something in polished prose, that flows naturally, that sticks in the readers' minds, than to convey every last nuance of the French prose that hasn't necessarily been well-written in the first place. I did say that I would touch base with the client as to just how recent the introduction of Product3 was in order to preserve accuracy.
I specialise in transcreation, and often end up writing something that's completely different.
The example I like to give is that of a restaurant in Burgundy. The blurb on their website said something about "venez déguster nos excellents escargots dans un décor raffiné" and I put "You can't say you've been to France unless you've tried our Burgundy snails!" No it's not the translation, it's a hook line to bring British tourists in. They paid handsomely and considered themselves well-served.
Coming back to the sentence in hand, I consider that when you google a turn of phrase and it doesn't throw up any spontaneous usage on the first page, that's a good sign that people do not use this turn of phrase in writing. It's not natural and in a fairly mundane sentence about the fact that XYZ have been manufacturing different products for different lengths of time, unusual turns of phrase should be avoided.
I just googled "plus récemment" in French, and did get a few spontaneous usages on the first page
Toutefois plus récemment des essais de C-130 ont pu être conduits à parir de porte-avions
Quel est le prénom du bébé né le plus récemment dans votre entourage?
This confirms my hunch that it's more common in French than in English.
I conclude that there is "an obvious and good reason" not to use "more recently" to translate "plus récemment".
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Is this sentence grammatically correct? | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
