scope

Wow, I’m still in shock that we haven’t done this already. It should be in the Top Three Most Wanted of our Translators’ FBI. But we here at TFBI always get our man, and when scope foolishly stuck its head out on Sunday, well...

Mr. Scope takes me back to my early days as a rookie ’reader. Back then I knew less than I know now, which is sort of like saying you know more about being smacked in the face after you’ve been punched a few times. The idea is firmly there, but the loose brain cells prevent you from fully cementing the idea before the next blow comes. Or something.

Anyway, scope is a bad case of over-use. Despite Polish employing a great deal more specific words to describe slight variations of one thing or concept (as opposed to English which will happily recycle one word to mean five different things), some Polish words suddenly leap out at you with a gun, screaming and ranting about being versatile and having a half-cousin in London or Dublin. It is my suspicion that scope is one such lunatic. Let’s crack the case files on this one:

Prior convictions
1a) The Buyer agrees to supply items within the scope of the agreement. 
2a)  …solely and only in the scope necessary for work performance.
3a) The new drug is recommended for treatment in the scope of motor system disorders.

What the judge said
1b) The Buyer agrees to supply items within the terms of the agreement.
2b)  …solely and only to the extent necessary for work performance.
3b) The new drug is recommended for treatment of motor system disorders.

Throw the book at it!

1) (mass noun) the extent of the area or subject matter that something deals with or to which it is relevant.
2) (n) extent of mental ability, outlook, etc¹
3) (n) range or opportunity (e.g. That’s beyond the scope of our research)¹           
4) (n)  device looked at or through (telescope).
5) instrument for observing or showing (oscilloscope). 

     

The Verdict
As will be evident by now, Evidence 1a, b and c is not incorrect usage. Technically. This, ladies and germs, is a technicality. Because although Mr. Scope appears to be innocent – he is in fact being grossly over used!! Yes, that’s right, with TWO exclaims!

Scope seems to be one of those rare versatile words in Polish, and so when the bullets start flying he gets sprayed across every paragraph in sight. Now in natural English, it’s just not used to the same extent – at all. Good synonyms exist that are also valid in the legal and business contexts which are scope’s usual MO. The fix, then, is to use a synonym – usually range or extent (extent of/extent to which etc) – or, when not in business or other hyper-formal speak, just cut it all down to of (example 3 above).  

        

Now you’re aware of this recidivistic recalcitrant, I want you to get out there and get him! Dismissed.

Quiz Time - Round Two Answers!

Right then ladies and gentlemen, pens down! Following last week’s scintillating batch of brain-busters, let’s have a look at the answers do some explaining. Onwards!

Questions one and two were multiple-choice vocab tests. The correct answers are:

1) The pyramids in Egypt are a) monuments, b) statues, c) alien spaceships. (Although Stargate fans know that answer (c) also holds water).

2) Adam Mickiewicz in Kraków rynek is a a) menorah, b) memorial, c) statue.

The sometimes subtle differences between memorials, statues and monuments can be summarised thusly:

-        Monuments for super-large objects, Wonders of the World etc – think of the adjectival form, monumental.

-        Statues for smaller objects; figures of people etc. Think Lord Nelson atop his column in London’s Trafalgar Square, or Adam M. In Kraków rynek.

-        Memorials for any size object (although usually they’re quite large) which specifically serves to remind viewers of a person or event – think war memorials, or the Fallen Shipyard Workers’ memorial in Gdańsk.

Question three was also a vocab test, and stems from the fact that all too often I see plain vanilla ‘author’ instead of the proper, correct noun for describing artists etc. The correct answers were:

3) Beethoven was a composer. Renoir was an artist.  Nabokov was an author. Wit Stwosz was a sculptor. Katarzyna Kozyra is a/an video artist/multimedia artist/yadda yadda.

Yes, you can use author as a verb, and it’s quite a classy usage. But nine times out of ten, you will need to use the correct job description. Using it as a universal, blanket replacement is not good!

Okay, question four is a real bugger. Some of you know this, some of you don’t. This is one of the standard questions on my próbka for new translators, and often, although they understand the difference, they can’t explain it correctly. So:

4) Right or wrong: In this question, we’re comparing e.g. and i.e.
a) More precise equipment, e.g. a Lego microscope adjusted to this type of scanning, is
    required before further proof can be given. wrong! (correct answer is i.e.)
b) Ready-made, individual servings of pre-packaged desserts, i.e. the small potted trifles,        
    puddings and jellies you can find in Tesco, are often of variable quality. wrong! (correct
    answer is e.g.)

In a nutshell, e.g. is for giving lists of examples, and i.e. is used to clarify information just given. So, (a) is i.e. because all the info following “More precise equipment” specifies in more detail exactly what kind of equipment might be used. In (b), e.g. is correct, because first of all we make a statement about the quality of desserts, and then we give a list of examples of the kinds of desserts we mean.

Question five is something we’ve covered in detail previously (here):

5) Right or wrong: In this question, we’re comparing inform and announce.
a) ‘We would like to inform that the destination of this bus has changed.’ wrong! (Announce is the correct answer)
b) Poznan City Hall would like to announce that its coffers are now full, and that it will not be applying for any more funds. correct!

Question six is another sore spot, for translators of all ranks and flavours, and again it’s something that many of you who know this, know it without really understanding why, so make a note of this one:

6) Right or wrong: 
a) Before he blew himself up, my father always said, ‘It’s worth to remember which wire is live, and which is neutral’.
b) It’s worth to look like you’re interested in what he’s saying, even when you’re not.

What you need to remember is that, essentially, we can’t use the phrase it is worth….  without a verb in the present participle, e.g. it is worth remembering which wire…, it’s worth looking like you’re interested… etc. (Unless we say it is worth it to…., in which case, spoko.

 

The joke here is that I originally used this explanation in a translator seminar in response to the fact that one or two of the more recidivistic translators had a tendency to paint eyeballs on their eye lids and fall asleep as soon as I’d begun... :D

Question seven is something for the art lovers and culture vultures to remember:

7) Odd one out: One of these geniuses is wrong...
a) Beethoven, Strauss, Chopin, Haendel, Vivaldi.

The accepted English spelling is... Handel!

Finally, question eight tasked you with sharpening a crayon and applying it to the nearest wall in order to correct some faulty phrasing...

8)  a) Funding will eventually reach a whole-country scale throughout the EU.
     b) Everywhere where you go, bicycle routes criss-cross the lanes and roads.
     c) Global warming is an undeniable issue. Conservatory efforts by world governments are 
       few and far between.

Junior mistakes, but ones that must be made on the road to wisdom. In (8a), we must remember never to use size-hyphen-noun constructions (whole-country, all-nation etc), but instead the proper adjectives – local, regional, national, international, global etc etc. (8b) uses unnecessary, ungrammatical, un-lovely repetition (everywhere where) instead of the correct everywhere that, and (c) is explained here.

Phew! So how did you do? If you were here last week you’ll recall that I invited you to email or Facebook your answers, and one plucky reader did just that! Congratulations to Adam Ł in Warszawa who got all but one right (4a Adam!), and even provided an alternative, correct answer to 8! You can see what he thought of that over here. In the meantime, a suitcase full of unmarked Monopol money is on it’s way north!

already

Today, I’d like to introduce you to a close personal friend of mine, Already. I’ve known him already for nearly forty years, ever since we met in school, and already by the 1990s we already knew each other well enough to be already like brothers already.

 Enough already? Great, let’s begin! The problem with our friend already is three-fold: 

 1) He’s being put in the wrong place – after the verb, which makes the verb feel silly and look awkward in front of the other words (2a,4a,5a,6a),
2) He’s being shoved out on stage when really, he isn’t even in the scene at all (1a,3a),
3) He’s being used with existing to make already existing, which is pointless repetition (think ‘terminal death’, ‘sad funeral’, or maybe ‘true love’) (7a,8a).

 Already with the examples!
1a. Already in the 1980s, attempts were made to reduce the current immediately prior to breaking the metallic short-circuit...
1b. As early as the 1980s, attempts were made to reduce the current immediately prior to breaking the metallic short-circuit...

2a. Situated far from other buildings, it had started to deteriorate already during the interwar period.
2b. Situated far from other buildings, it had already started to deteriorate during the interwar period.

3a. You also recommended me to introduce changes already in the first act, before the main plot had even been introduced.
3b. You also recommended me to introduce changes as soon as in the first act, before the main plot had even been introduced.

4a. Regulation of monument protection rules was happening already in the first period after Poland regained its independence.
4b. Regulation of monument protection rules was already happening in the first period after Poland regained its independence.

5a. The new edition of the book is making its way to Kraków book shops already!
5b. The new edition of the book is already making its way to Kraków book shops!

6a. Levi’s® has started preparing already for their summer sales!
6b. Levi’s® has already started preparing for their summer sales!

7a. Already existing material is sometimes recycled for the new blog.
7b. Existing material is sometimes recycled for the new blog.

8a. Renovation works were carried out on the already existing infrastructure in the summer of 2007.
8b. Renovation works were carried out on the existing infrastructure in the summer of 2007.

 Fixes
For these three ghastly problems, there are three beautiful, lovely fixes, easily remembered and gratifyingly employed:
1) Put it somewhere else – before the main verb (2b,4b,5b,6b),
2) Use something else – as early as, as soon as are good (1b, 3b),
  3) Don’t use it at all! (7b, 8b).

 So, any questions or comments, post them on our FaceBook page, or leave them in the box below already. ;)

dag - gram

Over the years, I’ve done a lot of recipes and restaurant menus, which is cool because a), I always enjoy reading about food and learning new recipes (I love to cook almost as much as I love to eat!), and b), such translations tend to touch on a variety of languages all in one go (Italian, French etc).

 In all that time, one thing that I’ve often seen and that makes my teeth itch whenever I see it, is dag, and the bastardised plural form, dags. To me, Dags is a made-up sweet form of Dagmara. I have neighbours and colleagues called Dagmara, and I call ‘em Dags. It’s also a mis-spelling of dogs, or a literal spelling of that word in various Irish dialects.

 One thing it’s not though, is a unit of measurement for English speakers.

Professor Wiktoria Pedia tells us that a dag is the “symbol for decagram, a unit of mass equal to ten grams.” In other words, 1 dag (common Polish term) equals 1 decagram (common English term), which equals 10 grams.

 Note that in British English, we don’t even really use decagrams, or dg; rather, if a recipe calls for 10 grams of flour, we just say ‘10g flour’. The fix for dags then, is to just use g, or write grams, instead of 1 dag, 3 dags etc. An example from a cake recipe on the BBC Food website:

For the lemon drizzle
4 lemons, juice only
75g/2¾oz caster sugar

For the sponge
200g/7oz caster sugar
200g/7oz unsalted butter, plus extra for greasing
2 lemons, zest only
3 free-range eggs, beaten
200g/7oz self-raising flour, plus extra for dusting

Note that the OED doesn’t even have a definition for dag that says anything about it as a unit of measurement. (Although it says quite a lot about it being a term for a piece of sheep dung stuck to wool!).

 This issue is also interesting because it highlights the fact that not only are there different ‘established’ measurement systems – all with their own terminology – that depend largely on what country (or language) you’re in, but that some of them are considered current and some not. This is the type of thing that can change based on your age and generation – older translators may tend to use different words which are no longer relevant to the systems employed today. It all depends on what you’re used to and how capable you are of remembering these details and being flexible in your translation; ideally you’d be aware that this kind of thing is a potential issue and would endeavour to check your vocabulary and use the current, standard terms for the TT language and text you’re working in.

 I think that this issue highlights an important point – Your dates, money amounts, punctuation usage, time formatting and all weights and measurements etc, are all equally as important as the actual words and body text. Be a Marine in your translating work, and leave no character behind! 

 (also, anyone who gives me cake automatically becomes A Friend For Life ;)

motive - motif

 

(L) A floral motif. (R) A floral motive. 

Now here’s an interesting thing – using motive when motif is the word we want. It doesn’t happen all that often – and I’ve never seen it happen the other way around – but it’s happened often enough over the years that we can see it’s a definite sore spot that needs some soothing Bad Article cream gently applied to it. Definitions first of all, and at first glance they’re nice and simple:

motive  (n) what induces a person to act in a particular way.motif  (n) 1) theme that is repeated and developed in an artistic work. 2) decorative design or pattern.
3) ornament sewn separately on a garment.

Now let’s play Good Cop/Bad Cop:

Bad Cop:
1a) Our summer collection is enhanced by a striking floral motive.
2a) The first few notes of Beethoven’s legendary Moonlight Sonata form a recurring motive throughout the piece.

Good Cop:
1b) Our summer collection is enhanced by a striking floral motif.
2b) The first few notes of Beethoven’s legendary Moonlight Sonata form a recurring motif throughout the piece.

Remember this very simple rule: If you’re talking about art, music or fashion, then use motif. If you’re talking about criminal activity, or wondering why someone did something, then use motive. ‘Four men were found dead by the side of a road in Poznań today. Police apprehended the killers almost immediately, but it is not yet known what their motive was.’ ‘Did you hear? Aga left her husband, emptied their bank account and took the kids to Sweden!’ ‘Oh no! Why would she do that? What were her motives?’

There's one more thing about all this that you might find interesting: motif is a French word which has connections to motive, but motive is a Latin word, which is all about movement and impetus, both physical and abstract. Weird eh? At any rate, for our purposes – i.e. those of translating in modern English – this is both confusing oraz irrelevant. Or not? What do you think?

 The classic 'dah-dah-dah-dah de dah, dah-de-dah'  you hear whenever Darth Vader appears on screen is a musical motif. Beethoven was also very good at these. Good old Beety.

persons, people

I have a friend back in London who always used to greet me and ask, ‘What’s up with you people?’, or ‘What about you people, what are you doing on Saturday?’. This happened whether or not I was actually with anyone else at the time, and even when in company, the appellation ‘you people’ always amused me. This was years ago, but even now I still remember this bit of phrasing and use it myself sometimes.

So in honour of this old friend, we’re going to look at people and persons today. Persons is something that I only occasionally see, possibly because the context for it isn’t all that common, or possibly because of some larger cosmic reason I’m not privy to. Either way, when I do see it (in a Pl>En translation, of course), it’s often being used instead of people. Examples:

1a) There were no more than ten persons left by the end of his speech.
1b) There were no more than ten people left by the end of his speech.

2a) Although it was seen to be an unpopular move by the liberals, many persons still supported it.

2a) Although it was seen to be an unpopular move by the liberals, many people still supported it.

3a) The individual persons responsible are in hiding at this time.  
3b) The persons responsible are in hiding at this time.

3c) The individuals responsible are in hiding at this time.

3d) Those responsible are in hiding at this time.

4a) He was disturbed that she’d been revealing their secrets to untrained persons.           
4b)  He was disturbed that she’d been revealing their secrets to untrained candidates.

5a) Persons travelling with a child qualify for a 10% discount.          

5b) Passengers travelling with children qualify for a 10% discount.

(1, 2) are the classic examples where persons can be replaced with people in one swift, deadly move. (3a) is an example of good persons usage, but with unnecessary repetition – you only need to use one or the other of individual and persons here, giving us (3b) or (3c). Alternatively, avoid the whole bloody thing entirely by cutting it all out and replacing with a healthy pronoun (3d).

(4,5) illustrate a nice bit of synonym usage. Those of you who took Monday’s advice and are now either completely drunk or have a head brimming with new vocabulary will be particularly pleased here. (4) is more general, whereas in (5), we should have been using passengers to begin with really.

Clearly, there are times when persons is the correct choice, so don’t go thinking I’m totally  down on persons and telling you not to use them; rather,  just follow this handy advice from the boffins at Oxford:

 “The words people and persons can both be used as the plural of person but they are not used in exactly the same way. People is by far the commoner of the two words and is used in most ordinary contexts: a group of people; there were only about ten people; several thousand people have been re-housed. Persons, on the other hand, tends now to be restricted to official or formal contexts, as in this vehicle is authorised to carry twenty persons; no persons admitted without a pass.”

Remember people, more people and less persons!

evidence

I've just this second read one of my favourite 'mistakes'; the use of evidence in the plural (evidences). This is very, very common, and I can rely on seeing it at least 8 times out of every 10 that the word occurs in any form. If I had a złotówka for every time it came up... (insert contrary joke here ;).

Fortunately, the solution is simple: 1) Never ever write evidences. 2) Always check that the surrounding sentence structure matches its correct use as a mass (uncountable) noun. 3) Pour yourself a drink, smile contentedly, take a sip.

OED Summary:
evidence (mass noun): He gave evidence to the court.
evidence (verb with object): The quality of the photography, as evidenced by her use of light, is outstanding.

as a phrase: in evidence - His acting skills are still very much in evidence.

Examples, Good and Bad:
1a) On the sides of the unit, evidences of leakage were found
1b) On the sides of the unit, evidence of leakage was found.

2a) The festival is regularly reported on by the biggest newspapers and is always acclaimed by international critics, evidences of its growing success.

2b) The festival is regularly reported on by the biggest newspapers and is always acclaimed by international critics, evidence of its growing success.

Now then, back to the drinks. Err, work. Back to work.

appreciate - cooperate

appreciate

1a) The movie has already been appreciated by both critics and cinema-goers.

1b) The movie has already been acclaimed by both critics and cinema-goers.

1c) The movie has already been lauded by both critics and cinema-goers.

1d) The movie has already been applauded by both critics and cinema-goers.

Much like offer, appreciated is one of those all-purpose, one-word-does-all jobs that is over-used in our En translations. Possibly it is a much more flexible and versatile word in Polish, but in English it is rather more specific and has a much more limited use, particularly as here, in its past-tense form. (1b, c, d) are all great synonyms, but note that (1c) can (but not strictly) have a slightly more official meaning, in that our film may have won some prizes or something.

cooperate

An old favourite, and as with all these funky things, it can never be repeated too often or stressed too much: cooperate is over-used, and also has certain undesirable connotations. ‘You will cooperate with us Mr. Proofreader. We know where your family lives...’ Fortunately, it’s really easy to fix:

2a) As the leading Polish manufacturer of aerospace components, we cooperate with the biggest spaceship factories in the USA.

2b) As the leading Polish manufacturer of aerospace components, we work with the biggest spaceship factories in the USA.

3a) We guarantee the high quality of our cat flaps by cooperating with only ISO-approved flap component manufacturers.

3b) We guarantee the high quality of our cat flaps because we work with only ISO-approved flap component manufacturers.

4a) We welcome you to/for cooperation!

4b) We're waiting for your call! / We welcome all enquiries / etc etc, itd, itp, blah blah...

OED Definition

1- (mass noun) the action or process of cooperating.¹

2- Cooperate: (v) work jointly towards the same end (also ¹); assist someone or comply with their requests.

Note: If you ever find yourself writing (4a), you should strongly consider sitting down with an English dictionary and a bottle of wine, and not getting up again until one or both are finished... ;)

(although I have a book of Polish verb tables that, if I spent more time with it and less time with bottles of wine, I might actually be able to make more sense in Polish... :D)