The Week in Review - June the 12th, 2011

Hey-ho folks, how's it going? Having fun yet, or hurrying to finish some outstanding work? I've always like the ambiguity of that word - is the work late, or really, really brilliant? Hmm...

Speaking of brilliant, it's been a pretty fruitful week in terms of discussion-worthy things cropping up at work; in fact something just came up now, which reminded me that we had a meeting today! Let's look back at the action so far:

On Monday, a passing academic article had this to say: "The environment meets an important role in the development of obesity."

Two things are going wrong here. Firstly, meeting an important role is a non-functional mash-up of (possibly) two different phrases: 1) playing a role (or part), i.e. 'X plays an important role in Y'; and 2) meeting the needs of, i.e. 'The new bus service meets the needs of the community very well.' The second thing is the definite article at the start of the sentence - it changes environment as a *concept* into environment as a particular place, either previously specified or about to be in the next sentence.

 Reader Adam Ł. then chimed in with an interesting question about articles, definite and otherwise, which appeared in a book he'd read. ;) You can read all about it here, and feel free to add your own opinion on the matter too. :)

Tuesday brought this particular gem to my attention: "Since the 1st of July until the end of the year....". Long-time readers will remember our spectacular, action-packed 'Time Travel Week', where we covered the since/from issue nicely (though feel free to check out the rest of it too!).

The next exciting thing that happened was that I received a proposal. Sadly, not an indecent one,* but fun never the less:

1a. We proposed visitors to buy a t-shirt...
1b. We proposed that visitors buy a t-shirt...
1c. We propose to sell t-shirts to visitors...

Looking at the verb propose, example (1a) above is bad usage. (1b) and (1c) are correct alternatives. The reason for its subtle wickedness is in the verb-noun arrangement, "proposed visitors". We can not go directly from any form of propose straight to such a clause. This is a very, very common mistake by all speakers of English as a second language, not just translators etc.

Remember then, to always put a demonstrative (e.g. that) or some other buffering device, such as a handy preposition (e.g. to) between propose, proposing etc and whatever comes next!


Wednesday we had the long-awaited (by me anyway) Round Two of the Bad Quiz! There's still time to put the kettle on and settle down for a bit of head-scratching before next Wednesday, when we go over the answers and appoint our next winner.

 Thursday brought the full scope of amateur horror to my doorstep when this gibbering monstrosity swam up from the abyssal depths to assault my senses: "...one of the largest cellular networks in Poland, offering a full scope of telecommunications services."

Now, apart from the hugely naughty a which makes scope into a noun (such as one might attach to a rifle), scope is one of the sickest patients in the Over-Used wing of the Translating Issues Asylum. It's a small, simple thing, which nearly everyone uses, nearly all the time! 

So horrifying an issue is it, that I have immediately decided we need to do a whole slot on it. Until then, think about using a synonym instead - range and extent are always appropriately dressed and more than happy to help:  "...one of the largest cellular networks in Poland, offering a full range of telecommunications services."

Friday was a little less dramatic, providing small chuckles in the way of a small error on the part of mediafire.com, the super-handy file sharing site. I posted the following screen-grab and asked you to spot the mistake - no one has yet, so feel free to let rip here too!

 Well, that's enough of my tedious, ill-considered rambling. As I said, we've got the answers to this week's quiz coming up on Wednesday, the threat of a special article on the use of scope, and - don't say I'm not good to you - another guest article by the brilliant, talented, and brilliantly talented Dotty!

Do środa!  

Jim :) 

*awful film, great score. 






 

Loucaides on Cyprus

Loukis Loucaides, former judge at the European Court of Human Rights, has written a short article about the Cypriotic case-law of the Court in the most recent issue of the Leiden Journal of International Law (vol. 24-2, 2011) pp. 435-465. The title of the article is 'Is the European Court of Human Rights Still a Principled Court of Human Rights After the Demopoulos Case?'. This is the abstract:

On 10 May 2001, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Cyprus v. Turkey pronouncing on the legal consequences of Turkey's invasion and occupation of the northern part of Cyprus since 1974. The Court found Turkey responsible for continuing violations of the right to the home and property of Greek-Cypriots. Invoking the Namibia principle, the Court found that remedies in the occupied part of Cyprus may be regarded as domestic remedies of Turkey and that the question of their effectiveness was to be considered in the specific circumstances in which it arises. On 1 March 2010, the Court decided that a Commission in the occupied area was a remedy that should be exhausted by the complainants for the above violations. Significant legal questions were determined relating to the effectiveness of this remedy with far-reaching consequences concerning the right to home and property as well as other aspects of human rights and international law.

School Leaders Morning Tea

Recently our school leaders joined Addington Staff for a shared morning tea. Our eight leaders, two from each Whanau, enjoyed a large selection of savoury and sweet treats. Ms M was quick to point out to them that this was not our usual morning tea fare! Staff and the children enjoyed the opportunity for the social occasion.

Quiz Time - Round Two

Hello and welcome to another round of The Bad Quiz! Following Round One, it's time once again to see if everyone's been paying attention. Not too many questions to deal with, but they're a nice mix of things we've covered since the last time, plus a few new things, just to keep you all on your toes.

I can't promise this won't be a total cake-walk for some of you, but if it at least raises a smile, then that's enough for me. So, enough with the preamble, and on with the show!

Vocabulary: Pick the right word (1-2), fill-in the correct answer (3)
1) The pyramids in Egypt are a) monuments, b) statues, c) alien spaceships.
2) Adam Mickiewicz in Kraków rynek is a a) menorah, b) memorial, c) statue.
3) Beethoven was a ______. Renoir was an ______.  Nabokov was an ______. Wit Stwosz was a ______.  Katarzyna Kozyra is a/an ______.

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. 
b) Ready-made, individual servings of pre-packaged deserts, i.e. small pots of budyn or yoghurt, are often of variable quality.

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.’ 
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.

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.

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

8) Re-write: Correct the faulty phrasing.
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.

Okay, enough already! Do it on your own there, and if you’re feeling really brave, email me your answers to jimcole940 (AT) gmail DOT com, or post them on our FaceBook page. The one with the most right answers wins the Internet! Answers and discussion next Wednesday. :)

Article 6 and Reasoned Verdicts

The role of juries in criminal trials is probably one of the aspects which most facinates the general public. But how do jury decisions square with a defendant's wish to know on which grounds and considerations he or she has been found guilty? It is a recurring issue, which resurfaced in the case of Taxquet v Belgium last year. Paul Roberts of the University of Nottingham has addressed this topic in an article entitled 'Does Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights Require Reasoned Verdicts in Criminal Trials?', published in the latest issue of the Human Rights Law Review (Vol. 11, No. 2, 2011). This is the abstract:

This article revisits the controversial question whether Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires juries to give reasoned verdicts in criminal trials, in the light of the recent decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Taxquet v Belgium (2010). On the face of it, Taxquet reiterates the orthodox position elucidated in previous Strasbourg jurisprudence: the traditional common law jury delivering unreasoned general verdicts is in principle compatible with the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6. On closer examination, however, the Grand Chamber's Judgment contains remarks and suggestions that could be construed as more threatening to the long-term future of the common law jury as it currently exists in the United Kingdom and in other Council of Europe member states. This realisation prompts broader critical reflections on: the authority and competence of the European Court of Human Rights; alternative approaches to interpreting Strasbourg jurisprudence and mediating its impact on domestic law; and the rationality and legitimacy of unreasoned jury verdicts in criminal adjudication.

The Week in Review - 5th June, 2011

Welcome to the end of another week, or the start of a new one if you're one of those weirdos who considers Sundays the 'start' of the week. ;)
 
This was the first week of our new posting schedule - once on Wednesdays and the review on Sundays, as usual. However, the surprise element has been our FaceBook page, which has allowed me to quickly frame my thoughts and post any interesting issues as they've come up. It also allows you other FaceBook peeps to quickly reply to these brain burps. Apart from a few funny, translating-related pictures and so on, let’s look back at some of the highlights of the past week.
 On Monday the 30^th, we looked at how to collocate ‘professional’. A line from an advertising text for a catering firm that I was working on read: "Nice and professional service, competitive prices."
 
This is an odd collocation, nice + professional. It sounds sort of contradictory, and many people do indeed believe that being professional means not also being nice. So any time you want to do something with 'professional' that isn't ultra hardcore business/banking/legal etc, go for the common collocation of friendly + professional. np.
 
"Friendly, professional service, competitive prices." Note that you will always use a comma, not a joining article. Another common collocation for professional is fast.
 
On Tuesday the 31^st we looked at an ‘inspirational’ photograph (includes a rude word, uwaga) that highlighted a notorious film title translation: Bruce ‘the King’ Willis’s legendary Die Hard, translated appropriately enough as ‘Szklana Pułapka’ (Glass Trap) for the first film. But how do you cope with the fact that the ensuing sequels were based in airports, cities and the Internet? Is the title still appropriate, or was it itself a kind of pułapka? Hmm.
 
Wednesday the 1st of June saw us flirting with noun usage, based on this line: "Supervision over the committee reviewing the entities' applications is conducted by a secondary team of experts and judges."
 
Correct usage of the noun supervision here is with of, never over. Put simply, you’d never write supervision over, only supervision of. Similar words and phrasing, that might be responsible for the confusion here, include 'look over', 'check over' and 'oversight', e.g. “to have oversight of sth.”
 
Thursday the 2^nd left two interesting items on the doormat (however, I’m only going to give you one here; you’ll need to go and look at the other one yourself – note that you DO NOT NEED TO HAVE A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT TO JUST VIEW THE BAD ARTICLE PAGE!!!!!). The first of these is a very, very important thing to learn and remember – I should point out now that things that appear on the FaceBook page that then appear here are in NO WAY LESS IMPORTANT than those items that appear here on Wednesdays (sorry for all the caps, but this stuff is important you know ;)).
 
1a. "This causes that people ..."
1b. "This means that people ..."
 1c. "This causes people to ..."

 Verb use of cause is often used wrongly (1a), and the safer, better bet is to stick with (v) mean instead (1b). Depending on the rest of the sentence and how much work you want to do on it, you can rephrase and keep the cause (1c) – just remember the key part: writing causes that can lead to premature baldness in men and advanced short-sightedness in women!

 That’s all for now, friends. It looks like it’ll be another hot, sunny day here in Kraków, so I’m off to open a window (hundreds of pages to read by yesterday, fast!). Enjoy yourselves. :)

 Jim :)

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. ;)