You are not logged in.

  • "nomada" started this thread

Posts: 2,335

Date of registration: May 24th 2011

Language Team: English

Focus Group: Timestamp Adjustment Team
Public Relations Group

Location: Malmö, Sweden

Thanks: 71888 / 2397

  • Send private message

1

Tuesday, March 18th 2014, 10:40am

The Zeitgeist Movement / Peter Joseph PART 2, "Boom & Bust" March 14th 2014

The Part2 of this RT news interview to Peter Joseph, on their show "Boom and Bust", is being done here:
The Zeitgeist Movement / Peter Joseph PART 2, "Boom & Bust" March 14th 2014 with subtitles | Amara

Transcribed and synched with the audio, needs a revision by some English speaking native(s)

Have fun, whomever takes it ; )
Signature from »nomada« Click to know how to: - Receive email notifications - Join the LTI biweekly Meetings

45 guests thanked already.

Posts: 8

Date of registration: Mar 17th 2014

Language Team: English

Focus Group: English Transcriber
English Proofreader

Thanks: 306 / 4

  • Send private message

2

Tuesday, March 18th 2014, 12:20pm

Help: What did PJ say, or mean to say?

@1:19 "Malthus, of course, said that there's geometric increase in population, when more resources are provided. We get resources increasing arithmetically."
...
as far as I can hear.Did he mean to say "We get resource use increasing arithmetically."

@7:36 "but that's a course for another subject." or "but that said, goes for another subject." ??

@8:26 "And if there's anything that I would put forward out there is for people to really think about that idea as the great transition of thought, that we can take care of everybody, we can do it and it's gonna get better and better, and if we only accelerated it by not keeping the market system and its general inhibiting capacity to preserve efficiency, then we can elevate to this new level."

Now this is a doozy, and I only bring it up because it might create translation complications in certain languages but wouldn't it be better to state
".....the market system and its general inhibiting capacity to preserve inefficiency" as against "... to preserve efficiency" ?
'to preserve efficiency' sounds too positive if not enough stress is given to the negative association of the word 'preserve' in this context. I feel that there are too many positive associations with the word in modern communication.
Also the 'capacity' being discussed is by it's overall nature, inefficient...

What think thee?

Beta is driving me nuts. When you Shift+Tab back twice, the audio goes where you want it but the text window skips back to the start. I like the blue lit active pane though.

This post has been edited 4 times, last edit by "Roger Zeitgeist Smith" (Mar 18th 2014, 2:14pm)


56 guests thanked already.

Posts: 18

Date of registration: Apr 24th 2012

Language Team: Spanish

Focus Group: English Transcriber
English Proofreader
Translator
Translation Proofreader
Final Reviewer

Thanks: 274 / 1

  • Send private message

3

Tuesday, March 18th 2014, 6:38pm

Here's what I could get on those 3, hope it helps:

@1:19 "Malthus, of course, said that there's geometric increase in population, when more resources are provided. We get resources increasing arithmetically."
... as far as I can hear.Did he mean to say "We get resource use increasing arithmetically."


This is what I heard: "Malthus, of course, said that there's geometric increase in population, when more resources are provided, but yet resources increase arithmetically."

@7:36 "but that's a course for another subject." or "but that said, goes for another subject." ??


Can't really help here, I think there's a hesitation that makes it confusing (something like "but that's... it goes for another subject").

@8:26 "And if there's anything that I would put forward out there is for people to really think about that idea as the great transition of thought, that we can take care of everybody, we can do it and it's gonna get better and better, and if we only accelerated it by not keeping the market system and its general inhibiting capacity to preserve efficiency, then we can elevate to this new level."


He says "the market system and its general inhibiting capacity to preserve efficiency, to preserve scarcity, then we can...". I see your concern and maybe we could simply use "scarcity" (if one needs to be taken out for length purposes, it might work better to take out "efficiency" and not "scarcity"?). But the way I see it, what he is saying is that the market system inhibits the preservation of efficiency, so it can preserve scarcity.
That's my 2 cents, hope it helps!

1 registered user and 52 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

nomada

  • "nomada" started this thread

Posts: 2,335

Date of registration: May 24th 2011

Language Team: English

Focus Group: Timestamp Adjustment Team
Public Relations Group

Location: Malmö, Sweden

Thanks: 71888 / 2397

  • Send private message

4

Tuesday, March 18th 2014, 7:27pm

Quoted from "Roger Zeitgeist Smith"

@1:19 "Malthus, of course, said that there's geometric increase in population, when more resources are provided. We get resources increasing arithmetically."

... as far as I can hear.Did he mean to say "We get resource use increasing arithmetically."


This is what I heard: "Malthus, of course, said that there's geometric increase in population, when more resources are provided, but yet resources increase arithmetically."
In wikipedia says about Malthus "he argued that population multiplies geometrically and food
arithmetically; therefore, the population will eventually outstrip the
food supply." It seems to me that the "but yet" suggested by Natalia (enfedes) wouldn't result in the same meaning, or? I guess Peter is saying what Malthus said, in a way of listing his premisses.

"the market system and its general inhibiting capacity to preserve efficiency, to preserve scarcity, then we can...".
Yup, Natalia, this is how he seems to say it, and it seems to me that he mistaken with the "to preserve efficiency" and than corrected himself with "to preserve scarcity". I can not twist the commas and sentence around in another way that bring make sense to why he said those words. If so, should we find a way to indicate in the subs that he mistaken, or we correct him (after asking him) or what? Surelly many translators will transliterate and the analysis of the whole idea might escape, both to them and the viewers.
Signature from »nomada« Click to know how to: - Receive email notifications - Join the LTI biweekly Meetings

45 guests thanked already.
  • "nomada" started this thread

Posts: 2,335

Date of registration: May 24th 2011

Language Team: English

Focus Group: Timestamp Adjustment Team
Public Relations Group

Location: Malmö, Sweden

Thanks: 71888 / 2397

  • Send private message

5

Tuesday, March 18th 2014, 8:41pm

Beta is driving me nuts. When you Shift+Tab back twice, the audio goes where you want it but the text window skips back to the start. I like the blue lit active pane though.
I forgot to address this.Yeah, this bug really bugs me too. I took a bit to find out that by clicking the video time-line i brings the text, and video, to whatever position I click. It would be much better to not have the bug, of course.

Looks like we can give feedback here: Your suggestions to make Amara great : Amara Support Center
Signature from »nomada« Click to know how to: - Receive email notifications - Join the LTI biweekly Meetings

44 guests thanked already.

Posts: 8

Date of registration: Mar 17th 2014

Language Team: English

Focus Group: English Transcriber
English Proofreader

Thanks: 306 / 4

  • Send private message

6

Sunday, March 23rd 2014, 2:47pm

Thanks for the feedback. Given the wiki info, I've gone with:
@1:19 "Malthus, of course, said that there's 'geometric increase in population, when more resources are provided we get resources increasing arithmetically.'
Is this the correct use of single quotes ‘...‘ for an expression of meaning rather than using double quotes "..." for a direct quote?

as for @8:26
I'll try to contact PJ for clarification on whether to redact or modify.

44 guests thanked already.
© Linguistic Team International 2017
Context In Motion