You are not logged in.

  • "Sue" is female
  • "Sue" started this thread

Posts: 914

Date of registration: May 26th 2011

Language Team: Spanish

Focus Group: Language Coordinator

Location: Mallorca, Spain

Thanks: 26094 / 514

  • Send private message

1

Friday, February 8th 2013, 11:00am

Zeitgeist Revolution" Interview with Peter Joseph on RT

Abby Martin at minute 4:46 has a rather confused moment. After discussion in the skype group, it was suggested that this should be the correct way to transcribe it.
"It's not a free and fair market where, if cronyism were removed from the equation, capitalism would work. But is the two-tiered, plutocratic governance and endless war for resources that we're seeing today an inevitability of the capitalist model?"

The original is:
"It's not a free and fair market, if cronyism were removed from the equation, capitalism would work." But is the two-tiered, just in that we're seeing today, the plutocratic governance and endless war for resources, an inevitability of the capitalist model?
http://dotsub.com/view/637fa1c7-c7d3-4a0a-8de3-c6c718758c3b

:bighug:

2 registered users and 34 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Di Anna, Ray

  • "Di Anna" is female

Posts: 867

Date of registration: Jun 12th 2011

Language Team: ENGLISH

Focus Group: English Proofreader
Final Reviewer

Location: Efland, NC

Thanks: 29802 / 980

  • Send private message

2

Friday, February 8th 2013, 4:00pm

Thanks, Vixi, for your post on this.

Those RT Interviews can be very 'confused', convoluted, in fact. They seem so rushed when they do these interviews, they probably get 'tongue tangled'. :p

I think your translation very clearly expresses Abby's intent, and I would give it a :thumbsup:

Hm... I've got to give the English Team a :fc-red: for not doing a better job fixin' some of this before you guys had to tackle it. :riphair: Something for us to work harder on, 'cause WE LOVE YA!

Kudos to the Spanish Team! :fc-flower:
And ((hugs)) from me,
Di
Signature from »Di Anna« Important: The forum can send you an email for each post that you are interested in.
Please follow these directions to adjust your settings so that you receive communications.

3 registered users and 30 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

nomada, Sue, Ray

  • "Sue" is female
  • "Sue" started this thread

Posts: 914

Date of registration: May 26th 2011

Language Team: Spanish

Focus Group: Language Coordinator

Location: Mallorca, Spain

Thanks: 26094 / 514

  • Send private message

3

Saturday, February 9th 2013, 6:52am

Thanks Di :)
The translation is actually Ray's, it was his suggestion and I just copied and pasted it from skype :D
:bighug:

2 registered users and 17 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Di Anna, Ray

Posts: 21

Date of registration: Feb 15th 2012

Language Team: spanish

Focus Group: Translation Proofreader

Thanks: 538 / 1

  • Send private message

4

Friday, February 15th 2013, 12:44pm

Hi! another word in the same video: "discluded" ; min: 8: 07 If you look at the social structure, it really goes back so far,(min: 8:12) and it discludes so many modern advancements that people's traditional values are so caught up, (...)

and i found this:

Is discluded a word?
Most definitely not ..if you are thinking of the contrary of included...it is excludede, not discluded.

2 registered users and 20 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Di Anna, Ray

  • "Di Anna" is female

Posts: 867

Date of registration: Jun 12th 2011

Language Team: ENGLISH

Focus Group: English Proofreader
Final Reviewer

Location: Efland, NC

Thanks: 29802 / 980

  • Send private message

5

Friday, February 15th 2013, 2:35pm

Hey, hey Monica :wave:

Discludes is a word. I did go and listen again just to be sure that is what I heard.

The following is from dictionary.com

Main Entry: disclude
Part of Speech: v
Definition: to disclose, make known
Etymology: Latin discludere 'to shut apart'


If you scroll down the page at dictionary.com, there will be suggestions for translation.

Thank you for questioning it, because that encourages me to keep a careful eye.
((BIG HUGS)),
Di
Signature from »Di Anna« Important: The forum can send you an email for each post that you are interested in.
Please follow these directions to adjust your settings so that you receive communications.

1 registered user and 23 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Ray

Posts: 21

Date of registration: Feb 15th 2012

Language Team: spanish

Focus Group: Translation Proofreader

Thanks: 538 / 1

  • Send private message

6

Saturday, February 16th 2013, 9:48am

Thank you Di, big hugs :)

2 registered users and 23 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Di Anna, Ray

  • "Ray" is male

Posts: 1,494

Date of registration: May 23rd 2011

Language Team: Global

Focus Group: LTI Administration Group

Location: Michigan, US

Thanks: 48849 / 6676

  • Send private message

7

Saturday, February 16th 2013, 3:22pm

He used its secondary meaning, provided here:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disclude

But it probably needs to be adjusted to 'excludes' for other languages, so we don't get hung up on trying to find an accurate translation for it. Secondary (and beyond) definitions are what make most languages so cumbersome & awkward. :nuts:
Signature from »Ray« Earth For Sale:
Slightly Used; inquire within

2 registered users and 22 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Di Anna, Sue

Posts: 21

Date of registration: Feb 15th 2012

Language Team: spanish

Focus Group: Translation Proofreader

Thanks: 538 / 1

  • Send private message

8

Monday, March 4th 2013, 12:08pm

Hi again! the last error on this video min. 13:06 Peter, instead of the naysayers saying what isn't impossible, we really need to step it up.


"what isn't impossible" it should be "what is impossible"or "what isn't posible", what you think?

2 registered users and 22 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Di Anna, Ray

  • "Di Anna" is female

Posts: 867

Date of registration: Jun 12th 2011

Language Team: ENGLISH

Focus Group: English Proofreader
Final Reviewer

Location: Efland, NC

Thanks: 29802 / 980

  • Send private message

9

Monday, March 4th 2013, 3:14pm

Hi, Monica, :wave:
As I listen VERY carefully, I believe she is saying 'possible', not 'impossible'. And I think you're RIGHT, Monica. You've found another one!
:thumbsup: I also hear her say 'and' before 'saying', but if we change it by inserting the 'and', the sentence isn't logical. Here is what I think she says:


13:06 Peter, instead of the naysayers and saying what isn't possible, we really need to step it up.


But this is what I think she 'means': "Peter, instead of [being] naysayers, and saying what isn't possible, we really need to step it up." -- And that's how I think I would fix it, Monica. What do you think?

Nomada, if you listen and agree, too, would you make that change in the English? , please... please... :kiss:

Good
listening! This wasn't an easy video.
((BIGhugs)),
Di
Signature from »Di Anna« Important: The forum can send you an email for each post that you are interested in.
Please follow these directions to adjust your settings so that you receive communications.

2 registered users and 23 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Yayita, Ray

  • "Mr_B" is male

Posts: 869

Date of registration: Dec 24th 2011

Language Team: English

Focus Group: English Proofreader
Final Reviewer
Language Coordinator

Thanks: 27592 / 34

  • Send private message

10

Monday, April 1st 2013, 12:55am

Hi Girls! (and Ray)


OK so reading all and weighing in here, these are my suggested corrections:


FROM

90
00:04:52,671 --> 00:04:56,358
But is the two-tiered, just in that we're seeing today, the plutocratic governance
TO

90
00:04:52,671 --> 00:04:56,358
But is the two-tiered [justice system] that we're seeing today, the plutocratic governance


Above, I'm almost certain what Abby's brain was trying to say (but her tongue couldn't keep up LOL!!) was the "two-tiered justice system," a phrase which apparently has gone mainstream and is all around us now in articles like this , and refers to "the lack of prosecutions after the financial collapse reveals the full-scale immunity vested in elites." Think about it. Even though the insertion of this phrase in brackets like this is a stretch (because her tongue-tied contraction falls apart after the first syllables 'just-ih' and sounds nothing like this), I think it is accurate nonetheless, and a perfect fit to the wider sentence context, ie, yet another example of the rampant corruption in the system, just like cronyism and plutocratic governance.






FROM

151
00:08:09,588 --> 00:08:12,129
and it discludes so many modern advancements
TO

151
00:08:09,588 --> 00:08:12,129
and it [exc]ludes so many modern advancements

I agree with Ray on this. The word 'discludes' is rather exotic and borderline obtuse (no offense Peter!), but since the alternate and much more common synonym of 'excludes' is available, and this matches Peter's context exactly, I have no problem with the bracketed [exc] fix I inserted above. If this is perhaps displeasing to the team an alternate could be the whole word in brackets, ie, [excludes], but I'm happy with the way I have it above.






FROM

242
00:13:06,474 --> 00:13:09,748
of ideas, Peter, instead of the naysayers saying what isn't impossible,
TO


242
00:13:06,474 --> 00:13:09,748
of ideas, Peter, instead of the naysayers and saying what isn't possible,

Beyond correcting the typos above, the result is exactly what Abby speaks verbatim, and IMO its meaning is clear enough as is and see no need to garnish it with extra bracketed insertions to add context.



That's my story and I'm stickin' to it! :kewl:


Signature from »Mr_B« Mr_Z (the miscreant formerly known as Mr_B)
English Dept coord

2 registered users and 20 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Di Anna, Ray

  • "Di Anna" is female

Posts: 867

Date of registration: Jun 12th 2011

Language Team: ENGLISH

Focus Group: English Proofreader
Final Reviewer

Location: Efland, NC

Thanks: 29802 / 980

  • Send private message

11

Monday, April 1st 2013, 3:54pm

Above, I'm almost certain what Abby's brain was trying to say (but her tongue couldn't keep up LOL!!) was the "two-tiered justice system," a phrase which apparently has gone mainstream and is all around us now in articles like this , and refers to "the lack of prosecutions after the financial collapse reveals the full-scale immunity vested in elites." Think about it.


Golly geez, the thinking & listening we have done on this interview makes me think we should get in touch with Abby and make her read our discussions-- at least twice! These kinds of TV interviews are so time-restricted that the interviewer and the interviewee always move at warp speed, with mumbles and slurs and omissions.

You've done a great piece of thinking and RESEARCH with this answer Mr. B. I hereby dub you Sir B, the Error-Reporting Knight :fc-ghost: (pretend that's a knight). :fc-wink: -- Now, seriously, I don't know how to quarrel with your reasoning, other than to say the only other recourse would be to call up Abby. I'm okay with what you've done! How do others feel?

I agree with Ray on this. The word 'discludes' is rather exotic and borderline obtuse (no offense Peter!), but since the alternate and much more common synonym of 'excludes' is available, and this matches Peter's context exactly, I have no problem with the bracketed [exc] fix I inserted above. If this is perhaps displeasing to the team an alternate could be the whole word in brackets, ie, [excludes], but I'm happy with the way I have it above.


Me, too. I like it with the [exc] because it's more accurate to what she says, or doesn't say. 8|

But this is what I think she 'means': "Peter, instead of [being] naysayers, and saying what isn't possible, we really need to step it up."


I still like the insertion of [being] here, Mr. B. The reason is because of the 'we' in the sentence. The antecedent for 'we' is 'naysayers', and to me it is a clearer reference. Like this (rearranging it): Peter, we really need to step it up, instead of being naysayers, and saying what isn't possible.

So, hehehe... I MOSTLY agree with you, Sir B! :fc-ghost:
((hugs)) from me,
Di
Signature from »Di Anna« Important: The forum can send you an email for each post that you are interested in.
Please follow these directions to adjust your settings so that you receive communications.

1 registered user and 23 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Ray

  • "Mr_B" is male

Posts: 869

Date of registration: Dec 24th 2011

Language Team: English

Focus Group: English Proofreader
Final Reviewer
Language Coordinator

Thanks: 27592 / 34

  • Send private message

12

Tuesday, April 2nd 2013, 2:38am

Sir B! ?? Looks more like Sir P for Pacman! :rofl:
Signature from »Mr_B« Mr_Z (the miscreant formerly known as Mr_B)
English Dept coord

2 registered users and 23 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Di Anna, Ray

  • "Mr_B" is male

Posts: 869

Date of registration: Dec 24th 2011

Language Team: English

Focus Group: English Proofreader
Final Reviewer
Language Coordinator

Thanks: 27592 / 34

  • Send private message

13

Wednesday, June 19th 2013, 2:18pm

OK so what's the dispo on this guy?
Signature from »Mr_B« Mr_Z (the miscreant formerly known as Mr_B)
English Dept coord

1 registered user and 22 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Ray

  • "Mr_B" is male

Posts: 869

Date of registration: Dec 24th 2011

Language Team: English

Focus Group: English Proofreader
Final Reviewer
Language Coordinator

Thanks: 27592 / 34

  • Send private message

14

Saturday, September 13th 2014, 5:21pm

OK, this turned into a re-review, with 4 pages of tweaks including addressing those above. As long as-on average-adding some of Peter's contextual adverbs and adverb phrases back in does not violate the 71-characters-per-line rule, I feel it's OK to revise accordingly. Also, I am getting more into the habit of moving words here and there between lines, in order to better sync up with the actual spoken words with the existing line breaks. I feel this is better-and less painful for the translators- than to open Pandora's box of timestamp shifting in order to fix these anomalies.

Regarding the items called out above, again since I'm the only one around, I'm revising my own suggestions thus:

- two-tiered [justice system] <<< this stays
- use of the word [ex]clude <<< this stays. Disclude is what Peter says and it is a perfectly valid word, but to Ray's point it will be easier for the translators if we change to exclude
- of ideas, Peter, instead of the naysayers and saying what isn't possible, <<< this stays as is; it's fine.



Revised SRT and diff files are attached. @lizardman: Plz push out the SRT and post notification, thx.
Mr_B has attached the following files:
Signature from »Mr_B« Mr_Z (the miscreant formerly known as Mr_B)
English Dept coord

1 registered user and 23 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Ray

  • "lizardman" is male

Posts: 578

Date of registration: Jun 3rd 2011

Language Team: Bulgarian

Focus Group: Translation Proofreader
LTI Administration Group

Location: Plovdiv, Bulgaria

Thanks: 24728 / 483

  • Send private message

15

Sunday, September 14th 2014, 11:42pm

OK, cool, so the revised subtitle file has been pushed to the WL and RL. See above attachment for the changes.

Languages that have translations as of the time of this revision of the English transcription:
In the Working Location ( http://dotsub.com/view/637fa1c7-c7d3-4a0a-8de3-c6c718758c3b ): Czech[100%] , English[100%] , French (France)[100%] , German[6%] , Polish[100%] , Portuguese (Brazil)[100%] , Portuguese (Portugal)[100%] , Russian[100%] , Serbian[100%] , Spanish[100%]

In the Repository Location ( http://dotsub.com/view/a029f667-b1f3-49b6-98e6-9b2a1cf773a1 ): Czech[100%] , English[100%] , Portuguese (Brazil)[100%] , Russian[100%]

These languages would need to check their translations to see if they correspond to the revised English original. If changes in the translation are required, then simply apply them in the WL. If your language is in the Repository, you would need to also make a ToDo, so that the translation in the Repository can be replaced with the one in the WL. (Note: these detailed instructions may become outdated in the future. Post in this thread if you are unsure what to do to get your revised translation in the 'official' channels.)

23 guests thanked already.
© Linguistic Team International 2019
Context In Motion