Linguistic Team International Forum

Wow, Mr. B
This is quite a piece of work.

1. I agree
2. I have no problem with that split
3. I totally agree. That's why I left some of the introductory words in place. (And, But, So...)
4. I agree
5. Yes, I like those dashes. (I'm not THAT touchy, LOL.) They were used sparingly and strategically. I approve!
6. A total embarrassment. There is no doubt that I found so many cases of hyphenation that seemed necessary, I probably DID over-hyphenate. Well, I certainly did for this example. Good catch!
7. Yes, in this example the comma is correct, not the semicolon. Another good catch, Mr. B!

8. Okay, here's where I'm gonna differ, Mr. B, please don't get flustered, ok? I, too, am American . I NEVER, EVER saw the use of single/double quotes or the placement of punctuation marks used the way we have decided to use them in our Guidelines. I learned early-on in LTI that most of the world does not view English in the American standard, so I have acquiesced to the standard preferred by our translators who have learned English according to the British style (forgive me, Gregg manual. BTW... I bought one, too, because it is outstanding). Americans are the only people on Earth who use the American style. Anyhow, I could easily change back to the American punctuation placement, but you know what? I think THIS should be a point of Team discussion. Let's do what helps the translators most, okeedokee?

Finally, I just want to say again that this is an outstanding job on proofing, timeshifting, merging, srt-ing. I could upload the file, but I would like to give others a chance to comment on these points-- especially about the placement of punctuation marks within end marks, which is the ONLY place, I think, where we have disagreed.

Could we have some thoughts from others on these matters?

I love ya lots, Mr. B. Lots and lots...
Lady DD

Yepper, I was waiting for m' Lord Bru, as a translator (among other things wonderful) to weigh in about those quotes).

My suggestion now is that we take a final pass. Perhaps, I can take Pt. 1 again. Mr. B could take Pt 2, with the specific intention of cleaning up the quotes and end marks.
But before we do this, let's make SURE we understand our 'new' Guideline, which is:

We will apply the English standard on the use of single/double quotes, along with the placement of end marks according to the locale of the speaker, i.e British for Ben McLeish, American for PJ. (Explanation: Ben's lectures would use single quotes for expressions and end marks appear outside the quotes. PJ's lectures would use double quotes in all cases--except quotes within quotes which would be single--and end marks would appear inside the quotation marks.)

If I've correctly stated that , Mr. B and Bru, we have a lot of single quotes to change to double quotes in our clean up. But hey, I'm game!

Thoughts, Mr. B?
Lady Di

I don't have rights to edit our new & improved Wiki, which is cool because I never liked editing Wiki , but according to our recent discussion concerning those pesky little quotation marks, this is an example of what needs to be edited on Wiki:

APPROPRIATE
You know that 'of course mentality'.

This would be correct if Ben McLeish said it (the British standard). If PJ said it (and I believe he did), the line would look like this:

You know that "of course mentality."

... and if you hadn't seen my prior presentations, 'Social Pathology' I strongly suggest them, but that's not the point.


Again, if Ben McLeish had said this, it would be correctly punctuated. Since PJ said it, it would look like this:

... and if you hadn't seen my prior presentations, "Social Pathology," I strongly suggest them, but that's not the point.

This also needs editing in the Quick Reference on Wiki.

Just an example of what needs some quote fixin'.

Awesome work, guys.

Just chiming in on the punctuation topic (as explained by Di above). What I see as most important is that the subtitles need to be understandable and to avoid confusion as much as possible. Keeping this overall goal in mind, here is my take on the situation:

Option 1: Using British style only:
- People (outside the US, I guess) are already used to this. As far as I know, this is also how most languages treat punctuation (the quotation encompasses only the quoted part, without anything additional).

Option 2: Using American style only:
- I guess it won't be a problem for most people to get used to this. Probably many already have. What bothers me is that this style seems to be specific to American English, not the global one (British English). I know many aspects of A.E. have become global by now, but from my observations this is not one of them.

- Option 3: Using a mix of the two based on the speaker's locale:
- Our guidelines become more complicated. It will take more time for someone new to become acquainted with them.
- Probably proofreaders and final reviewers would need to spend more time fixing inconsistencies in the stylistics, either because people before them didn't know or understand the guideline or weren't consistent in following it. Don't know about you, but I'd prefer our amazing people here to put their precious time and skills on more important things, like getting to the huge list of items on hold.
- Confusion becomes more likely. Some translators might think that it makes a difference in the meaning whether, say, you put the comma inside or outside the quotes. As an example, some time ago when I was working on the translation of the old Activist Orientation Guide, I followed the use of single and double quotes as it is in the original, thinking that the author had something in mind when he/she was using them. But then I wrote to the author (PJ) and asked him. He replied that he used them haphazardly. So I went back and changed the translation to use double quotes only, as is normal for our language.


So... that's what comes to mind right now. Maybe you guys disagree with my observations. Speak up if so. But from this little analysis Option 1 seems to me as the best.

Quoted from "lizardman"

But then I wrote to the author (PJ) and asked him. He replied that he used them haphazardly.

PJ sounds like an exemplary model of what the American school system produces.

Thanks, MoBo, for stating all this so well. You are a wonderful translator (among other things), like BruBru, and our translators need to speak up on this before we change anything.

In my 67 years of life, I never learned anything except American English standards. I taught ONLY American English style all those years in high school. (PJ was obviously NOT in my class. ). When I saw the British standard (I think I first noticed it with Ben McLeish), I thought, "What the heck they doin'?" Then, after listening to our international community, I was SHOCKED to learn that no one else in the world knew American English. No one ever told me there was a British English style (another great example of what the American school system produces ).

I totally agree about the "confusion" factor. I have been confused too, trying to learn the British version. Like Mr. B says, "It looks backwards." But that's why I think that Option 1 is best here. I certainly think it is "cleaner" in subs. However, I am more than willing to go either way, as long as we can have a consensus. Translators need to speak out about this.

Oh, yes... not knowing how to punctuate this response, I decided this time to use the American style.

Love you guys!
LD

Wow, lot of ground to cover here.

First, Lady Di, I'm glad we're in accord with most of my items I pointed out. Great minds think alike.

Re: item 8, I was kinda thinking the same thing in the back of my mind even as I was writing it, that this path may have perhaps already been trodden and this natural conclusion reached, ie British style for the broadest audience, so no, I'm not flustered.

Bruno: Re: only the owner can delete the subs, I understand now. But again, your slick delete-subs chrome extension worked GREAT a couple years ago, but now, even though it's installed and enabled, the icon does not appear in the chrome bar for me. Can you maybe verify your extension works with latest version of chrome?

Di: Yes, let's final proof it that way, you take part 1 again (with my revs) and I'll take part 2 (with your revs).

Lizardman: I agree- to have a split standard like this invites complexity and confusion, I am not sure what to think at this point.

Re: Peter being "haphazard" on this, I would NEVER take anything away from Peter in this regard, even in jest. He has been such a prolific and erudite scholar over the years with his amazing production of lectures, films, CID, etc., that I will cut him total slack if he lacks a little finesse on perfect punctuation. Check out his long list of lectures over the years (attached) and see if you don't agree.

Anyway in conclusion, as I am American, I obviously favor option 1; if that is the tiebreaker then so be it. Going once, going twice...

Awwww, Mr. B, I luv ya!
And PJ needs no defense-- ever! I luv him too.

Geez... I thought a 'good', or is it "good", American would choose Option 2.

Anyway... I think we agree that Option 1 would be the least confusing for translators.

SUGGESTION?? for Mr. B: Let's don't do any changes until we are sure what the Team prefers. Maybe we could talk about it at the next meeting? Lizzie's options, that is. Whatcha think?

Working with you is great, Mr. B. You are the most rational team player I know.

D'OH!!

I meant option 2 LOL! English.

PS: Love you too Lady Di!

Haha, I thought so, Mr. B

Well, like Lizzie MoBo, I am leaning towards Option 1, and BruBru sounds like an Option 3 (?).

So, let's don't do anything with more edits until this reaches a consensus, okeedokee?