Linguistic Team International Forum

Hi,

- String 1242146 It should be 972 billion - instead of 972 million (confirmation in the main text)

- String 1241849 Here, ''per hour'' is necessary to add in order to be consistent with the calculations that follow in the paragraph. Namely, ....4,150 gigawatts (4,150,000 MW) per hour of potential....

- String 1241852 Here, according to the source suggested, the amount is not 1.5 × 1021 but 1.5 × 10^21 { ~ 10 up to the power of 21 } (there is a vast difference)

- String 1241873 TWh rather than THW

- Strings 1242213and 1241874 A serious mistake in calculations: 133.880 million should be divided by 4.1 billion (not reversely). {4.1 billion is indeed accurate reference if you check the source}. Namely, 133.880 million / 4.1 billion . Therefore, the answer is 3% which should replace 30% in the main text. Beware it is not about the 30% mentioned in the beginning of the paragraph, but the later: ''This means 30%'' which must adjusted to ''This means 3%''. [I do not know if the argument holds still after this adjustment - probably the sentence can be kept]

Regards,
Antonis

Quoted from "Christos Pap."

It's actually "yields per hectare". If you see the graph, the left column writes "Yield tons/ha", "ha" is the symbol for hectare.

Yes, Christos, I looked at it, too. You are right. We need to change that. I'm not sure if it should be changed to "yields per hectare" or "yields in tons per hectare". Maybe @Mr_B: or someone else can help here. Good catch.

Man, a lot of stuff going on here. I am usually SRT-focused and not Pootle, but will take a swing here.

Starting at the top with Christos' Sept 1 post: Correct, there is a full stop, ie a period, missing, which should be added.

Sept 9 post: Correct, the colon after "depletion" should be replaced with a comma.

Sept 13 post:
- Correct: 9 trillion, 972 billion cubic meters, referring to Peter's original calculation of 9.972 trillion cubic meters globally.
- Correct: 4,150 gigawatts per hour, or 4,150,000 MW per hour, shorthanded to 4,150,000 MWh (megawatt-hours) x 24 x 365 = 36,354,000,000 MWh/yr as per the text.
- Correct: Straight from the source, the amount is 1.5 × 10 raised to the 21st power, the common notation of which is 10^21. (Beats the shit out of typing "1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000" LOL!)
- Correct: TWh (or TWH) rather than THW. an obvious typo on Peter's part.
- Correct: Using equal units of billion MWh, 0.11388/4.1 = .02777 = roughly .03 == 3% not 30%, so unfortunately Peter did slip an order of magnitude here (but I for one will cut him a break, out of the hundreds of other calculations he got right in this epic work).

@antonisvoskou: - You are to be congratulated for having such a keen eye on these myriad calculations.

Sept 26 Post: Correct: "Yields in tons per hectare" accurately conveys the y-scale of the graph, and could be condensed to "yields per hectare" or even just "yields" used generically (leaving the reader to study the graph to see what the actual unit of measure is), but "yields per acre" is just not correct.

Sept 28 Posts:
- Correct, should be "finds"
- Correct, should be "conventional"

So, exactly what happens from here? @Ray: - do you (or someone else) make the changes to the English master in Pootle?

First things first: you folks absolutely ROCK!
I found and corrected a bunch of stuff before bringing it into Pootle, but it's amazing to have so many beautifully careful people ensuring even greater accuracy across the board.


To answer @Mr_B:, Yes. I will need to go into the back-end of the project and adjust all of these things.
If anyone feels inspired enough to handle the 'prep-work' needed to get that done, it would be a tremendous help to have a GDoc or similar containing each of the needed adjustments listed in chronological string order. I'm currently rebuilding the entire TBTMCB Translate-a-thon and can't spare the time to go through all of these thread posts until I'm done with that.

Wow. Awesome catch!! (I have no idea since I don't understand the math. But sounds good and glad you are sending it to Peter. )

Great catch, Christos. You are right. Thank you.

Only thing I would say, tho, is perhaps the sentence should be corrected to: "...which were addressed at length in an earlier essay", rather than using "previous", only to keep with the continuity of the author (he used the term "later", and its direct opposite would be "earlier"). Of course they both mean the same thing; but that is my only thought on it.

Great catch!