Linguistic Team International Forum

I will transcribe this one offline. That is why you may find the dotsub location closed, to avoid someone else being transcribing at the same time.

hugs

Done timeshifting. PJ really gets excited in some occasions and the reading speed becomes highly compromised if we make small strings. So there are many strings with 70+ and 80+ characters. Maybe someone else could revise the timeshifting after the 2nd round proofreading, if the English proofreader finds it necessary.

Loved the contents of thislecture!! Even that sometimes I wonder if PJ has the notion that many people might not understand what he says.

hugs

I'll take PR2 on this!

Re:
> I wonder if PJ has the notion that many people might not understand what he says
... I think Peter knows exactly what he is doing. He has always taken the intellectual high road- including using big and/or eclectic words (like say 'anthropomorphism') and occasional mind-numbing phraseology- because he knows the most powerful of the elite "game players" at the top are also the most intelligent and well-read, and DO understand what he is saying or most of it, and the more genius-like he comes across the more intimidated they become (the oldest trick in the book within the history of theologians and philosophers by the way). If the "masses" can't keep up with one of Peter's talks, that's what the rest of the Movement and local chapters are for: to adapt Peter's messages to their particular local culture and- frankly- education level.


But I get your point Roddy, it's like: "Wouldn't it be nice if Peter could once in a while just lighten up and take it down to earth in language that 'Joe six-pack' (American slang for a blue-collar beer drinker) would understand?" Well, guess what? I think that's exactly what Peter's new show Culture in Decline will be all about! I can't wait to see his first episode in July!

Sorry I got delayed on this gang. I was looking forward to cracking into proofing it this evening only to find out I do not have permission to access the SRT. Can someone please add me? Thx.

OK, PR2 is complete, revised SRT is pushed out to the working location, and the diff and analysis files are attached.

Comments:

1) Sheesh! This thing was a b*llbuster! As I'd anticipated, it had the same rough profile, ie long lines, as Peter's TEDx Ojai lecture, because it carried some of the same content and Peter was talking equally as fast. But this vid took it to a whole new level! From the analysis you can see there are a STAGGERING number of 70+ lines as well as some 80+, but all only ~4 secs long or so, so I don't think we can do anything about it.

2) Per our separate discussions, I left most of the commas in place this time and even added a few to set off some key phrasing. I think this will be a good thing for the translators because of Peter's sometimes very long sentences and multiple phrasing inside of them, within this particular piece. As usual though the final edits are up to the final reviewer.

3) From the diff file it is clear that the original transcription was laborious for Prince Nomada, with many words either mis-transcribed or left as "?????" when not understood. It was laborious for me too as 2nd proofreader to clean everything up, so suffice to say it was a lot of work for both of us. That said, notice what Peter is doing in the vid: he is READING from his notes! Would it not have been much easier to simply get a copy of Peter's original transcript instead of re-inventing the wheel here? I wouldn't be so emphatic about this but Peter says he'll be coming out with a part 2 of this talk soon. So RAY- if you're reading this- can you maybe whisper into Peter's ear to get a text copy of his part 2 script after the vid is done? It'd make that vid go MUCH faster thru the mill here!

4) There is ~30 seconds of wasted dead black space at the end of this vid that should be clipped off, if this is possible.

That's it! Cheers!

Okay, this is my next one.
Thanks, Mr. B, for leaving those little commas in. Warning: I'm taking my time on this one. I overlooked some errors in the last PJ I did. Don't want the translators mad at me, so I'm gonna be soooooooooooooooo careful this time!

Quoted from "Mr_B"

1) Sheesh! This thing was a b*llbuster! As I'd anticipated, it had the same rough profile, ie long lines, as Peter's TEDx Ojai lecture, because it carried some of the same content and Peter was talking equally as fast. But this vid took it to a whole new level!

Just wanted to report in that I'm half-way through and agree totally with Mr. B (quoted above). It's gonna take me a little longer to give it my best, I'm afraid. I love the lecture, though. PJ is really adding more depth and sophistication, so much so I don't feel that he's 'plowing through this shit one more time' at all, as he says.

To all who came before, I have seen this on other final reviews, and I thought it might be important to ask. In these lines:

17:14.899
17:17.856
So ... where are we now?

Why is the ellipses (...) used? I know that Peter pauses after the 'So' but why not punctuate it with a comma. Ellipses means words have been omitted, and in the video there are no words left out in what he says. Or better yet, do you think anyone would object if we just leave out the 'So' here. Bruno has said that it's a word he never translates when it appears at the beginning of a sentence and is not really needed. Do you think translators would be confused if we edit out these words? With PJ, there's a lot of expressions that could be edited out (if you will). I would like to be certain that we are all in agreement if I continue to edit out these expressions. Is this something you feel comfortable doing at 1st & 2nd PR, or do you think it should be left to FR.

Thanks, guys. I can tell this one's taken some work!
((hugs))
Di

I agree to take them out, if you feel nothing is missing both in the content as in the meta-communication, in those words. Most of the times they don't mean anything : )