You are not logged in.

  • "brunodc" is male
  • "brunodc" started this thread

Posts: 2,257

Date of registration: May 31st 2011

Language Team: French

Focus Group: Translator
Translation Proofreader
Language Coordinator
LTI Administration Group
LTI Development Group

Location: France

Thanks: 69479 / 740

  • Send private message

1

Monday, February 13th 2012, 9:08pm

Douglas Mallette - Science, Engineering, and Technology for Human Concern

Douglas Mallette giving a lecture in Oslo, Norway, discussing what it means to take a systems approach to managing resources, the necessity of this approach when on a mission to Mars, and relating that back to how we run our planet here on Earth. Also discussing his new venture 'Cybernated Farm Systems', feeding the world, global sustainability, a Resource Based Economy, and The Zeitgeist Movement. ( 1:21:33 )


For Translators: Go to the Working Location Link, sign into your dotSUB.com account, choose your language in the "Translate" selection and click translate.
If you're new to all of this, check out this short video for a quick tutorial on how to translate with dotSUB.
Just before you start, and then later when you are done, post your intentions or results to this forum thread so others can see the progress.
Ask for help in this thread too, in case you need some guidance.

This post has been edited 4 times, last edit by "Ray" (Jan 19th 2019, 2:19am)


1 registered user and 43 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Ray

Posts: 3,052

Date of registration: May 24th 2011

Language Team: English

Focus Group: Timestamp Adjustment Team
Public Relations Group

Location: Malmö, Sweden

Thanks: 92932 / 2397

  • Send private message

2

Wednesday, April 18th 2012, 5:13pm

I will start transcribing this one offline. So I will close the video for transcription so no one will repeat the job aside me.

The title of this lecture is very interesting, but the title on the video link doesn't say much. Should we change it?

hugs
Signature from »nomada« Click to know how to: - Receive email notifications - Join the LTI biweekly Meetings

3 registered users and 40 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Diana, alexander_doni, Ray

  • "jinx" is male

Posts: 4

Date of registration: Jun 21st 2011

Language Team: Norwegian

Focus Group: Translator

Location: Outside Oslo, Norway

Thanks: 200 / 0

  • Send private message

3

Monday, April 30th 2012, 11:06pm

Yes please, anything to make it interesting.

1 registered user and 34 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Ray

Posts: 3,052

Date of registration: May 24th 2011

Language Team: English

Focus Group: Timestamp Adjustment Team
Public Relations Group

Location: Malmö, Sweden

Thanks: 92932 / 2397

  • Send private message

4

Thursday, May 3rd 2012, 1:38pm

While transcribing this lecture and before I forget...
Douglas has many situations where he starts sentences with empty words, like "So...". In many cases I can determine if those words are necessary, like for example when they imply consequence, but many times I am unsure of my evaluation. So I tend to write them all. The part that motivated me more to share this on this post is the fact that... These out of purpose words are very handy in many situations since they allow for the strings to be extended without seeming out of synch with the voice, increasing considerably the precious reading time. My suggestion is that we leave them in those circumstances. The English proofreader, when working online on dotsub, wont have the technology that gives the information about the reading time and character per second of the string, but even so I think they might be able to understand when the situation is critical in that variable. Even without the strings built up, like in this link that I will share, you can notice it. The sentence that follows is quite big for 1 string, so it will have to be cut, and he speaks quite fast, so the first string/segment would become too fast if we would remove the "So..." and shorten the string.

Minute 19:52
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77wGCsVe2Ik#t=19m52s
Let me know what you think?

I can put this SRT, even that not finished yet, on dotsub also, so you can see it better. There are 2 examples. The 1st is an "out of purpose" word and the second, and last string in the transcription, is not; so it makes a nice analysis situation :thumbup:
http://dotsub.com/view/d4643959-8bd0-4ece-8eaa-3b96f5d17c47
Signature from »nomada« Click to know how to: - Receive email notifications - Join the LTI biweekly Meetings

1 registered user and 40 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Ray

  • "Di Anna" is female

Posts: 870

Date of registration: Jun 12th 2011

Language Team: ENGLISH

Focus Group: English Proofreader
Final Reviewer

Location: Efland, NC

Thanks: 30333 / 980

  • Send private message

5

Thursday, May 3rd 2012, 3:18pm

Doug's So's

If I understand you, sweet Roddy, you are saying that the 'So' at 19:52 should remain because it is needed for timing. I think a good technique for proofers is to substitute the word 'therefore' for 'so'. If it makes sense, then the 'so' is used to show consequence and it would be beneficial to keep it.

I confess that I know nothing about the timeshifting skills so necessary here, but I think I can tell whether the 'so' is used to indicate consequence or just as a filler. My problem would be knowing when to leave it in (if it is a filler) because you need it for the timing.

I have been relying on Bruno to clean up any mess I make with this, and he's doing a super job--not complaining either. :giggle:

Did I make sense?
?(
((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 37 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Ray

Posts: 3,052

Date of registration: May 24th 2011

Language Team: English

Focus Group: Timestamp Adjustment Team
Public Relations Group

Location: Malmö, Sweden

Thanks: 92932 / 2397

  • Send private message

6

Wednesday, May 9th 2012, 12:01pm

Yes you did Di. Thank you for the feedback :thumbup: We can always apply the "analyze" tool in the end of the English proofreading and see if there are strings that are too fast, in terms of characters/second.

I have a doubt here. Can stay for later for the English proofer. The punctuation in the end of the last strings... can have a big influence in the meaning. I wonder if I have put it correct:

00:45:02
But when you live in a world where differential advantage,
having control over somebody else by hoarding resources,
or monopolizing their extraction or monopolizing their use,
or creating a whole bunch of products,
that is a gigantic waste of resources as a way to manipulate the system.
That's not good for us, in the long run.

Listen to it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77wGCsVe2Ik#t=45m00s
Signature from »nomada« Click to know how to: - Receive email notifications - Join the LTI biweekly Meetings

2 registered users and 39 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Di Anna, Ray

  • "Di Anna" is female

Posts: 870

Date of registration: Jun 12th 2011

Language Team: ENGLISH

Focus Group: English Proofreader
Final Reviewer

Location: Efland, NC

Thanks: 30333 / 980

  • Send private message

7

Wednesday, May 9th 2012, 2:34pm

I have a doubt here. Can stay for later for the English proofer. The punctuation in the end of the last strings... can have a big influence in the meaning. I wonder if I have put it correct:

00:45:02
But when you live in a world where differential advantage,
having control over somebody else by hoarding resources,
or monopolizing their extraction or monopolizing their use,
or creating a whole bunch of products,
that is a gigantic waste of resources as a way to manipulate the system.
That's not good for us, in the long run.


Hey, sweet Nomada, :wave:
According to standards, it would be this way (explanation follows the lines):

When you live in a world where differential advantage, (leave out the 'But', not necessary for meaning, best not to begin sentences with 'But' because it's a conjunction)
having control over somebody else by hoarding resources (when conjunctions like 'or' are used to join phrases, commas do not separate the phrases)
or monopolizing their extraction or monopolizing their use
or creating a whole bunch of products,
that is a gigantic waste of resources as a way to manipulate the system.
That's not good for us, in the long run.


Does this make sense to you? :ummm: ?(
Just let me know and I'll try to explain it another way. Haha, we teachers LOVE to do that! :tonguer:

(((many 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 44 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Ray

Posts: 3,052

Date of registration: May 24th 2011

Language Team: English

Focus Group: Timestamp Adjustment Team
Public Relations Group

Location: Malmö, Sweden

Thanks: 92932 / 2397

  • Send private message

8

Wednesday, May 9th 2012, 3:36pm

Nice to have an English teach so close :D

When you live in a world where differential advantage, (leave out the 'But', not necessary for meaning, best not to begin sentences with 'But' because it's a conjunction)

I see, but he is still making a comparison with the example presented before (in the video is easier to understand). So shall we make it a ";" instead or add a "On the contrary," or similar expression to substitute the "But"?


The rest I understood perfectly, but my biggest concern/doubt was focused on the following (let me try to express it more accurately):

Is it that When you live in a world where this or that or that, [b]then [/b]that is a gigantic waste of resources as a way to manipulate the system. ?
or is it that When you live in a world where this or that or that, thenthat's not good for us, in the long run. ?

That is why I added the video. Only listening to Douglas I think we can grasp what he means fully, but even so it is hard for me because of the fact that it seems that all the pauses he makes finish with higher intonations, as if the sentence is not finished. Can you figure that out if you are on a roll? :tonguer: Or we just leave this register for the proofreading phase, after I finish the transcription. ;)

hugs
Signature from »nomada« Click to know how to: - Receive email notifications - Join the LTI biweekly Meetings

2 registered users and 34 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Di Anna, Ray

  • "Di Anna" is female

Posts: 870

Date of registration: Jun 12th 2011

Language Team: ENGLISH

Focus Group: English Proofreader
Final Reviewer

Location: Efland, NC

Thanks: 30333 / 980

  • Send private message

9

Wednesday, May 9th 2012, 7:22pm

I see, but he is still making a comparison with the example presented before (in the video is easier to understand). So shall we make it a ";" instead or add a "On the contrary," or similar expression to substitute the "But"?


For this concern, I would definitely choose the ";" rather than add or substitute expressions.

Ah, ha...I think I get it now that I've listened, and listened, and listened. For the following:

Is it that "When you live in a world where this or that or that, then that is a gigantic waste of resources as a way to manipulate the system." ?
or is it that "When you live in a world where this or that or that, then that's not good for us, in the long run." ?

He is saying your second option or: When you live in a world where this or that or that, then that's not good for us, in the long run. ?
but I see no reason to include the "then's" in the lines. Are you saying we should insert the "then's" ??

I would keep it as:


00:45:02
but when you live in a world where differential advantage, (semicolon at end of previous line)
having control over somebody else by hoarding resources
or monopolizing their extraction or monopolizing their use
or creating a whole bunch of products
that is a gigantic waste of resources as a way to manipulate the system,
that's not good for us, in the long run. (I think it's clear without putting the "then" into the lines, but I don't think it's a big deal if you want to include it because you think it's necessary for clarity.)


Is that what you meant? ?( Am I getting it? If not, please explain some more.
(((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 39 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Ray

Posts: 3,052

Date of registration: May 24th 2011

Language Team: English

Focus Group: Timestamp Adjustment Team
Public Relations Group

Location: Malmö, Sweden

Thanks: 92932 / 2397

  • Send private message

10

Wednesday, May 9th 2012, 9:42pm

ooh Thank you Di!! :love:
That is all I wanted to know, which of both hypothesis would be correct , since the coma or period separating the last sentence can make a difference there. The "then" 's were just to help explain the 2 possible meanings to you hehe. I have put them inside the whole quote - lousy me :giggle:

Correcting and continuing with the transcription. This is a long one but the speech is not so hard to deal with, since he speaks rather slow most of the times and the content of the presentation is just GREEEAT!! ;)

hugs
Signature from »nomada« Click to know how to: - Receive email notifications - Join the LTI biweekly Meetings

1 registered user and 41 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Ray

© Linguistic Team International 2019
Context In Motion