Linguistic Team International Forum

When I research it, I'm finding both are considered ok in the modern vernacular, but if you wanna change it when you do the FR, I think 'gage' is beautiful with the 'u' in it.

gage--noun, verb
1.
(US) a variant spelling (esp in technical senses) of gauge

See, I told you I needed your eyes, etc.
((hugs))

OK here is part 2!

FYI Di, socioeconomic is a bonafide word so unless you have issue I'll be removing the dash in several places.

No objection whatsoever, Mr. B. That does happen when compound adjectives become common usage.

Good job, my friend! I'll start on it tomorrow. I'm a little tired to begin the FR tonight. Maybe we'll wrap it up in another week or so?

((hugs)) from me,
Di

OK Team attached is what I am calling rev 3 of the SRT, which contains both my PR2 of Lady Di's (first) half, and also further revision to my second half, so the attached SRT is complete. I have racked up at least five or six painstaking passes at this vid to get to this point, which is saying a lot as it is i hr 45 min long, but it was worth it; it's a fantastic vid. From the analysis file, also attached, you can see there are many lines over the 71-char mark, to be expected from such a dense piece, but most of them are in the low 70s and so reasonable overall IMO.

Lady Di, if you are still proofing my 2nd half from last week, that's fine. I will just merge those changes, but if you have not started, plz use the 2nd half of the attached SRT instead, as I have done much more cleanup on it, including multiple line merges and many more timestamp adjustments. It is MUCH more "in sync" now with Peter's spoken words.

Mr. B
I have just finished the Final Review of the 2nd half this very minute. Now, hm... I'm not sure if I saw your changes or not??? Sorry, but you didn't tell me you were going to go back through part 2. I would have waited if I had known.

Anyway, I will post notes shortly, on the major points I noted in the FR of Pt2, and I will leave the final download of the srt file to you.

Ah, heck... it will work out!
((hugs))
Di

Heyyyy, Team!

Here's some notes for 'thought & consideration' on the FR of this GREAT lecture (pt 2). The reason I post this is in the hopes that there will be discussion and some final agreement on the part of our Team, remembering that we want consistency from transcription to Final Review; and ultimately, we want a good product for translation.

I didn't attach the srt file, but will ask Mr. B to wrap that up, with merges, etc.

Here’s the most important notes for team consideration.

1. Translators have said that they prefer seeing the commas at the end of strings when commas should be there.

Here’s an example. I inserted the comma after introductory dependent clause (at end of strings)
54:31.633
54:35.498
If humanity could capture 0.1% of the solar energy striking the Earth,

54:35.638
54:37.991
we would have access to six times as much energy

2. Compound adjectives should be hyphenated.

I added the hyphen. (It was also hyphenated on the screen behind PJ)
55:44.122
55:45.794
Water-Based Power.

3. Transcription error (It happens to the best of us!):
Removed the ‘s’ in ‘basics’
1:00:37.410
1:00:41.460
of all basics goods, which comprise the current average you could say,

4. Watch out for those double/single quotes. (I changed these to single.)
1:03:13.293
1:03:16.005
In order for you to truly say "own" a computer,

1:17:48.795
1:17:53.754
I say "semi" because it is a culturally relative measure only

5. Numerals under 10 should be written out. I changed the ‘3’ to ‘three’. (Please see an exception I made to this rule below - number eight)
1:37:59.960
1:38:02.420
For example, a chair that can be molded in 3 minutes

Numerals under 10 should be written out. I changed ‘4’ to ‘four’.
1:09:15.196
1:09:19.145

These 4 parameters set in motion, along with the basic intent

6. Guidelines: We will not use punctuation marks (colon, etc) before direct quotations. Reasoning: It is cleaner in subs and the quotation marks alone are indicative of a direct quote.

I removed the colon after ‘say’.
1:15:11.733
1:15:14.169
Now a common question, when you bring that up they say:

1:15:14.309
1:15:16.425
"Well who programs this system?"

7. Important point for discussion: I noted that PJ did indeed say ‘Micro-Calculation’ but on the screen behind him, it says ‘Macro-Calculation’. All of the slides following are subtitled ‘Macro-Calculation’, and I really think he meant to say ‘Macro-Calculation’, because it seems to me he’s talking about ‘Macro-Calculation’. Hm... I changed the sub, this way: [Macro]-Calculation. What does the Team think about that? Also, at the end of this segment, PJ clearly states that he just gave a macro-calculation, so I feel certain he misspoke at 1:38:51.
1:38:51.661
1:38:53.888
Micro-Calculation.
I changed it to [Macro]-Calculation

8. Another note: Beginning here, Peter describes the processes (3, 4, etc) involved in the macro-calculation. I did not write out the numerals that were under 10 in this segment of the talk. I made that decision because it matched the slides and writing them out would lengthen the strings too much, which were already long and moving fast.
1:42:37.328
1:42:38.820
Process 3.

Special to @Mr. B for his efforts.
DiDi

Hey Lady Di!

Yeah, sorry for the confusion, my second pass in the second half was more focused on adjusting timings than continued grammar/ punctuation, but your changes will overrride any such conflicts when I merge them.

To your points below:
1. Agreed, I will put all commas back in from your original in the first half, and merge those you added with my revised second half, it's just that there seemed to be so many of them.
2. Yep, I caught that one too in my revision.
3. Yep, good catch
4. Yep, good catch
5. Yep, I caught the 4 in my revision but not the 3
6. Yep, good catch
7. Yep, I caught that one too in my revision
8. Agreed, sometimes what it says on the slide becomes the tiebreaker.

So, what is the current disposition of your revised SRT? Were you going to attach it or did you push it out? (Either way is fine)

Thanks, Mr. B, for approving those edits.

I did the Final Review on dotSub and did not export to an srt file, so if you just export the subs from dotSub, you'll have em. I've been editing on dotSub lately, rather than working offline.

for all your hard work. It took quite a few hours to do this one, but this lecture is loaded with good information.
Di

OK Lady Di, I have done all the merges as promised, and the final SRT is attached, as (again) I don't have the admin privilege in dotsub to delete all subtitles, and so cannot push out the SRT. (Gee, this would be a nice Xmas present, hint, hint, to whoever is reading this )

Note: to make the merge work line-number-wise between my revised PR of your first half and your PR of my second half, I had to cheat and insert a (benign) 1 msec sub at the join thus:

908
00:53:06,801 --> 00:53:06,802
.

Also attached is the diff report of your PR vs. my changes against it, which I have not summarized till now. It is LOOONG, 31 pages, BUT to make short work of it just ignore 1) differing line number rows and 2) differing timestamps rows, as both have zero impact. What's left is the actual FR edits I did to your part. I retained most of your commas as promised and even added several more, but beyond that I want to describe my changes to you, as you were kind enough to do with me. I will say at the outset that I bent some rules (as I usually do), but welcome any discussion and feedback on them. They are:

1. (Repeat) I combined some of your compound-hyphenated words that are actually accepted as single words, such as socioeconomic and biodiversity.


2. When appropriate because of a timely pause by the speaker, I broke the rule of keeping adverb phrases intact and instead split them across lines to maintain synchronization. A typical example of this (of many) is Franky's opening remarks. The correct way would be:

8
the Activism Team and also the Project Team

9
that coordinated this project.

But what I chose do was to match Franky's actual spoken cadence thus:

8
the Activism Team and also the Project Team that

9
coordinated this project.

If you are not OK with this plz let me know. I understand the rules are the rules, but IMO the benefit of a strong sync point like this might merit an exception (both in English and in translation).


3. Another guideline is to chop out leading 'And's, So's and But's, etc., but in some cases where the line is plenty short and it's not hurting anything, I chose to leave them in. For example Peters lines as you proofed them:


34
The Zeitgeist Movement has put out quite a bit of educational media

35

with respect to its advocation.

36
The learning curve has been rather intense.

i saw nothing wrong to changing this to Peter's actual spoken words:

34
The Zeitgeist Movement has put out quite a bit of educational media

35
with respect to its advocation,

36
and the learning curve has been rather intense.



4. Yet another guideline is to chop out redundant/superfluous adjectives, but for the same reasons above, ie short lines, I saw no harm in leaving a few of them in, for example:

from Peter's line as presented in your original
38
with respect to how things work technically.


.. I chose to keep Peter's actual spoken words of:
38:
with respect to how things actually work technically.



5. I surgically used dashes when called for, ie for "emphatic separation" and also used "sparingly--and then only for deliberate effect" (ref. Gregg p.54, "The Dash") thus:

(leaving out the metadata, starting at line 216)

Sovereign nations which are in part protectionist institutions
for the most powerful forces of business have often engaged
in the most primal act of competition- systematic mass murder-
in order to preserve the economic integrity of their national economies

Here's another one (line 255):

The market also allows- and here's the punchline-
that regulation to be purchased by money.

Here is yet a third example where I feel dashes are appropriate (line 731):

According to the World Health Organization about 2.6 billion people-
half of the developing world- lack proper sanitation

Di, I know you're touchy about this one, so if you have issue with it we can change the dashes back to commas, but I honestly feel the impact of Peter's words would then be diluted.


6. This one is a case IMO of over-hyphenation when in fact it is not called for:
From:

304
with a higher class-given dominance over the lower, structurally.

The above doesn't make as much sense to me as leaving the dash out, ie:


with a higher class given dominance over the lower, structurally.

In other words, the higher class (the elite) is given dominance over the lower class (the masses). In this case I see no reason for the use of the construct "class-given."

Here is another example, where the hyphen actually fits better later in the same line (579):

from

This is exactly why the previously-noted wealth imbalance issues,
to

This is exactly why the previously noted wealth-imbalance issues,


7. I saw semicolons used in some places where IMO they were not needed, just a comma, for example starting at line 313:


Inequality and class separation is a direct mathematical result
of the market's inherently competitive orientation;
which divides individuals in small groups
as they work to compete against each other for survival and security.

IMO the sentence is just fine with a comma instead, thus:


Inequality and class separation is a direct mathematical result
of the market's inherently competitive orientation,
which divides individuals in small groups
as they work to compete against each other for survival and security.


8. (Here's the BIG one) It appears to be the accepted LTI guideline to place periods and commas *outside* of quotation marks, thus:

31
The title of this talk is 'Economic Calculation
in a Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy (NLRBE)'.

and


82
The short answer is a definitive 'No',
as I'm going to explain.

and


201
as the 'Cancer Stage of Capitalism',

However this is in direct contradiction to Gregg Rule 247 a. (p.70) which states flat out at its opening:

"Periods and commas always go inside the closing quotation mark [emphasis Gregg's not mine]. This is the preferred American style." Although an exception is then noted for the British style, which is the reverse.

Thus according to Gregg these should be


in a Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy (NLRBE).'
The short answer is a definitive 'No,'


as the 'Cancer Stage of Capitalism,'

Frankly I have noticed this guideline in use at LTI pretty much from day 1, and it always bugged me as I have always been accustomed to the Gregg style, well- all my life. Open any book, novel, newspaper article or the like, look for examples, and see if you don't agree. That said, I left all these seemingly backwards punctuations in place in this piece, as I didn't want to surprise you with such a global change without checking with you first.

Well, that's all I can think of for now! Let me know what you think Di.