Re: reverse-engineer

#66835
Edited

Pragtige term Samuel. As (oud) rekenaar-wetenskaplike moet ek egter erken dat ek nie hierdie Afrikaanse woord (teruggenieer) ken nie. Dit sou miskien nodig wees om êrens te omskryf of die Engelse term die eerste keer in hakies te gebruik.

Re: Concord

#66834

开云体育

In the example below the question can also be resolved by arguing that there are two subjects:

Ethnic (diversity) and racial diversity are (both) problematic, or:

Ethnic diversity is problematic, and so is racial diversity; ergo:

they are (both) problematic.????

?

After all, the adjective “ethnic” is begging for a noun, as “ethnic is problematic” makes no sense; and the first noun that subsequently happens to appear upon the scene will have to do.

?

The same goes for the types of sculpture, philos and art in the other examples.

In my understanding, those sentences are simply multiple subjects and not cases of “unusual plurals” or synesis at all.

In fact, having just this moment found that ?“Synesis refers to constructions where meaning guides agreement {e.g. ‘the crowd rose to their feet’), while constructions where grammar is the main factor are called antilogical”, my conclusion is that in this case antilogicality is the logical basis for the concord.

?

Which does not imply that I don’t appreciate the contributions to the subject. Such a feast of reason and flow of soul…

?

Show quoted text

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Elsabe Birkenmayer via groups.io
Sent: Friday, 23 May 2025 13:55
To: Zalang <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ZaLang] Concord

?

En nog wysheid van Corné:

?

This reminds me of a related discussion?we had a while ago (Barbara Hathorn?) about the subject-verb agreement in this sentence:

?

Ethnic and racial diversity is/are problematic.

?

The structure of the main clause is simple: the subject is "diversity" and the predicate is the copulative verb plus an adjective.

?

One would think that the concord will be equally simple: diversity is problematic - the singular form of the verb (is) is governed by the singular subject (diversity).

?

But, because the abstract?noun is modified by two (or more) adjectives referring to different varieties of things denoted by the abstract noun, we have an unusual plural through the principle of synesis:

?

Ethnic and racial diversity are problematic.

?

Look at the following sentences with a similar construction:

?

Classical and modern sculpture have (not: has) little in common.

Pre-Socratic and modern philosophy share (not: shares) a purpose.

Greek, Roman and Etruscan art differ (not: differs) in many ways.

?

On 23 May 2025, at 13:30, Elsabe Birkenmayer via groups.io <elsabeb@...> wrote:
?
Tony, hier is die antwoorde. Die eerste een is van John Linnegar:
?
?
To test, the trick is often to turn the question into a statement:?The outlet pipe was loosened and the impeller was inspected.??But:?The outlet pipe and the impeller were respectively loosened and inspected.
?
John
?
?
?
?
En die tweede een is van Corné Janse van Rensburg:
?
You have two main clauses each with its own subject and predicate: "the outlet pipe was loosened" and "the impeller was inspected".
?
If you change the sentence from statement?to question, the structure remains the?same.
?
Was the outlet pipe loosened and [was] the impeller inspected?
?
Corné (captious but callipygian)
To prevent you from inadvertently mismodifying me, my adjectives appear above. As my ekphrastic identity is developing, my adjectives will be changing from time to time.
Pax tecum AVC MMDCCLXXVIII

On 23 May 2025, at 11:22, Tony Moen via groups.io <transed@...> wrote:
?
Was the outlet pipe loosened and the impeller inspected?
Or
Were the outlet pipe loosened and the impeller inspected?
?
My gut initially voted for the second, my brain wants to know why.
?
So what should my brain tell my gut?
?
1???????????? If the above question is turned into a statement, it becomes (obviously):
The outlet pipe was loosened and the impeller inspected.
The argument here is that the verb is left out in the second clause because it’s the same as in the first and we’re simple avoiding a repetition.
?
If the same principle applies to the question as to the statement, then we would say “Was the outlet pipe loosened and [was] the impeller inspected?”
?
2???????????? And of course one could say “were the outlet pipe…” simply sounds wrong and what I would call the “proximity rule” applies, as in the case of “neither the girls nor the boy was at fault” (verb agrees with nearest subject).
?
Somehow I could be convinced more readily by argument 1 than by argument 2, but it comes to the same thing.?
?
?
?

?

Re: Concord

#66833

开云体育

En nog wysheid van Corné:

This reminds me of a related discussion?we had a while ago (Barbara Hathorn?) about the subject-verb agreement in this sentence:

Ethnic and racial diversity is/are problematic.

The structure of the main clause is simple: the subject is "diversity" and the predicate is the copulative verb plus an adjective.

One would think that the concord will be equally simple: diversity is problematic - the singular form of the verb (is) is governed by the singular subject (diversity).

But, because the abstract?noun is modified by two (or more) adjectives referring to different varieties of things denoted by the abstract noun, we have an unusual plural through the principle of synesis:

Ethnic and racial diversity are problematic.

Look at the following sentences with a similar construction:

Classical and modern sculpture have (not: has) little in common.

Pre-Socratic and modern philosophy share (not: shares) a purpose.

Greek, Roman and Etruscan art differ (not: differs) in many ways.

Show quoted text

On 23 May 2025, at 13:30, Elsabe Birkenmayer via groups.io <elsabeb@...> wrote:

Tony, hier is die antwoorde. Die eerste een is van John Linnegar:

To test, the trick is often to turn the question into a statement:?The outlet pipe was loosened and the impeller was inspected.??But:?The outlet pipe and the impeller were respectively loosened and inspected.

John

En die tweede een is van Corné Janse van Rensburg:

You have two main clauses each with its own subject and predicate: "the outlet pipe was loosened" and "the impeller was inspected".

If you change the sentence from statement?to question, the structure remains the?same.

Was the outlet pipe loosened and [was] the impeller inspected?

Corné (captious but callipygian)
To prevent you from inadvertently mismodifying me, my adjectives appear above. As my ekphrastic identity is developing, my adjectives will be changing from time to time.
Pax tecum AVC MMDCCLXXVIII

On 23 May 2025, at 11:22, Tony Moen via groups.io <transed@...> wrote:

Was the outlet pipe loosened and the impeller inspected?
Or
Were the outlet pipe loosened and the impeller inspected?
?
My gut initially voted for the second, my brain wants to know why.
?
So what should my brain tell my gut?
?
1???????????? If the above question is turned into a statement, it becomes (obviously):
The outlet pipe was loosened and the impeller inspected.
The argument here is that the verb is left out in the second clause because it’s the same as in the first and we’re simple avoiding a repetition.
?
If the same principle applies to the question as to the statement, then we would say “Was the outlet pipe loosened and [was] the impeller inspected?”
?
2???????????? And of course one could say “were the outlet pipe…” simply sounds wrong and what I would call the “proximity rule” applies, as in the case of “neither the girls nor the boy was at fault” (verb agrees with nearest subject).
?
Somehow I could be convinced more readily by argument 1 than by argument 2, but it comes to the same thing.?
?
?

Re: Concord

#66832

开云体育

Tony, hier is die antwoorde. Die eerste een is van John Linnegar:

To test, the trick is often to turn the question into a statement:?The outlet pipe was loosened and the impeller was inspected.??But:?The outlet pipe and the impeller were respectively loosened and inspected.

John

En die tweede een is van Corné Janse van Rensburg:

You have two main clauses each with its own subject and predicate: "the outlet pipe was loosened" and "the impeller was inspected".

If you change the sentence from statement?to question, the structure remains the?same.

Was the outlet pipe loosened and [was] the impeller inspected?

Corné (captious but callipygian)

To prevent you from inadvertently mismodifying me, my adjectives appear above. As my ekphrastic identity is developing, my adjectives will be changing from time to time.

Pax tecum AVC MMDCCLXXVIII

Show quoted text

On 23 May 2025, at 11:22, Tony Moen via groups.io <transed@...> wrote:

Was the outlet pipe loosened and the impeller inspected?
Or
Were the outlet pipe loosened and the impeller inspected?
?
My gut initially voted for the second, my brain wants to know why.
?
So what should my brain tell my gut?
?
1???????????? If the above question is turned into a statement, it becomes (obviously):
The outlet pipe was loosened and the impeller inspected.
The argument here is that the verb is left out in the second clause because it’s the same as in the first and we’re simple avoiding a repetition.
?
If the same principle applies to the question as to the statement, then we would say “Was the outlet pipe loosened and [was] the impeller inspected?”
?
2???????????? And of course one could say “were the outlet pipe…” simply sounds wrong and what I would call the “proximity rule” applies, as in the case of “neither the girls nor the boy was at fault” (verb agrees with nearest subject).
?
Somehow I could be convinced more readily by argument 1 than by argument 2, but it comes to the same thing.?
?
?

Re: Concord

#66831

开云体育

Dankie. Ek laat weet wat die mense dink.

Show quoted text

On 23 May 2025, at 12:32, Tony Moen via groups.io <transed@...> wrote:

Dag 贰濒蝉补产é
?
Natuurlik – baie goeie plek om te gaan vra!
T
?
From:?[email protected]?<[email protected]>?On Behalf Of?Elsabe Birkenmayer via?
Sent:?Friday, 23 May 2025 12:15
To:?Zalang <[email protected]>
Subject:?Re: [ZaLang] Concord
?
Tony
?
Dis ’n vreeslike interessante vraag. Mag ek die vraag op PEG vra? Ek sal jou naam uithaal as jy wil?
?
Groete
?
贰濒蝉补产é

On 23 May 2025, at 11:22, Tony Moen via??<transed@...> wrote:
?
Was the outlet pipe loosened and the impeller inspected?
Or
Were the outlet pipe loosened and the impeller inspected?
?
My gut initially voted for the second, my brain wants to know why.
?
So what should my brain tell my gut?
?
1???????????? If the above question is turned into a statement, it becomes (obviously):
The outlet pipe was loosened and the impeller inspected.
The argument here is that the verb is left out in the second clause because it’s the same as in the first and we’re simple avoiding a repetition.
?
If the same principle applies to the question as to the statement, then we would say “Was the outlet pipe loosened and [was] the impeller inspected?”
?
2???????????? And of course one could say “were the outlet pipe…” simply sounds wrong and what I would call the “proximity rule” applies, as in the case of “neither the girls nor the boy was at fault” (verb agrees with nearest subject).
?
Somehow I could be convinced more readily by argument 1 than by argument 2, but it comes to the same thing.?
?
?
?

Re: Concord

#66830

开云体育

Dag 贰濒蝉补产é

?

Natuurlik – baie goeie plek om te gaan vra!

T

?

Show quoted text

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Elsabe Birkenmayer via groups.io
Sent: Friday, 23 May 2025 12:15
To: Zalang <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ZaLang] Concord

?

Tony

?

Dis ’n vreeslike interessante vraag. Mag ek die vraag op PEG vra? Ek sal jou naam uithaal as jy wil?

?

Groete

?

贰濒蝉补产é

On 23 May 2025, at 11:22, Tony Moen via groups.io <transed@...> wrote:
?
Was the outlet pipe loosened and the impeller inspected?
Or
Were the outlet pipe loosened and the impeller inspected?
?
My gut initially voted for the second, my brain wants to know why.
?
So what should my brain tell my gut?
?
1???????????? If the above question is turned into a statement, it becomes (obviously):
The outlet pipe was loosened and the impeller inspected.
The argument here is that the verb is left out in the second clause because it’s the same as in the first and we’re simple avoiding a repetition.
?
If the same principle applies to the question as to the statement, then we would say “Was the outlet pipe loosened and [was] the impeller inspected?”
?
2???????????? And of course one could say “were the outlet pipe…” simply sounds wrong and what I would call the “proximity rule” applies, as in the case of “neither the girls nor the boy was at fault” (verb agrees with nearest subject).
?
Somehow I could be convinced more readily by argument 1 than by argument 2, but it comes to the same thing.?
?
?

?

Re: Concord

#66829

开云体育

Tony

Dis ’n vreeslike interessante vraag. Mag ek die vraag op PEG vra? Ek sal jou naam uithaal as jy wil?

Groete

贰濒蝉补产é

Show quoted text

On 23 May 2025, at 11:22, Tony Moen via groups.io <transed@...> wrote:

Was the outlet pipe loosened and the impeller inspected?
Or
Were the outlet pipe loosened and the impeller inspected?
?
My gut initially voted for the second, my brain wants to know why.
?
So what should my brain tell my gut?
?
1???????????? If the above question is turned into a statement, it becomes (obviously):
The outlet pipe was loosened and the impeller inspected.
The argument here is that the verb is left out in the second clause because it’s the same as in the first and we’re simple avoiding a repetition.
?
If the same principle applies to the question as to the statement, then we would say “Was the outlet pipe loosened and [was] the impeller inspected?”
?
2???????????? And of course one could say “were the outlet pipe…” simply sounds wrong and what I would call the “proximity rule” applies, as in the case of “neither the girls nor the boy was at fault” (verb agrees with nearest subject).
?
Somehow I could be convinced more readily by argument 1 than by argument 2, but it comes to the same thing.?
?
?

Concord

#66828

开云体育

Was the outlet pipe loosened and the impeller inspected?

Or

Were the outlet pipe loosened and the impeller inspected?

?

My gut initially voted for the second, my brain wants to know why.

?

So what should my brain tell my gut?

?

1???????????? If the above question is turned into a statement, it becomes (obviously):

The outlet pipe was loosened and the impeller inspected.

The argument here is that the verb is left out in the second clause because it’s the same as in the first and we’re simple avoiding a repetition.

?

If the same principle applies to the question as to the statement, then we would say “Was the outlet pipe loosened and [was] the impeller inspected?”

?

2???????????? And of course one could say “were the outlet pipe…” simply sounds wrong and what I would call the “proximity rule” applies, as in the case of “neither the girls nor the boy was at fault” (verb agrees with nearest subject).

?

Somehow I could be convinced more readily by argument 1 than by argument 2, but it comes to the same thing.

?

Re: reverse-engineer

#66827

Baie dankie, Samuel, jou staatmaker!  Ek hoop dit gaan goed met jou - is julle nog in Nederland?


___________________________________________________________________
Leona Labuschagne, Translator     |     083 302 2632    |     SA    GMT +2

Show quoted text

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Samuel Murray via groups.io
Sent: Woensdag 21 Mei 2025 18:43
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ZaLang] reverse-engineer

Ek vertaal dit as teruggenieer. :-)

==

On 21/05/2025 11:44, Leona Labuschagne via groups.io wrote:
Hallo Almal

Verskoon asseblief die vinnige vraag: Kan iemand my asseblief sê wat 
ons laas vir “reverse-engineer” (van sagteware) gebruik het??

**

*Leona Labuschagne

***

Sworn translator:  High Court of South Africa

SATI-accredited  conference  interpreter

+27 83 302 2632

leona@...<mailto:leona@...>

//

/Ambassador for the Perpetual Care Trust/

A person holding a paper clip Description automatically generated 
<
.org/>

support@...<mailto:support@...
rg>

*//*

/Long-term care for the profoundly disabled/

/Peace of mind for aging parents/

*//*

//

Re: reverse-engineer

#66826

Ek vertaal dit as teruggenieer. :-)

==

Show quoted text

On 21/05/2025 11:44, Leona Labuschagne via groups.io wrote:
Hallo Almal
Verskoon asseblief die vinnige vraag: Kan iemand my asseblief sê wat ons laas vir “reverse-engineer” (van sagteware) gebruik het??
**
*Leona Labuschagne
***
Sworn translator: ?High Court of South Africa
SATI-accredited ?conference ?interpreter
+27 83 302 2632
leona@...<mailto:leona@...>
//
/Ambassador for the Perpetual Care Trust/
	
	
A person holding a paper clip Description automatically generated
<>
support@...<mailto:support@...>
*//*
/Long-term care for the profoundly disabled/
/Peace of mind for aging parents/
*//*
//

reverse-engineer

#66825

开云体育

Hallo Almal

Verskoon asseblief die vinnige vraag: Kan iemand my asseblief sê wat ons laas vir “reverse-engineer” (van sagteware) gebruik het??

?

Leona Labuschagne

Sworn translator: ?High Court of South Africa

SATI-accredited ?conference ?interpreter

?

+27 83 302 2632? ?

leona@...

?

Ambassador for the Perpetual Care Trust

?

???????? A person holding a paper clip

Description automatically generated

support@...

?

Long-term care for the profoundly disabled

Peace of mind for aging parents

?

Re: swart-witlies

#66824

Dankie vir al die insette

Re: swart-witlies

#66823

开云体育

Daar’s ook hierdie bron:

Die W ordings- en VerwordingsGeskiedenis van die Koranna. REDE BY DIE AANVAARDING VAN DIE PROFESSORAAT IN BANTOET ALE AAN DIE UNIVERSITEIT VAN PRETORIA, GEHOU OP WOENSDAG, 23 JUNIE 1937. DEUR J. A. ENGELBRECHT, M. A. (Stell.) Ph.D. (Berlyn). PRETORIA 1937.

?

Nog rondgekrap, omdat dit my interesseer (en ek nie die werk wil doen wat ek eintlik moet doen nie):

?

Die?Korana?was 'n Khoikhoi-stam wat aan die noordelike grens van Kaapland gewoon het. Hulle is verdeel in 'n aantal stamgroepe, wat die Springbokke, die Towenaars en die Regshande insluit. Kom glo oorspronklik van die Groot Mere in Sentraal-Afrika van waar hulle deur die Bantoes suidwaarts gedryf is. Baie het hulle langs die vallei van die Oranjerivier gevestig. Langer as die ander Khoikhoi (Hottentotte) en meer aggressief. Een van hulle ou gebruike was om oues van dae deur wilde diere te laat verslind. Baie van hulle het hul op Klaarwater en Campbell gevestig, waar hulle be?nvloed is deur 'n beroemde sendelingpionier, eerw. John Campbell. Na omstreeks 1820 het hulle mag afgeneem en het hulle ondertrou met Boesmans en ander stamme. Vandag bestaan daar feitlik geen suiwer Koranas nie.

Bron: Ensiklopedie van Suidelike Afrika, Eric Rosenthal, 1967

?

Wat my laat twyfel of hulle Ngunibeeste sou geken het. Maar mens weet nooit nie! Die Nguni’s se wortels sit ook in Sentraal-Afrika.

?

Show quoted text

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Elsabe Birkenmayer via groups.io
Sent: Friday, 11 April 2025 12:24
To: Zalang <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ZaLang] swart-witlies

?

Hallo Jan

?

Weet jy van Marguerite Poland se boek Recessional for Grace? Dit is ge?nspireer deur ’n onvolledige leksikon van metaforiese name vir inheemse Sanga-Nguni beeste. Jy vind dalk iets interessants daarin.

?

Vriendelike groete

贰濒蝉补产é Birkenmayer
082-372-1939

On 11 Apr 2025, at 12:06, Chavoux Luyt via groups.io <Chavoux@...> wrote:
?
Ek ken nie die term se dieper of moontlik figuurlike betekenis nie. As boer sou ek dit gebruik om die kleur van 'n perd of bees te beskryf ("black with white flanks"). Maar dat daar 'n spesifieke term in Koranna daarvoor bestaan, wil dit vir my laat lyk asof daar 'n dieper betekenis is?
?
Groete
Chavoux

?

Re: swart-witlies

#66822

开云体育

Ek het regtig geen idee nie.

Maar die woord “swart-witlies” laat my dink aan ’n swartwitpens…

?

Show quoted text

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of jan via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2025 14:42
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ZaLang] swart-witlies

?

Ek wonder of iemand bekend is met die betekenis van bogenoemde (verouderde) term?? Dit kom uit "Studies oor Korannataal" deur J. A. Engelbrecht (1928). Dit is 'n vertaling van 'n Koranna woord in die woordels nl:

?

hoa = alles, almal (V.)
hoa-cg?b = die Voorsienigheid (V.)
hoa-qna = wyd (V.)
hoa-qnagasi = wydmaak (V.)
hoa-?nü = swart-witlies (V:)

?

Die (V.) verwys na die "proefpersoon" wat die bron van die woord was..

Re: swart-witlies

#66821

开云体育

Hallo Jan

Weet jy van Marguerite Poland se boek Recessional for Grace? Dit is ge?nspireer deur ’n onvolledige leksikon van metaforiese name vir inheemse Sanga-Nguni beeste. Jy vind dalk iets interessants daarin.

Vriendelike groete

贰濒蝉补产é Birkenmayer
082-372-1939

Show quoted text

On 11 Apr 2025, at 12:06, Chavoux Luyt via groups.io <Chavoux@...> wrote:

Ek ken nie die term se dieper of moontlik figuurlike betekenis nie. As boer sou ek dit gebruik om die kleur van 'n perd of bees te beskryf ("black with white flanks"). Maar dat daar 'n spesifieke term in Koranna daarvoor bestaan, wil dit vir my laat lyk asof daar 'n dieper betekenis is?

?

Groete

Chavoux

Re: swart-witlies

#66820

Ek ken nie die term se dieper of moontlik figuurlike betekenis nie. As boer sou ek dit gebruik om die kleur van 'n perd of bees te beskryf ("black with white flanks"). Maar dat daar 'n spesifieke term in Koranna daarvoor bestaan, wil dit vir my laat lyk asof daar 'n dieper betekenis is?

?

Groete

Chavoux

swart-witlies

#66819

Ek wonder of iemand bekend is met die betekenis van bogenoemde (verouderde) term?? Dit kom uit "Studies oor Korannataal" deur J. A. Engelbrecht (1928). Dit is 'n vertaling van 'n Koranna woord in die woordels nl:

?

hoa = alles, almal (V.)
hoa-cg?b = die Voorsienigheid (V.)
hoa-qna = wyd (V.)
hoa-qnagasi = wydmaak (V.)
hoa-?nü = swart-witlies (V:)

?

Die (V.) verwys na die "proefpersoon" wat die bron van die woord was..

Re: Something's rotten in the source document

#66818

开云体育

Well said, Tony!!

?

___________________________________________________________________

Leona Labuschagne, Translator???? |???? 083 302 2632??? |???? SA??? GMT +2

?

Show quoted text

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tony Moen via groups.io
Sent: Saterdag 22 Maart 2025 17:08
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ZaLang] Something's rotten in the source document

?

It’s been alarmingly quiet on this forum for quite a while now.

Perhaps our profession is really doomed by MT and AI.

?

A sign of our times, perhaps, but this weekend a client sent me a shortie that was part TM and part MT, and wanted me to complete a form rating the quality of their MT as well.

Now if your translating program shows you segments from both sources, it can get impossible, difficult or just a plain bore to pick out and assess the MT segments.

That’s what happens if the agent wants to cut cost by requesting MT editing at half the rate for human translation.

Personally, I use both DeepL and Google where possible (MT is simply another translating tool, like dictionaries and TMs, and the usual caution is needed).

?

But I digress.

?

To return to the state of Denmark:

The source document contained three errors, two of which I corrected in translation.

I informed the client accordingly, and then it occurred to me that tampering with originals used to be considered a capital crime – Trados didn’t allow correcting source segments for that very reason (you can now). So I added the following note to the translation I returned:

?

“With my more than 39 years of translating, I am quite aware that some clients almost get a heart attack if their texts are criticized.

So I’m not suggesting that you inform the client of the points I raised and then find yourself with an apoplectic patient on your conscience. But consider the following:

1??????????????????? [Agent] is serious about delivering translations of the best quality.

2??????????????????? A translation that perpetuates errors cannot be called a good translation, and therefore SL should obviously not return such a translation.

3??????????????????? The client then disseminates the (defective) translation, which attracts criticism.

4??????????????????? It will NEVER occur to a client that a translation that gets criticized is simply the result of the “garbage in, garbage out” rule.

5??????????????????? So he will direct his anger to the translation provider

6??????????????????? who will pass his ire on to the translator – THAT’S ME –

7??????????????????? and will never give me another job

8??????????????????? and probably caution his fellow golfers on the links next Saturday never to contact me.”

?

There’s a lovely saying among some South American Indians that goes like this:

Don’t curse the crocodile’s mother-in-law before you’ve crossed the river.

?

In our technically more advanced world, we would adopt an engineering perspective and say:

Don’t burn your bridges before you’ve crossed them.

?

At my age I don’t want to cross any more bridges and would give my pyromanic urges free rein at the mere sight of any bridge.

In other words, If I see an error, I’ll deal with it and inform the client.

But if any of you are faced with this Denmark issue, you’re welcome to embark on my train of thought and see where it takes you.

?

Something's rotten in the source document

#66817