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.?

?

?

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.?

?

?

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.?

?

?

?

?

Tony

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.?

?

?

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/

*//*

//

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/
*//*
//

?

Hallo Jan

?

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

?

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.

?

?

?

?

On 11 Feb 2025, at 18:04, Tony Moen via groups.io <transed@...> wrote:

Dankie vir die dokument, 贰濒蝉补产é.

?

Uit die frase “Vir die huidige doel” lei ek af dat die skrywer ’n bepaalde konteks behandel het.

Weet jy dalk wat die konteks was?

?

Tony

?

From:?[email protected]?<[email protected]>?On Behalf Of?Elsabe Birkenmayer via?
Sent:?Tuesday, 11 February 2025 15:48
To:?Zalang <[email protected]>
Subject:?Re: [ZaLang] doelmatig / doeltreffend / effektief

?

Dankie Tony en Francois.

?

My vraag het egter oor die outeur gegaan, nie oor die betekenis nie. Ek heg die dokument aan. My e-posprogram heg deesdae my aanhegsels heel onder aan. :(

?

Vriendelike groete

贰濒蝉补产é Birkenmayer
082-372-1939

On 11 Feb 2025, at 13:01, Francois Smith via??<smithfah@...> wrote:

?

Ek het onlangs 'n skrywer se gebruik van "efficacious" nageslaan en toe gee 'n chatbot vir my die volgende:

?

efficacious vs effective

?

Efficacious means something works under ideal conditions, while effective means something works in real-world conditions

?

Explanation?

·???????????Efficacy

The ability of something to produce a desired effect in controlled conditions.?For example, a vaccine's efficacy is how well it prevents disease in a laboratory setting.

·???????????Effectiveness

The ability of something to produce a desired result in real-world conditions.?For example, a vaccine's effectiveness is how well it prevents disease in the community.

In medicine, efficacy trials test how well a treatment works in a laboratory setting, while effectiveness studies test how well it works in practice.?

Example

A vaccine that has high efficacy might not be as effective in the real world because of factors like placebo effects, social desirability, and other therapies.?

Related terms

In general, an organization strives to be both effective and efficient.?Efficiency means using resources wisely.?

?

?

?

?

?

---

From:?[email protected]?<[email protected]> on behalf of Tony Moen via??<transed@...>
Sent:?Tuesday, 11 February 2025 12:53
To:?[email protected]?<[email protected]>
Subject:?Re: [ZaLang] doelmatig / doeltreffend / effektief

?

Ek weet nie van so?’n dokument nie, maar toe ek nog by Yskor was, was die definisies soos volg:

?

Effektief (effective): die middel/metode lewer die verwagte resultaat, d.w.s. het die gewenste effek.

Doeltreffend beteken prakties dieselfde – met die betrokke middel/metode bereik jy die gewenste doel.

?

“Efficient” beteken dat die gewenste resultaat?op die optimale wyse bereik word.

As jy lig wil hê, is ’n kers effektief. Hy gee mos lig af. Maar wat energie-omsetting betref is die rendement pateties: jy kry baie meer hitte as lig.

’n Gloeilamp, buislamp en LED doen dit ook. Maar hulle lewer telkens meer lig en minder hitte en is dus telkens “more efficient”.

?

In die omgangstaal sou baie mense sê elkeen is effektiewer of doeltreffender. Of sommer net “beter. Bitter min sou “doelmatiger” gebruik.

?

Daar is baie bronne wat “efficient” as doeltreffend vertaal (Chemiewoordeboek (1991), Fisikawoordeboek (1977), Landbou-ingenieursterme (1973), Sweiswoordeboek (1970), Elektrotegniese woordeboek (1969). Natuurlik kyk elke woordeboekmaker wat die vorige leksikograwe gedoen het en leen waar moontlik.

?

“Effisi?nt” kan natuurlik uit Nederlands nader gesleep word. Ons het mos al talle ander leenwoorde verafrikaans. Dat dit nie in die woordeboeke staan nie is bloot omdat woordeboeke die taal moet weergee soos hy op daardie tydstip staan. In die spreektaal sou die woord “effisi?nsie” taalverryking wees, maar in ’n woordeboek ’n fout.

?

Ek bly maar skepties oor die beweerde verskil tussen effektief en doelmatig. Bloot omdat daar nie naastenby so ’n groot verskil tussen doel (= wat jy wil bereik) en effek (= resultaat) bestaan nie; dis bloot ’n verskil in tyd.

?

My gevoel is dat “doelmatig” ’n wanhopige poging is/was om die betekenisverskil duideliker te maak.

Ek kry geen logiese basis daarvoor in die volgende bronne nie:

- In Van Dale se “Nieuw Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal” (1950) word doelmatig verklaar as “in overeenstemming met, geschikt voor het doel waartoe het gemaakt is” en doeltreffend as “waarmee men zijn doel bereikt”, wat op dieselfde neerkom.?

Terloops, Van Dale bevat nie “effici?nt” nie. ?Dis te oud en puristies daarvoor. Maar deesdae is daar hope bewysplase daarvoor.

- HAT (2015) definieer beide doelmatig en doeltreffend as “waarmee die doel bereik kan word” en effektief as “wat die gewenste effek/uitwerking het”. Vinkel en koljander …

?

My advies?

In die sin “An LED is a more efficient way of producing light”: ’n LED is ’n doeltreffender (beter) manier om lig te maak.

Maar jy kan net so wel effektiewer of doelmatiger gebruik.

?

Ander voorbeelde:

She’s a very efficient typist: Sy’s ’n uitmuntende tikster.

?

Of in die geval van ’n sekere Wodehousiaanse karakter, wat ’n onuitstaanbaar puntenerige bestuurder van Lord Emsworth se landgoed is en na wie (met ergernis) as Efficient Baxter verwys word: Baxter die Blikskottel.

?

Slot: As jy argumente wil vermy, kry grond onder jou voete en sê efficient = doeltreffend. Daar’s genoeg bronne daarvoor.

Al is daai grond na my mening bra moerassig.

From:?[email protected]?<[email protected]>?On Behalf Of?Elsabe Birkenmayer via?
Sent:?Saturday, 08 February 2025 10:05
To:?Zalang <[email protected]>
Subject:?[ZaLang] doelmatig / doeltreffend / effektief

?

Goeiem?re

?

Ek het ’n hele paar jaar gelede ’n dokument oor die verskil tussen?doelmatig / doeltreffend / effektief van iemand gekry. Weet iemand dalk wie die outeur van die oorspronklike dokument is?

?

Groete

贰濒蝉补产é Birkenmayer
082-372-1939

?

?

?

Dankie Tony en Francois.

?