[FPSPACE] A bilingual question

[Keith Gottschalk]

Dear Dimitry,

   (& it was a pleasure getting a once in a lifetime opportunity to meet you
personally at the IAC in Korea), I agree with the others. The spirit of the
code name "Ministry of General Machine-Building" would suggest the English
translation evasiveness of "product" or "article".

    Tongue in check, the perfect follow-on from the Ministry's name would be


"General Machine no. 1",  no. 2 etc, but that is too long to type out each
time.

warm regards from snowy Michigan, Keith.
2009/12/4 Asif Siddiqi <siddiqi at fordham.edu>

>
> I use "product" more than "article" but either would do. I think it's more
> of a stylistic issue. The former, to me, denotes the gray anonymity of
> Soviet times. The latter has multiple meanings in the English context, so it
> may be seen as less specific.
>
> Asif
>
>  On Dec 4, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Dmitry Payson wrote:
>
>  Thanks, Amatoly; is 'article' English enough in this context, or rather a
> calque translation?
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* fpspace-bounces at friends-partners.org [
> mailto:fpspace-bounces at friends-partners.org<fpspace-bounces at friends-partners.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Anatoly Zak
> *Sent:* Friday, December 04, 2009 9:06 PM
> *To:* Untitled
> *Subject:* Re: [FPSPACE] A bilingual question
>
> I usually translate it as "article."
>
> Anatoly Zak
> http://www.russianspaceweb.com
>
>
> On 12/4/09 6:47 PM, "Dmitry Payson" <dpayson at mail.ru> wrote:
>
> Dear all:
>
> I met one of the eternal questions of the Rus-Eng translations again, and
> this time I have decide to ask the wider audience for the advice. What do
> you consider a most adequate English for ИЗДЕЛИЕ (Izdelie), the Russian
> 'placeholder' word that had been widely used to designate any particular
> piece of flying hardware, like ICBM, launch vehicle, spacecraft, etc? The
> general literal meaning of the Russian word is 'item', 'article'; the most
> adequate translation is probably 'vehicle' or 'flying vehicle', but these
> two do not reflect a very specific 'time spirit' of the early space programs
> when the used term should not give the clue to the actual nature of the
> designated object - both 'vehicle' and especially 'flying' are a bit too
> much explicit in such a context. Are there any ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> Dmitry Payson
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> FPSPACE mailing list
> FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
> http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace
>
> _______________________________________________
> FPSPACE mailing list
> FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
> http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FPSPACE mailing list
> FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
> http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.friends-partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/attachments/20091204/663661c8/attachment.html