[Brid] Percentage Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Lateral Puzzles » Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles » Solved Puzzles - March 2005 » [Brid] Percentage « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through August 27, 2004Birgitta Ericsson22 8-27-04  8:56 am
Archive through September 10, 2004David Burn22 9-10-04  8:25 am
Archive through November 12, 2004Birgitta Ericsson22 11-12-04  9:14 am
Archive through January 19, 2005Denise Cameron22 1-19-05  3:03 am
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 6:46 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Amol D. (Amol) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 10:22 am:


Is subtraction involved ? no

By Denise Cameron (Dencam) on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 03:03 am:


Hello. I am a newbie. Hope you don't mind if I join in. Hi Denise! By all means, do join. New people, new ideas...

Do the two people involved know each other? no or irrelevant Do they interact with each other? not directly Does one make a mistake? yesish And the other tries to compensate for the mistake? YES Can any one (or two) adult person/people mix this compound? probably not, but irrelevant
Tommy Petersson (Tommyp)
Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 10:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Any mixup, like volume ratio used instead of weight ratio?
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 6:34 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Tommy Petersson (Tommyp) on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 10:02 pm:


Any mixup, like volume ratio used instead of weight ratio? no, but somewhere in the right forest
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 6:42 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oh dear, I'm almost up on top.

RECAP/REFOCUS:
A text (one that I have for translation) contains the words "at least 16.5 % by weight (e. g., including 16.465 % by weight)" which doesn't make sense. This is the result of someone having "corrected" someone else's work. How?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 9:05 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Do you mean that those words appear in the original? or in the translation?
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 9:28 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By David Burn (Woubit) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 09:05 am:


Do you mean that those words appear in the original? or in the translation? they appeared in the original, and I had no other choice than translating them into Swedish
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:36 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

This "correction": was it made by a native English speaker? (assuming the original was in English?) Or by another translator?
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 11:26 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By David Burn (Woubit) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:36 am:


This "correction": was it made by a native English speaker? presumably (assuming the original was in English?) it was Or by another translator? no
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 11:43 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is the idea that "at least 16.5 % by weight" was written by one person, and "(e. g., including 16.465 % by weight)" was added by another person?
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 1:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By David Burn (Woubit) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 11:43 am:


Is the idea that "at least 16.5 % by weight" was written by one person, and "(e. g., including 16.465 % by weight)" was added by another person? no, all was written by the first person, and then the second person...
Amol D. (Amol)
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 1:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did the second person:
add something ? words ? parantheses ?
delete something ? words ?
take something out of context ?
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 1:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Amol D. (Amol) on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 01:26 pm:


Did the second person:
add something ? words ? parantheses ? no
delete something ? yes words ? yes
take something out of context ? no
Tim A. Dowd (Bodo)
Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 3:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So the original was something like "(For example, including 16.465% armadillos by weight)" and someone deleted the "armadillos"?
Amol D. (Amol)
Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 8:24 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was there some misinterpretation of the word ``including'' ? Was it supposed to mean ``adding'' ?
Was 0.035% already present ?
Was the missing word ``by''?
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 6:40 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Tim A. Dowd (Bodo) on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 03:16 pm:


So the original was something like "(For example, including 16.465% armadillos by weight)" and someone deleted the "armadillos"? no, not even for svv of armadillos - but go on!

By Amol D. (Amol) on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 08:24 am:


Was there some misinterpretation of the word ``including'' ? no or possibly noish
Was it supposed to mean ``adding'' ? no
Was 0.035% already present ? no
Was the missing word ``by''? no
Tim A. Dowd (Bodo)
Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 2:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Should it've been "...including at least 16.465%..." (in the parens, I mean)?
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 6:29 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Tim A. Dowd (Bodo) on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 02:58 pm:


Should it've been "...including at least 16.465%..." (in the parens, I mean)? no, but go on!
Tim A. Dowd (Bodo)
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was it a single missing word? If more than one, were they consecutive in the sentence? Or separated by non-deleted words?

Did it modify weight in either instance? Is rounding relevant?

Was the idea that one should exceed some requirement, so that if the requirement is 16.465% one should use 16.5%?
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 6:37 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Tim A. Dowd (Bodo) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 03:27 pm:


Was it a single missing word? yope If more than one, were they consecutive in the sentence? no Or separated by non-deleted words? yes

Did it modify weight in either instance? yes Is rounding relevant? yes

Was the idea that one should exceed some requirement, so that if the requirement is 16.465% one should use 16.5%? no
Amol D. (Amol)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is the knowledge of any non-English language relevant here ? difference in grammatical constructions between different languages relevant ? split infinitives ?

Is the deleted word "without" ? "not" ? something that actually meant that 16.465% should not be included ?
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 1:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Amol D. (Amol) on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:57 pm:


Is the knowledge of any non-English language relevant here ? difference in grammatical constructions between different languages relevant ? split infinitives ? no to all

Is the deleted word "without" ? no "not" ? no something that actually meant that 16.465% should not be included ? no
Tim A. Dowd (Bodo)
Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was it a single word deleted from more than one place in the text?

Something like "...at least 16.5% animal parts by weight (e. g. including 16.465 % armadillo parts and .035 insect bits)"?
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 6:35 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Tim A. Dowd (Bodo) on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 03:40 pm:


Was it a single word deleted from more than one place in the text? yes

Something like "...at least 16.5% animal parts by weight (e. g. including 16.465 % armadillo parts and .035 insect bits)"? but no, not even excluding the armadillos :)
Oneida (Theoneida)
Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 4:57 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'm thinking that the deleted word would have made it clear that the amount was to be rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent, but I can't think of one word that would work by itself.
Amol D. (Amol)
Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 3:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was the word deleted at two places ? more ?

Did the word have different meanings at these multiple places ?
Tim A. Dowd (Bodo)
Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 2:00 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sheesh, people aren't even trying to work armadillos into this puzzle now. I guess it's up to me:
Armadillos just can't hold their beer...
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 4:27 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

May I join you?

Even if I go off on a tangent?

I wonder if the context of the sentence would help (earlier you said probably not but it may...)
Was what you were translating a
book?

a textbook?
a general audience non-fiction book?
a scholarly, specific-audience book?
a workbook?
a cookbook?

a paper/thesis? if yes, Academic? Professional?
an article for or from a magazine or journal? popular? scholarly? scientific? Armadillos Monthly?

Were you working from a final published copy? galleys? a typescript/printout?

Was anything else changed besides the removal (in more than one place) of the same word?

I'm guessing that the first person was the author; was the second person an editor? a typist? a copysetter?

Which person made the error; the person who originally wrote it, or the person who changed it?

Did the deleted word(s) relate to a margin of error allowable? (like "+/-.05%")
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 6:45 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Oneida (Theoneida) on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 04:57 am:


I'm thinking that the deleted word would have made it clear that the amount was to be rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent, but I can't think of one word that would work by itself. you're quite close :)

By Amol D. (Amol) on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 03:51 pm:


Was the word deleted at two places ? yes, in this piece of the text more ? yes, in other places

Did the word have different meanings at these multiple places ? no

By Tim A. Dowd (Bodo) on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 02:00 am:


Sheesh, people aren't even trying to work armadillos into this puzzle now. I guess it's up to me: Very obliged, I'm sure. Though when first glancing at the picture I thought it was a seahorse


By Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab) on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 04:27 am:


May I join you? certainly! Welcome!

Even if I go off on a tangent? of course - this is the Lateral thinking puzzles forum, after all

I wonder if the context of the sentence would help (earlier you said probably not but it may...)
Was what you were translating a
book? no

a textbook?
a general audience non-fiction book?
a scholarly, specific-audience book?
a workbook?
a cookbook?

a paper/thesis? yesish - oh. bother. It was a patent publication, which is what I generally do translate if yes, Academic? Professional?
an article for or from a magazine or journal? popular? scholarly? scientific? Armadillos Monthly?

Were you working from a final published copy? galleys? a typescript/printout? this is closest

Was anything else changed besides the removal (in more than one place) of the same word? probably, but nothing relevant to this

I'm guessing that the first person was the author; was the second person an editor? yes a typist? a copysetter?

Which person made the error; the person who originally wrote it, or the person who changed it? both, actually - explore this

Did the deleted word(s) relate to a margin of error allowable? (like "+/-.05%") no, but...
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 3:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Which person made the error; the person who originally wrote it, or the person who changed it? both, actually - explore this "

Hmm. So the author had it wrong somehow in the first place, and then the editor tried to correct that error by deleting the same word in several places, but just made it wrong in a different way?
Tim A. Dowd (Bodo)
Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 3:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So it was incorrect both before and after being corrected?

If it were a rounding thing (trying to make the point that it's acceptable to round to the nearest tenth) I would expect it to look like this: "...at least 16.5 % by weight (e. g., not 'including 16.465 % by weight')...", is that the intended meaning?
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 7:07 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab) on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 03:15 pm:


"Which person made the error; the person who originally wrote it, or the person who changed it? both, actually - explore this "

Hmm. So the author had it wrong somehow in the first place, and then the editor tried to correct that error by deleting the same word in several places, but just made it wrong in a different way? exactly!

By Tim A. Dowd (Bodo) on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 03:33 pm:


So it was incorrect both before and after being corrected? yes, but in different ways - it was absurd only after the correction. The deleted word probably shouldn't have been there in the first place, but more editing would have been needed.

If it were a rounding thing (trying to make the point that it's acceptable to round to the nearest tenth) I would expect it to look like this: "...at least 16.5 % by weight (e. g., not 'including 16.465 % by weight')...", is that the intended meaning? no
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 4:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

OK, I'm going to keep chewing at this aspect...

Was the original (author's) error an error
in math?
in grammar?
in vocabulary?
in something else?

The editor erred by simply deleting the same word in several places, and thereby introduced a math error?
should s/he have recast the sentence entirely?

Did the editor's "correction" actually correct the author's error? Or is the author's error still there, too?

Did the author and the editor both understand the deleted word in the same sense?

And to get a solid answer on this: Was the original error about rounding at all? Or is it that the second error makes it look like the original error was about rounding?

"at least 16.5% by weight" & "...including 16.465 % by weight)" is pretty close to a parallel construction; was the word that was deleted, deleted from the same position in both clauses? (I'm not sure what good that information is going to do me, but anyway...)

"Did the deleted word(s) relate to a margin of error allowable? (like "+/-.05%") no, but..."

No, but... . Hmmm again. Did it have something to do with tolerances? acceptable lower bounds? critical proportions?

Wait a second -- which definition of "word" are you using?
This one: "2b(1): a written or printed character or combination of characters representing a spoken word."?
Or this one: "2b(2): any segment of written or printed discourse ordinarily appearing between spaces or between a space and a punctuation mark."?
Or does it not matter?
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 6:47 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab) on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 04:15 pm:


OK, I'm going to keep chewing at this aspect... Bon appétit!

Was the original (author's) error an error
in math?
in grammar?
in vocabulary? this is closest
in something else? but perhaps this is the correct one - I can't really categorise it

The editor erred by simply deleting the same word in several places, and thereby introduced a math error? yes
should s/he have recast the sentence entirely? s/he probably wasn't allowed to, but it would have been better

Did the editor's "correction" actually correct the author's error? yes Or is the author's error still there, too? no

Did the author and the editor both understand the deleted word in the same sense? yes

And to get a solid answer on this: Was the original error about rounding at all? not explicitly, but it is in this area Or is it that the second error makes it look like the original error was about rounding?

"at least 16.5% by weight" & "...including 16.465 % by weight)" is pretty close to a parallel construction; was the word that was deleted, deleted from the same position in both clauses? yes (I'm not sure what good that information is going to do me, but anyway...)

"Did the deleted word(s) relate to a margin of error allowable? (like "+/-.05%") no, but..."

No, but... . Hmmm again. Did it have something to do with tolerances? yes acceptable lower bounds? critical proportions? no or irrelevant to the others

Wait a second -- which definition of "word" are you using?
This one: "2b(1): a written or printed character or combination of characters representing a spoken word."? this
Or this one: "2b(2): any segment of written or printed discourse ordinarily appearing between spaces or between a space and a punctuation mark."?
Or does it not matter? or this
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 4:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Maybe the original error was vocabulary, or maybe something else? Is 'word choice' more accurate than vocabulary?

The definition of word doesn't matter? The reason I ask is because under the first definition, a symbol or set of symbols (like "±" or "³") technically isn't a 'word' since it doesn't represent a spoken word (it represents a phrase); but under the second one it is. Picky, I know. ;)

It had something to do with tolerances; is the parenthetical note there because the acceptable tolerance for this ingredient differs from the tolerance for the other ingredients?

Does this ingredient come in two forms, equally or almost equally common; with one slightly purer or more concentrated than the other, so that 16.5% of one would be equivalent to 16.465% of the other?


Was the deleted word
a noun?
a verb?
an adjective?
an adverb?
a gerund?
a preposition?
some other part of speech?

I warned you that I digress all over the place, didn't I? I do.
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 6:46 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab) on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 04:17 pm:


Maybe the original error was vocabulary, or maybe something else? Is 'word choice' more accurate than vocabulary? Perhaps. The author used a word that the editor (and sundry other people) consider shouldn't be used in patent publications.

The definition of word doesn't matter? The reason I ask is because under the first definition, a symbol or set of symbols (like "±" or "³") technically isn't a 'word' since it doesn't represent a spoken word (it represents a phrase); but under the second one it is. Picky, I know. ;) This word is a word according to all definitions.

It had something to do with tolerances; is the parenthetical note there because the acceptable tolerance for this ingredient differs from the tolerance for the other ingredients? no

Does this ingredient come in two forms, equally or almost equally common; with one slightly purer or more concentrated than the other, so that 16.5% of one would be equivalent to 16.465% of the other? no


Was the deleted word
a noun?
a verb?
an adjective?
a preposition? this, I think
an adverb? or possibly this
a gerund?
some other part of speech? or possibly this, but go for the preposition, which is probably correct (it's been a while since I did parts of speech, especially in English) :)

I warned you that I digress all over the place, didn't I? I do. :) :)
Tommy Petersson (Tommyp)
Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 8:26 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was the original word seen as too informal? too inexact? too ambigous?
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 11:26 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Tommy Petersson (Tommyp) on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 08:26 am:


Was the original word seen as too informal? too inexact? this, probably too ambiguous? or possibly this
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 5:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Appoximately"? "About"?
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 4:42 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Before the editor deleted the word was the sentence
"...at least <deleted word> 16.5 % by weight (e. g., including <deleted word> 16.465 % by weight')"
or "...at least 16.5 % <deleted word> by weight (e. g., including 16.465 % <deleted word> by weight')

was the deleted word 'around'? 'average'?
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 6:42 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab) on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 05:01 pm:


"Appoximately"? "About"? YES

By Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab) on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 04:42 am:


Before the editor deleted the word was the sentence
"...at least <deleted word> 16.5 % by weight (e. g., including <deleted word> 16.465 % by weight')" YES
or "...at least 16.5 % <deleted word> by weight (e. g., including 16.465 % <deleted word> by weight')

was the deleted word 'around'? 'average'?

Spioler to follow.
Birgitta Ericsson (Brid)
Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 7:27 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

******** SPOILER *********

The text was indeed "...at least about 16.5 % by weight (e. g., including about 16.465 % by weight)" before the editor stepped in, thought the word "about" too vague to use in patent publications and simply crossed it out everywhere.
Among the things that were not edited in the text was the fact that the authors of a textbook were given sometimes as J. G. Hadman and L. E. Limbird, sometimes as J. G. Handman and L. Elimbird (I managed to find the right name of the latter on the Internet, but the first one remains uncertain) and the fact that the author used the words "miscible" and "immiscible" as synonyms. A translators life is a hard one.

Thanks to all and especially to Barbara!
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 8:19 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Wheee! That was fun. Thanks, Brid.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: