Guest guest Posted July 17, 2003 Report Share Posted July 17, 2003 In a message dated 17/07/2003 11:43:34 GMT Standard Time, medical_translation writes: > In my experience, " non-distressed " is usually " uden besvær " , > sometimes " ingen gener " . " Upåvirket " is not commonly used in that > sense. It usually means treatment has had no effect. > > Looks like we have different experience then, ! Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2003 Report Share Posted July 17, 2003 Rob, the Danish verb " påvirke " can have the (somewhat sloppy) connotation of " to affect unfavorably " , just as the English verb " to impact " can connote " to impact adversely " . But then you're probably talking about the environment, say. If the doctors you've been translating for have been using it to mean " non-distressed, " they've been using an ambiguous term at best, and not the one I've encountered most in 30 years of translating. It could conceivably mean that in the tiny slice of context Andy presented, but I doubt it. My wife Birthe, who has worked directly in the health field for over 35 years, doubts it even more strongly. But I've seen worse writing from doctors. It would take more concrete examples to convice me, however. Best regards, > In a message dated 17/07/2003 11:43:34 GMT Standard Time, > medical_translation writes: > > > In my experience, " non-distressed " is usually " uden besvær " , > > sometimes " ingen gener " . " Upåvirket " is not commonly used in that > > sense. It usually means treatment has had no effect. > > > > > > Looks like we have different experience then, ! > Rob > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2003 Report Share Posted July 17, 2003 Rob, I've since searched the Web and am now convinced that " påvirket " IS used currently for " distressed, " not only to describe mental, but also physical states. What they write, is what it is. You reading this, Andy? -- In medical_translation , " T. Creutz " <TCreutz@c...> wrote: > Rob, the Danish verb " påvirke " can have the (somewhat sloppy) > connotation of " to affect unfavorably " , just as the English verb " to > impact " can connote " to impact adversely " . But then you're probably > talking about the environment, say. If the doctors you've been > translating for have been using it to mean " non-distressed, " they've > been using an ambiguous term at best, and not the one I've > encountered most in 30 years of translating. It could conceivably > mean that in the tiny slice of context Andy presented, but I doubt > it. My wife Birthe, who has worked directly in the health field for > over 35 years, doubts it even more strongly. But I've seen worse > writing from doctors. It would take more concrete examples to > convice me, however. > > Best regards, > > > > > In a message dated 17/07/2003 11:43:34 GMT Standard Time, > > medical_translation writes: > > > > > In my experience, " non-distressed " is usually " uden besvær " , > > > sometimes " ingen gener " . " Upåvirket " is not commonly used in that > > > sense. It usually means treatment has had no effect. > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we have different experience then, ! > > Rob > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.