Guest guest Posted April 12, 2000 Report Share Posted April 12, 2000 , you can find lots of references under " proteomics " (Eng.) and " protéomique " (Fr.), beginning with http://www.expasy.ch/ Regards, > > I'm finding no traces of " proteomic " in any of my references. The sentence > reads " Nous utiliserons d'autre part lr'approche protéomique (électrophrèse > 2D et spectre de masse) pour inventorier la nature des constituants du > complex assemblé... " We're talking NADPH oxydase complex here. > > Many thanks, > > > Northrup, PhD > English Solutions > rue du Carlin > 38500 Voiron France > > tel/fax: 04-76-66-16-01 > email: linda.northrup@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2000 Report Share Posted June 27, 2000 Northrup wrote: > Has anyone ever heard of " sciences du vivant " ? If it's not life sciences, > what could it be in English? search the expression " Sciences du vivant " dans: http://obelix.uqss.uquebec.ca/pder/vprosp/biosciences/svrap.html This site mentioned the Institut des sciences du vivant : " http://www.univ-lyon.asso.fr/PUL/en/missions.html et ils ont mis entre parenthèses (Life Sciences) It is a fast " life (saving) service " !!! Pierre Jolin ________________________________________________________ 1stUp.com - Free the Web Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2000 Report Share Posted June 27, 2000 Hi , I would say " Biological Sciences " . Sylvie Northrup wrote: > > Has anyone ever heard of " sciences du vivant " ? If it's not life sciences, > what could it be in English? > > Thanks, > > > Northrup, PhD, ELS > English Solutions > rue du Carlin > 38500 Voiron France > > tel/fax: 04-76-66-16-01 > email: linda.northrup@... > > URL: www./group/medical_translation > > To unsubscribe, please send an *empty* message to > medical_translation-UNSUBSCRIBEegroups Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2000 Report Share Posted July 20, 2000 could be 'mania for cleanliness' Hennie FR > Eng Anyone know the proper term in English for " ultrapropreté " ? Ultracleanliness doesn't seem to cut it somehow. Thanks, Northrup, PhD, ELS English Solutions rue du Carlin 38500 Voiron France tel/fax: 04-76-66-16-01 email: linda.northrup@... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here: http://click./1/7078/5/_/98296/_/964078290/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ URL: www./group/medical_translation To unsubscribe, please send an *empty* message to medical_translation-UNSUBSCRIBEegroups Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2000 Report Share Posted July 20, 2000 , How about superhygiene? Cordialement, Sylvie Northrup wrote: > > Anyone know the proper term in English for " ultrapropreté " ? > Ultracleanliness doesn't seem to cut it somehow. > > Thanks, > > > Northrup, PhD, ELS > English Solutions > rue du Carlin > 38500 Voiron France > > tel/fax: 04-76-66-16-01 > email: linda.northrup@... > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2001 Report Share Posted January 16, 2001 At 09:13 AM 1/16/01 +0100, you wrote: >Would anyone know what the term " aidant naturel " would mean in French? This is in the context of a general description of a hospital specializing in geriatrics and comes in the following sentence: différents " ...métiers de l'aide à domicile (intervenants au domicile, personnel >d'encadrement intermédiaire, décideurs) sans oublier les aidants naturels. " >The only thing I can think of is family, but I'm not at all sure that is what the au is referring to here. > This came up on Lantra a while back. I think the conclusion was that " aidants naturels " included family, friends and " significant others " (sorry for the blech PC term but apparently nothing else is all-inclusive enough). I don't recall that there was a single, neat term to cover it, but you might check the Lantra archives (within the last six months, I think). Not sure I understand your question about the " au " ... that is referring to the professionals providing at-home care, as far as I can tell. hth, Dagmara >Thanks, > > > Northrup, PhD, ELS >rue du Carlin >38500 Voiron >France > >tel/fax: +33 476-66-16-01 >e-mail: linda.northrup@... > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2001 Report Share Posted January 16, 2001 Why not just call it a natural helper? If you are translating to English, you don't have to specify what it covers, just find an equivalent term - right? And the following gives an explanation: http://www.nichcy.org/pubs/transum/ts9txt.htm Coilín. PS: from the Lantra archives: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:35:59 -0400 Reply-To: " Interpretation (and) translation " Sender: " Interpretation (and) translation " Subject: Re: TERM Fr-En aidant naturel Comments: cc: lisef@... SNIP For aidant naturel, Termium gives natural helper: DOMAINE(S) Services sociaux et travail social FR aidant naturel*b*MASC CONT*Il existe dans notre entourage des personnes qui sont des aidants naturels, des personnes qui rendent quantités de services à leurs voisins, amis et parents.*b SUBJECT FIELD(S) Social Services and Social Work EN natural helper*a SNIP At 09:11 16-01-01 -0600, you wrote: >At 09:13 AM 1/16/01 +0100, you wrote: > >Would anyone know what the term " aidant naturel " would mean in French? > This is in the context of a general description of a hospital > specializing in geriatrics and comes in the following sentence: > différents " ...métiers de l'aide à domicile (intervenants au domicile, > personnel > >d'encadrement intermédiaire, décideurs) sans oublier les aidants naturels. " > >The only thing I can think of is family, but I'm not at all sure that is > what the au is referring to here. > > > >This came up on Lantra a while back. I think the conclusion was that > " aidants naturels " included family, friends and " significant others " >(sorry for the blech PC term but apparently nothing else is all-inclusive >enough). I don't recall that there was a single, neat term to cover it, >but you might check the Lantra archives (within the last six months, I think). >Not sure I understand your question about the " au " ... that is referring to >the professionals providing at-home care, as far as I can tell. > >hth, >Dagmara > > >Thanks, > > > > > > Northrup, PhD, ELS > >rue du Carlin > >38500 Voiron > >France > > > >tel/fax: +33 476-66-16-01 > >e-mail: linda.northrup@... > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2001 Report Share Posted January 16, 2001 dagmara@... ha scritto: > > > This came up on Lantra a while back. I think the conclusion was that " aidants naturels " included family, friends and " significant others " (sorry for the blech PC term but apparently nothing else is all-inclusive enough). I don't recall that there was a single, neat term to cover it, but you might check the Lantra archives (within the last six months, I think). " Carer " is commonly used in the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 You could invent a new term, I suppose, but would everybody understand it? If you choose to do this, the point is that these helpers/carers/assistants are non-professional, consisting of people found in the patient's social environment by default. A bit like the children of refugees, who sometimes find themselves in the role of interpreter for their parents and other relatives. " natural interpreters " ?? Here's an example of the use of " natural carer " in BE: http://www.irishnews.com/archive2000/05092000/womantalk2.html (BE: Belfast English But this is certainly not as well-extablished as natural helper. Coilín. At 20:16 16-01-01 +0100, you wrote: >dagmara@... ha scritto: > > > > > > This came up on Lantra a while back. I think the conclusion was that > " aidants naturels " included family, friends and " significant others " > (sorry for the blech PC term but apparently nothing else is all-inclusive > enough). I don't recall that there was a single, neat term to cover it, > but you might check the Lantra archives (within the last six months, I think). > > > " Carer " is commonly used in the UK. > > > >URL: www./group/medical_translation > >To unsubscribe, please send an *empty* message to >medical_translation-UNSUBSCRIBEegroups Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 I suggest that you use " caregiver " and forget the whole sticky business of " natural " (it sounds like a translator's patched-together remedy for the sticky problem of translating caregivers in the first place). Caregivers refers to the unremunerated people who take care of patients, generally family members or significant others. Barbara , MD Medical Language Services Capitán Haya, 23, esc. 2, 9-2 28020 Madrid Tel: 34 915 567 957 Fax: 34 915 569 895 / 34 918 849 072 E-mail: humosa@..., humosa@... Fr > Eng > Would anyone know what the term " aidant naturel " would mean in French? This is in the context of a general description of a hospital specializing in geriatrics and comes in the following sentence: différents " ...métiers de l'aide à domicile (intervenants au domicile, personnel > d'encadrement intermédiaire, décideurs) sans oublier les aidants naturels. " > The only thing I can think of is family, but I'm not at all sure that is what the au is referring to here. > > Thanks, > > > Northrup, PhD, ELS > rue du Carlin > 38500 Voiron > France > > tel/fax: +33 476-66-16-01 > e-mail: linda.northrup@... > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 At 10:39 17-01-01 +0100, you wrote: >I suggest that you use " caregiver " and forget the whole sticky business of > " natural " (it sounds like a translator's patched-together remedy for the >sticky problem of translating caregivers in the first place). I think you're missing the whole point, and nothing sticky about it. There are professional helpers/caregivers, and there are non-professional helpers/caregivers, the latter arising among family members, friends, neighbours, people who just happen to be there. For example, I see a woman with a white stick standing on the train platform, and I ask her whether I can help her, even though I have no specific duty to do so. This makes me a natural helper. There is a lot of evidence that this is NOT the invention of a translator. Like it or lump it, there are a whole bunch of hits in Google for " natural helper " and even some for " natural caregiver " , including this one: People who are local, indigenous members and residents of underserved communities are uniquely knowledgeable about their population's needs. Where such individuals are already serving as natural helpers, they communicate to the providers the needs of community members, [...]. Oftentimes these workers have access to people who do not want to have anything to do with the formal caregiving systems. For the purposes of this paper, the term " community health advisor " (CHA), will be used to identify lay health outreach workers, but the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) identified at least 60 alternative titles, including community health worker, health promoter, family health care advisor, home visitor, natural caregiver, natural helper, peer counseler, promotora, and resource mother. http://www.nrharural.org/dc/issuepapers/ipaper17.html >Caregivers >refers to the unremunerated people who take care of patients, generally >family members or significant others. Specifically unrenumerated?? The following entry in The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology establishes that the term " caregiver " can refer to professionals: 1. Generally, anyone involved in any of the phases of healthcare. It may apply to one who identifies illness, helps prevent it, works in treatment or rehabilitation of patients, etc. The term is generally used for community workers, paraprofessionals, orderlies, etc. but may also include trained clinical psychologists or physicians. http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=147606 & secid=.- I would love to see any references in contradiction of my findings above. But don't expect me to come running around there with an Ambubag if you go apnoeic while you search. Best regards Coilín. >Barbara , MD >Medical Language Services >Capitán Haya, 23, esc. 2, 9-2 >28020 Madrid > >Tel: 34 915 567 957 >Fax: 34 915 569 895 / 34 918 849 072 >E-mail: humosa@..., humosa@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 Hi Colin, I spent two years of my life developing a thesaurus for research purposes. About 90% of our work was to wade through the proliferation of synonyms that prevent people from finding necessary and important information. You would be surprised at how counterproductive synonyms can be. I'm not going to check what's out there on the web on this, but I proposed " caregiver " , a frequently used term, as a useful option. Unless there is some really convincing reason why yet another term should be coined I think that there are more arguments against than in favor. The fact is that every time someone invents a new term unnecessarily, a large part of the literature passes into oblivion, until someone creates a link between the new synonym and the main heading. Really new and original concepts are not as common as we would like to think they are. You might want to check the Medical Subject Headings of Medline for guidance on this matter. Barbara Re: Fr > Eng > At 10:39 17-01-01 +0100, you wrote: > >I suggest that you use " caregiver " and forget the whole sticky business of > > " natural " (it sounds like a translator's patched-together remedy for the > >sticky problem of translating caregivers in the first place). > > I think you're missing the whole point, and nothing sticky about it. There > are professional helpers/caregivers, and there are non-professional > helpers/caregivers, the latter arising among family members, friends, > neighbours, people who just happen to be there. For example, I see a woman > with a white stick standing on the train platform, and I ask her whether I > can help her, even though I have no specific duty to do so. This makes me a > natural helper. > > There is a lot of evidence that this is NOT the invention of a translator. > Like it or lump it, there are a whole bunch of hits in Google for " natural > helper " and even some for " natural caregiver " , including this one: > People who are local, indigenous members and residents of underserved > communities are uniquely knowledgeable about their population's > needs. Where such individuals are already serving as natural helpers, > they communicate to the providers the needs of community members, > [...]. Oftentimes these workers have access to people who do not want to > have anything to do with > the formal caregiving systems. For the purposes of this paper, > the term " community health advisor " (CHA), will be used > to identify lay health outreach workers, but the Center for Disease > Control and Prevention (CDCP) identified at least 60 alternative > titles, including community health worker, health promoter, family > health care advisor, home visitor, natural caregiver, natural > helper, peer counseler, promotora, and resource mother. > http://www.nrharural.org/dc/issuepapers/ipaper17.html > > > >Caregivers > >refers to the unremunerated people who take care of patients, generally > >family members or significant others. > > Specifically unrenumerated?? > > The following entry in The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology establishes > that the term " caregiver " can refer to professionals: > 1. > Generally, anyone involved in any of the phases of healthcare. It may apply > to one who identifies illness, helps prevent it, works in treatment or > rehabilitation of patients, etc. The term is generally used for community > workers, paraprofessionals, orderlies, etc. but may also include trained > clinical psychologists or physicians. > http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=147606 & secid=.- > > > I would love to see any references in contradiction of my findings above. > But don't expect me to come running around there with an Ambubag if you go > apnoeic while you search. > > Best regards > Coilín. > > > > >Barbara , MD > >Medical Language Services > >Capitán Haya, 23, esc. 2, 9-2 > >28020 Madrid > > > >Tel: 34 915 567 957 > >Fax: 34 915 569 895 / 34 918 849 072 > >E-mail: humosa@..., humosa@... > > > > URL: www./group/medical_translation > > To unsubscribe, please send an *empty* message to > medical_translation-UNSUBSCRIBEegroups > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 Barbara wrote: > I'm not going to check what's out there on the web on this, but I proposed > " caregiver " , a frequently used term, as a useful option. Unless there is some > really convincing reason why yet another term should be coined I think that > there are more arguments against than in favor. I think it is important to use the web for reality checking. There are numerous sites that confirm the current use of the terms " natural caregiver " and especially " natural helper. " The fact that neither term sounds particularly, um... natural to my native ear (often the case with neologisms) is probably irrelevant. The most and really only convincing reason to use such a term is that, as translators, we need to reflect the reality of the terminology that is currently used by professionals in the field. In any event, as I see it, the qualifier " natural " is an important distinction here. http://ext.msstate.edu/fce/healthed/selfcare/appa1.htm Alternate Terms for Lay Health Advisors Natural caregiver Natural helper Natural neighbor Sharon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 Hi, Barbara. Thanks for this. Clearly not a moment's apnoea involved. Medline does indeed specify that, in that specific context, the term " caregiver " refers to a (presumably non-professional) person who provides care for a family member or friend: Caregiver Any person who provides care for the physical and emotional needs of a family member or friend. I bow to your superior knowledge of the technical language of research, but at the same time would point out a distinction between technical language and natural/colloquial language. The question is whether the needs of research can dictate natural language usage. Counterproductive _for research purposes_ it may be, but it is clearly too late to stop anybody coining a whole bunch of synonyms for this concept. Apart from this, I would say that any attempt to restrict the natural development of language - particularly the English language - is futile. The arguments are largely irrelevant; people keep inventing new terms. Ultimately, I think , who raised the question, must decide whether the text is intended for researchers (or other professionals), who might recognise the word " caregiver " as referring specifically to people naturally found in the patient's social environment, or for people who might need a bigger clue as to what type of people providing care the text refers to. Thanks again for your comments. Always learning. Best regards Coilín. At 15:34 17-01-01 +0100, you wrote: >Hi Colin, > >I spent two years of my life developing a thesaurus for research purposes. >About 90% of our work was to wade through the proliferation of synonyms that >prevent people from finding necessary and important information. You would >be surprised at how counterproductive synonyms can be. I might not. Been there as an undergraduate, browsing through the Index Medicus, wondering what the heck else " that topic my consultant mentioned " might be called. >I'm not going to >check what's out there on the web on this, but I proposed " caregiver " , a >frequently used term, as a useful option. Unless there is some really >convincing reason why yet another term should be coined I think that there >are more arguments against than in favor. The fact is that every time >someone invents a new term unnecessarily, a large part of the literature >passes into oblivion, until someone creates a link between the new synonym >and the main heading. Really new and original concepts are not as common as >we would like to think they are. You might want to check the Medical Subject >Headings of Medline for guidance on this matter. > >Barbara > > Re: Fr > Eng > > > > At 10:39 17-01-01 +0100, you wrote: > > >I suggest that you use " caregiver " and forget the whole sticky business >of > > > " natural " (it sounds like a translator's patched-together remedy for the > > >sticky problem of translating caregivers in the first place). > > > > I think you're missing the whole point, and nothing sticky about it. There > > are professional helpers/caregivers, and there are non-professional > > helpers/caregivers, the latter arising among family members, friends, > > neighbours, people who just happen to be there. For example, I see a woman > > with a white stick standing on the train platform, and I ask her whether I > > can help her, even though I have no specific duty to do so. This makes me >a > > natural helper. > > > > There is a lot of evidence that this is NOT the invention of a translator. > > Like it or lump it, there are a whole bunch of hits in Google for " natural > > helper " and even some for " natural caregiver " , including this one: > > People who are local, indigenous members and residents of underserved > > communities are uniquely knowledgeable about their population's > > needs. Where such individuals are already serving as natural helpers, > > they communicate to the providers the needs of community members, > > [...]. Oftentimes these workers have access to people who do not want to > > have anything to do with > > the formal caregiving systems. For the purposes of this paper, > > the term " community health advisor " (CHA), will be used > > to identify lay health outreach workers, but the Center for Disease > > Control and Prevention (CDCP) identified at least 60 alternative > > titles, including community health worker, health promoter, family > > health care advisor, home visitor, natural caregiver, natural > > helper, peer counseler, promotora, and resource mother. > > http://www.nrharural.org/dc/issuepapers/ipaper17.html > > > > > > >Caregivers > > >refers to the unremunerated people who take care of patients, generally > > >family members or significant others. > > > > Specifically unrenumerated?? > > > > The following entry in The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology establishes > > that the term " caregiver " can refer to professionals: > > 1. > > Generally, anyone involved in any of the phases of healthcare. It may >apply > > to one who identifies illness, helps prevent it, works in treatment or > > rehabilitation of patients, etc. The term is generally used for community > > workers, paraprofessionals, orderlies, etc. but may also include trained > > clinical psychologists or physicians. > > http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=147606 & secid=.- > > > > > > I would love to see any references in contradiction of my findings above. > > But don't expect me to come running around there with an Ambubag if you go > > apnoeic while you search. > > > > Best regards > > Coilín. > > > > > > > > >Barbara , MD > > >Medical Language Services > > >Capitán Haya, 23, esc. 2, 9-2 > > >28020 Madrid > > > > > >Tel: 34 915 567 957 > > >Fax: 34 915 569 895 / 34 918 849 072 > > >E-mail: humosa@..., humosa@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 Hi Colin, I am under no illusion that anyone cares a pin about how or why I view this the way I do. Just wanted to explain why I personally am rather conservative with using new terms to describe concepts that have been around for a long time. " Caregiver " is odd, too, but I have seen it used a great deal and I know that it solves the problem of providing a blanket term to characterize the people who provide care for others and are not family, volunteers, professionals, etc. (e.g., sympathetic friends, gay lovers, etc.) Barbara Re: Fr > Eng > > > > > > > At 10:39 17-01-01 +0100, you wrote: > > > >I suggest that you use " caregiver " and forget the whole sticky business > >of > > > > " natural " (it sounds like a translator's patched-together remedy for the > > > >sticky problem of translating caregivers in the first place). > > > > > > I think you're missing the whole point, and nothing sticky about it. There > > > are professional helpers/caregivers, and there are non-professional > > > helpers/caregivers, the latter arising among family members, friends, > > > neighbours, people who just happen to be there. For example, I see a woman > > > with a white stick standing on the train platform, and I ask her whether I > > > can help her, even though I have no specific duty to do so. This makes me > >a > > > natural helper. > > > > > > There is a lot of evidence that this is NOT the invention of a translator. > > > Like it or lump it, there are a whole bunch of hits in Google for " natural > > > helper " and even some for " natural caregiver " , including this one: > > > People who are local, indigenous members and residents of underserved > > > communities are uniquely knowledgeable about their population's > > > needs. Where such individuals are already serving as natural helpers, > > > they communicate to the providers the needs of community members, > > > [...]. Oftentimes these workers have access to people who do not want to > > > have anything to do with > > > the formal caregiving systems. For the purposes of this paper, > > > the term " community health advisor " (CHA), will be used > > > to identify lay health outreach workers, but the Center for Disease > > > Control and Prevention (CDCP) identified at least 60 alternative > > > titles, including community health worker, health promoter, family > > > health care advisor, home visitor, natural caregiver, natural > > > helper, peer counseler, promotora, and resource mother. > > > http://www.nrharural.org/dc/issuepapers/ipaper17.html > > > > > > > > > >Caregivers > > > >refers to the unremunerated people who take care of patients, generally > > > >family members or significant others. > > > > > > Specifically unrenumerated?? > > > > > > The following entry in The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology establishes > > > that the term " caregiver " can refer to professionals: > > > 1. > > > Generally, anyone involved in any of the phases of healthcare. It may > >apply > > > to one who identifies illness, helps prevent it, works in treatment or > > > rehabilitation of patients, etc. The term is generally used for community > > > workers, paraprofessionals, orderlies, etc. but may also include trained > > > clinical psychologists or physicians. > > > http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=147606 & secid=.- > > > > > > > > > I would love to see any references in contradiction of my findings above. > > > But don't expect me to come running around there with an Ambubag if you go > > > apnoeic while you search. > > > > > > Best regards > > > Coilín. > > > > > > > > > > > > >Barbara , MD > > > >Medical Language Services > > > >Capitán Haya, 23, esc. 2, 9-2 > > > >28020 Madrid > > > > > > > >Tel: 34 915 567 957 > > > >Fax: 34 915 569 895 / 34 918 849 072 > > > >E-mail: humosa@..., humosa@... > > > > URL: www./group/medical_translation > > To unsubscribe, please send an *empty* message to > medical_translation-UNSUBSCRIBEegroups > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 I couldn't agree with you more about checking the web, but I believe that you would have to read literally hundreds of thousands of entries to come to a valid conclusion regarding this point. To do a good job you can't just check whether or not the synonym chosen is on the web, you have to check the relative frequencies of a series of synonyms as well as who is using them. You can't be too careful about how many errors are out there either. When I key in typos, I often come back with hits, and there is no doubt that there are a lot of poor translations consecrated by time. For example, " huésped " in Spanish means " guest " , but most of us have given up trying to wade against the current of using " huésped " as a translation for " host " in the case of host species or cells. Barbara Re: Fr > Eng > Barbara wrote: > > > I'm not going to check what's out there on the web on this, but I proposed > > " caregiver " , a frequently used term, as a useful option. Unless there is some > > really convincing reason why yet another term should be coined I think that > > there are more arguments against than in favor. > > I think it is important to use the web for reality checking. There are numerous > sites that confirm the current use of the terms " natural caregiver " and > especially " natural helper. " The fact that neither term sounds particularly, > um... natural to my native ear (often the case with neologisms) is probably > irrelevant. The most and really only convincing reason to use such a term is > that, as translators, we need to reflect the reality of the terminology that is > currently used by professionals in the field. In any event, as I see it, the > qualifier " natural " is an important distinction here. > > http://ext.msstate.edu/fce/healthed/selfcare/appa1.htm > Alternate Terms for Lay Health Advisors > Natural caregiver > Natural helper > Natural neighbor > > Sharon > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 Hi Barbara, About " huésped " I can only partially agree with you. This is my opinion, expressed elsewhere, about the translation of " host " as " huésped " . <<En el capítulo II, " Que trata de la primera salida que de su tierra hizo el ingenioso don Quijote " , se puede leer: " Dijo [Don Quijote] luego al huésped [el que hospeda, el ventero ( " host " )] que le tuviese mucho cuidado de su caballo, porque era la mejor pieza que comía pan en el mundo. Miróle el ventero, y no le pareció tan bueno como don Quijote decía, ni aun la mitad; y acomodándole en la caballeriza, volvió a ver lo que su huésped [el hospedado, el caballero de la triste figura ( " guest " )] mandaba... " Teniendo en cuenta tan clásico precedente y lo arraigada que está la palabra huésped en la literatura biológica para referirse al organismo que hospeda a otro, no veo la necesidad de buscar nuevas palabras para expresar el concepto, y mucho menos de sustituirla por " anfitrión " , que en mi opinión expresa una voluntad de bien servir y de agradar que no existe en absoluto en el organismo parasitado. Ni ha invitado al parásito ni tiene ningunas ganas de servirle y agradarle; simplemente es víctima de una inevitabilidad biológica.>> Cervantes leaves no doubt that " huésped " means BOTH " guest " and " host " . And " huésped " as " host " is not an archaism, as shown by modern dictionaries (VOX, Real Academia y María Moliner): huésped 1 m., f. Persona alojada en casa ajena: ~ de su tío; ~ en su casa. (GUEST) 2 Persona alojada en un hotel, fonda, etc. 3 ant. Mesonero o amo de posada. 4 Persona que hospeda a otra en su casa. - (HOST) 5 m. BOT., ZOOL. Hospedador. Best regards, Re: Fr > Eng I couldn't agree with you more about checking the web, but I believe that you would have to read literally hundreds of thousands of entries to come to a valid conclusion regarding this point. To do a good job you can't just check whether or not the synonym chosen is on the web, you have to check the relative frequencies of a series of synonyms as well as who is using them. You can't be too careful about how many errors are out there either. When I key in typos, I often come back with hits, and there is no doubt that there are a lot of poor translations consecrated by time. For example, " huésped " in Spanish means " guest " , but most of us have given up trying to wade against the current of using " huésped " as a translation for " host " in the case of host species or cells. Barbara Re: Fr > Eng > Barbara wrote: > > > I'm not going to check what's out there on the web on this, but I proposed > > " caregiver " , a frequently used term, as a useful option. Unless there is some > > really convincing reason why yet another term should be coined I think that > > there are more arguments against than in favor. > > I think it is important to use the web for reality checking. There are numerous > sites that confirm the current use of the terms " natural caregiver " and > especially " natural helper. " The fact that neither term sounds particularly, > um... natural to my native ear (often the case with neologisms) is probably > irrelevant. The most and really only convincing reason to use such a term is > that, as translators, we need to reflect the reality of the terminology that is > currently used by professionals in the field. In any event, as I see it, the > qualifier " natural " is an important distinction here. > > http://ext.msstate.edu/fce/healthed/selfcare/appa1.htm <http://ext.msstate.edu/fce/healthed/selfcare/appa1.htm> > Alternate Terms for Lay Health Advisors > Natural caregiver > Natural helper > Natural neighbor > > Sharon > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 Hi , You're right, of course, but I can't help thinking that this rather archaic use of huésped was selected because of its similarity with " host " , as it were, an " almost " false cognate. " Anfitrión " would have been completely unacceptable and " hospededor " would have been clumsy. I use it myself but it's not one of my favorites. Thanks for sharing the Cervantes reference ... Barbara Re: Fr > Eng > > > > Barbara wrote: > > > > > I'm not going to check what's out there on the web on this, but I > proposed > > > " caregiver " , a frequently used term, as a useful option. Unless there is > some > > > really convincing reason why yet another term should be coined I think > that > > > there are more arguments against than in favor. > > > > I think it is important to use the web for reality checking. There are > numerous > > sites that confirm the current use of the terms " natural caregiver " and > > especially " natural helper. " The fact that neither term sounds > particularly, > > um... natural to my native ear (often the case with neologisms) is > probably > > irrelevant. The most and really only convincing reason to use such a term > is > > that, as translators, we need to reflect the reality of the terminology > that is > > currently used by professionals in the field. In any event, as I see it, > the > > qualifier " natural " is an important distinction here. > > > > http://ext.msstate.edu/fce/healthed/selfcare/appa1.htm > <http://ext.msstate.edu/fce/healthed/selfcare/appa1.htm> > > Alternate Terms for Lay Health Advisors > > Natural caregiver > > Natural helper > > Natural neighbor > > > > Sharon > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 Hi , You're right, of course, but I can't help thinking that this rather archaic use of huésped was selected because of its similarity with " host " , as it were, an " almost " false cognate. " Anfitrión " would have been completely unacceptable and " hospededor " would have been clumsy. I use it myself but it's not one of my favorites. Thanks for sharing the Cervantes reference ... Barbara Re: Fr > Eng > > > > Barbara wrote: > > > > > I'm not going to check what's out there on the web on this, but I > proposed > > > " caregiver " , a frequently used term, as a useful option. Unless there is > some > > > really convincing reason why yet another term should be coined I think > that > > > there are more arguments against than in favor. > > > > I think it is important to use the web for reality checking. There are > numerous > > sites that confirm the current use of the terms " natural caregiver " and > > especially " natural helper. " The fact that neither term sounds > particularly, > > um... natural to my native ear (often the case with neologisms) is > probably > > irrelevant. The most and really only convincing reason to use such a term > is > > that, as translators, we need to reflect the reality of the terminology > that is > > currently used by professionals in the field. In any event, as I see it, > the > > qualifier " natural " is an important distinction here. > > > > http://ext.msstate.edu/fce/healthed/selfcare/appa1.htm > <http://ext.msstate.edu/fce/healthed/selfcare/appa1.htm> > > Alternate Terms for Lay Health Advisors > > Natural caregiver > > Natural helper > > Natural neighbor > > > > Sharon > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 Barbara wrote: > I couldn't agree with you more about checking the web, but I believe that > you would have to read literally hundreds of thousands of entries to come to > a valid conclusion regarding this point. To do a good job you can't just > check whether or not the synonym chosen is on the web, you have to check the > relative frequencies of a series of synonyms as well as who is using them. > You can't be too careful about how many errors are out there either. Naturally. As with any tool or resource available to us, including the simplest dictionary, we must know how to use it. When I am uncertain, I use a multiple reality check: I start by checking a bilingual dictionary, verify the term in a monolingual dictionary and then confirm it using medscape and the general web. When using medscape and the web, I narrow down my seach by country or language and then consider the source. Hits must be from credible sources and written by native-speaking authors in order to carry full weight. By proceding in this manner, you can limit the number of entries you actually end up reading. Sharon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 Barbara wrote: > I couldn't agree with you more about checking the web, but I believe that > you would have to read literally hundreds of thousands of entries to come to > a valid conclusion regarding this point. To do a good job you can't just > check whether or not the synonym chosen is on the web, you have to check the > relative frequencies of a series of synonyms as well as who is using them. > You can't be too careful about how many errors are out there either. Naturally. As with any tool or resource available to us, including the simplest dictionary, we must know how to use it. When I am uncertain, I use a multiple reality check: I start by checking a bilingual dictionary, verify the term in a monolingual dictionary and then confirm it using medscape and the general web. When using medscape and the web, I narrow down my seach by country or language and then consider the source. Hits must be from credible sources and written by native-speaking authors in order to carry full weight. By proceding in this manner, you can limit the number of entries you actually end up reading. Sharon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 At 17:14 17-01-01 +0100, you wrote: >Hi Colin, > >I am under no illusion that anyone cares a pin about how or why I view this >the way I do. No, I care. The medical translations I have been doing have all been case records, never (yet) research papers, so I would describe the language I use in my translations as colloquial medical, as distinct from strictly technical. I translate this stuff much as I would have written it in the records myself, or as I might expect another doctor to have written it, including clumsy and grammatically incorrect formulations where indicated in the original. Here is an example of the kind of thing you can read in the records of a patient in the British National Health System: Crash call approx. 07.30 Staff nurse found pt. blue in face after ward round by Orthopods, " gurgling " resps. On arrival, pt. p0, r0, cyanotic (blackish). Tubed, bagged while med. H.O. gave ECC. Pt. persistent cyanosis (blue-black). Suction via tube produced bile-coloured fluid. ECG showed VF. DC shock 50J. SR estd. brought to ICU. Count the technical terms: perhaps five words out of fifty-five? Danish records can be about the same. Few of the words I have difficulty with can be found in any Danish dictionary. One of the beauties I saw recently was " stixes " . There is no X in Danish, so there is no verb, at stixe, right? But that's fine by me, I didn't need to look in a dictionary for this one. When I start to do research papers and run into diffs, I'll ask you first. OK? Best regards Coilín. >Just wanted to explain why I personally am rather conservative >with using new terms to describe concepts that have been around for a long >time. " Caregiver " is odd, too, but I have seen it used a great deal and I >know that it solves the problem of providing a blanket term to characterize >the people who provide care for others and are not family, volunteers, >professionals, etc. (e.g., sympathetic friends, gay lovers, etc.) > >Barbara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 At 17:14 17-01-01 +0100, you wrote: >Hi Colin, > >I am under no illusion that anyone cares a pin about how or why I view this >the way I do. No, I care. The medical translations I have been doing have all been case records, never (yet) research papers, so I would describe the language I use in my translations as colloquial medical, as distinct from strictly technical. I translate this stuff much as I would have written it in the records myself, or as I might expect another doctor to have written it, including clumsy and grammatically incorrect formulations where indicated in the original. Here is an example of the kind of thing you can read in the records of a patient in the British National Health System: Crash call approx. 07.30 Staff nurse found pt. blue in face after ward round by Orthopods, " gurgling " resps. On arrival, pt. p0, r0, cyanotic (blackish). Tubed, bagged while med. H.O. gave ECC. Pt. persistent cyanosis (blue-black). Suction via tube produced bile-coloured fluid. ECG showed VF. DC shock 50J. SR estd. brought to ICU. Count the technical terms: perhaps five words out of fifty-five? Danish records can be about the same. Few of the words I have difficulty with can be found in any Danish dictionary. One of the beauties I saw recently was " stixes " . There is no X in Danish, so there is no verb, at stixe, right? But that's fine by me, I didn't need to look in a dictionary for this one. When I start to do research papers and run into diffs, I'll ask you first. OK? Best regards Coilín. >Just wanted to explain why I personally am rather conservative >with using new terms to describe concepts that have been around for a long >time. " Caregiver " is odd, too, but I have seen it used a great deal and I >know that it solves the problem of providing a blanket term to characterize >the people who provide care for others and are not family, volunteers, >professionals, etc. (e.g., sympathetic friends, gay lovers, etc.) > >Barbara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2001 Report Share Posted January 17, 2001 I've just discovered that I made an error earlier today. According to some definitions, the term " caregiver " seems to refer exclusively to people providing care to family members or friends. I mentioned one of these earlier, describing it as a definition I found through searching in Medline, and this is INCORRECT. I got side-tracked. Here's the definition I find in the National Library of Medicine: Persons who provide care to those who need supervision or assistance in illness or disability. They may provide the care in the home, in a hospital, or in an institution. Although caregivers include trained medical, nursing, and other health personnel, the concept also refers to parents, spouses, or other family members, friends, members of the clergy, teachers, social workers, fellow patients, etc. http://130.14.32.45/cgi-bin/VERSION_A/IGM-client?19169+85537+0+++ According to this definition, caregivers can refer to professionals or non-professionals. So some kind of qualifier seems to be needed. " natural " or " lay " , perhaps. Here's an example of " lay caregivers " that I found on searching in Medline: ABSTRACT: Lay caregivers increasingly are accepting responsibility for the care of loved ones in the home health setting. These caregivers are often not prepared emotionally or physically for such responsibility. The rights of caregivers are examined herein as they relate to the obligations of clinicians to ease the caregivers transition to their new and sometimes unexpected role. http://130.14.32.45/cgi-bin/VERSION_A/IGM-client?19169+records+1 I didn't find anything for " natural caregivers " , but who knows? Life is too short. (I haven't been sitting here looking for this until this hour, I've been working on building a new website for something called Tsentsak Medical Translations. Best regards Coilín. 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.