Thread: Help with translation, please

I've got this "request for quotation" to translate, and I've just come across a sentence that seems completly incomprehensible to me
It goes like this:
"We request that all suppliers be tooled (defined as total system throughput) and capable of producing the daily lean capacity rate (LCR)"

As much as I think I pretty much get the 2nd part fo the sentence, the 1st one remains a total mystery to me.
Please do help or I'll lose my mind.

Thanks a bunch in advance.

This is pretty specialized language -- it's not a common thing to say "have something tooled." I think what it's saying is that they want all the suppliers to be prepared (they say "tooled" in this case to mean have all the appropriate gear/machinery/equipment installed and customized, since this is such a specialized trade, I think) to meet their production quota (their LCR). That's what I got from it at least -- I could be totally wrong.

this whole thing is driving me bananas it's 5 pages long, and I don't understand half of it, gaah. I've spent hours trying to get it straight, and I'm not even halfway yet.

what about this one?
"year-on-year price reduction over complete production lifetime as required in the enquiry"


Thanks Barmarley, btw

Barmaly is right on. In manufacturing language tooling is the equipment necessary to make whatever it is you are making and to be tooled means you have this equipment ready to work. As for the second one, it sounds like the buyer is requiring that the supplier reduce prices every year. The 'production lifetime' is the period of time that a manufacturer makes a certain thing. Since most of the cost of manufacturing is the tooling the cost gets lower the longer you make one certain thing.

Why are you subjecting yourself to this? I'm a native speaker and it gives ME headaches! Still trying to build that nuclear bomb in your basement?

Originally Posted by Бармалей

Why are you subjecting yourself to this? I'm a native speaker and it gives ME headaches! Still trying to build that nuclear bomb in your basement?

if only it was me who had subjected myself to this, I would've dropped it ages ago (or actually, 3 pages ago, to be precise :P ).

anyway, sorry for being a pain, but here goes the next one , hopefully not much more is still to come, since I'm almost done with it (busy day it was!)

"In case the agreement shall be to amortize the tool cost over a certain amount of parts, the company owns the tools pro rata the paid amortisation cost."

so do they own the amortizated tools, or the non-amortizated ones?


Thanks Layne

This is good reading! I agree with barmaley though, I wouldn't reccomend it to other esl learners.

I had never heard of the word amortize before, but after looking it up it makes sense. Ordinarily if a buyer wants something made they have to pay a huge tooling cost up front. By amortizing the cost they pay the tooling cost more slowly as they continue to buy parts. Your excerpt means that the buyer will own the portion of the tools they have paid for at any given time. If they stop making whatever it is and the tools are sold, they buyer will get back the percentage they paid for. Of course they will lose money because the tools were most likely custom made (high cost) and will be sold for scrap (low return).

thanks again, Layne

I'm leaving the rest for tomorrow, probably I'll have some more to post here then

Layne knows way too much about this -- are you the one selling the nuclear bomb-manufacturing equipment to Kamka?

Nah, I'm sure its way cheaper to buy your nuclear bomb making stuff in Russia. Actually I'm a machinist in the physics dept. of a university. Which means I know how to make things and my friends are physicists......maybe I should just sell bombs turn-key instead of the equipment. So anyway even though I don't work in the manufacturing sector I do have plenty of knowledge about it.

P.S. Russians seem to frequently think that a machinist is a chauffer, this is not the case.

you mean a machinist as in a person who's responsible for designing different machines, etc?

I'm finally done with the translation, thank you so much for the help, I greatly appreciate it

Now, off to build my bomb :P

---

Originally Posted by charlestonian

It looks like a bad re-translation

No it doesn't. It looks like specialized industry-speak is all.

Originally Posted by kamka

Originally Posted by Бармалей

Why are you subjecting yourself to this? I'm a native speaker and it gives ME headaches! Still trying to build that nuclear bomb in your basement?

if only it was me who had subjected myself to this, I would've dropped it ages ago (or actually, 3 pages ago, to be precise :P ).

anyway, sorry for being a pain, but here goes the next one , hopefully not much more is still to come, since I'm almost done with it (busy day it was!)

"In case the agreement shall be to amortize the tool cost over a certain amount of parts, the company owns the tools pro rata the paid amortisation cost."

so do they own the amortizated tools, or the non-amortizated ones?


Thanks Layne

Well, amortize means to spread the cost (for accounting purposes) over a period of years. So, it looks like this means that if they have paid, say, 40% of the cost of the tools, they own 40% of the tools (if an amortization agreement is made). Other parts of the dosument might (or might not) help clarify this more exactly.

---

Originally Posted by charlestonian

Originally Posted by Бармалей

Originally Posted by charlestonian

It looks like a bad re-translation

No it doesn't. It looks like specialized industry-speak is all.

And, what is "industry-speak is all?"

It means it's just a specialized set of terms for a certain industry.

Originally Posted by charlestonian

Originally Posted by Бармалей

Originally Posted by charlestonian

It looks like a bad re-translation

No it doesn't. It looks like specialized industry-speak is all.

And, what is "industry-speak is all?"

Originally Posted by charlestonian

Originally Posted by Бармалей

Originally Posted by charlestonian

It looks like a bad re-translation

No it doesn't. It looks like specialized industry-speak is all.

First... I agree with with Бармалей, and paulb...

Second... here in America, and a few English-speaking countries, some people don't speak or write in clear English (because of poor education and training). And some people try to speak in "technical English", to cause others to think the writer is intelligent in communication...

A person may understand the Calculus perfectly, but not have the skill to write or explain to another person, for understanding the ideas of Calculus. Some people who write these technical documents, are poor in English (or language) skills.

This is common in American industry, and American law. And in all countries... Pelevin satirized this problem in the Soviet Union, in "Oman Ra", about technical documents, and science.

"Technical speak" in any language, is the attempt to communicate efficiently and quickly, with someone who understands the technology. "Physicist speaking to Physicist"... "Software Engineer speaking to Software Engineer"... "Doctor speaking to Doctor"... YOU would probably not understand what their words mean... they are speaking directly for efficiency and speed of communication.

I do the same communications with адвокаты, lawyers, judges... this is much faster, more efficient. And if I use words in Latin... you will not understand... but my colleagues will.

But you need an English engineer, for you, to advise you on the accuracy of the translation.

Amortization is, as paulb wrote, is a spreading of costs (for tax purposes) over time, for the initial equipment and purchases. In the United States, this involves the I.R.S., which is our tax agency in our government. If there are investors, people investing money from other countries... this is very important for us. Big money penalties or prison, sometimes, is the result if we don't follow these rules.

There are much simpler ways of writing English to understand, for technical documents... I am sorry for the difficulties in understanding these documents... I know it's frustrating. But, this is part of the "price" in doing business with foreigners, including Americans. We are monitored and watched closely by the U.S. government, in international business... this is the same for Australia, England and Ireland. And, of course, the companies we work for.