Thread: Is this correct?

Motorola company would probably keep its third place in unit sales since the market will keep demanding budget solutions which production the company has a great experience in.

it russian equivalent is:
в производстве которых компания имеет большой опыт.

I think you understand the concept fine; I would just reword it a tad: "in which the company has great experience in producing."

Originally Posted by Бармалей

I think you understand the concept fine; I would just reword it a tad: "in which the company has great experience in producing."

Thanks,
it is ok to use "in" twice?

The Motorola Company would probably . . .

or simply:

Motorola would probably. . .

No, repeating the "in" is not necessary, or grammatical I wouldn't think.

... low-cost solutions, with which the company has had a great deal of experience.

Still pretty awkward, and shouldn't make it past the editor's desk in this form.

Originally Posted by TATY

The Motorola Company would probably . . .

or simply:

Motorola would probably. . .

In the thread "Please clarify" I asked whether I should put in "the" before the name of the company, I was told that I shouldn't because it's the proper noun.

(The word company is not a part of the company name it's just a company in a general sense).

So how about that?

Originally Posted by chaika

No, repeating the "in" is not necessary, or grammatical I wouldn't think.

... low-cost solutions, with which the company has had a great deal of experience.

Still pretty awkward, and shouldn't make it past the editor's desk in this form.

The original sentence in Russian was:
Компания Motorola скорее всего удержит своё третье место в штучных продажах, так как на рынке сохранится спрос на бюджетные решения, в производстве которых компания имеет большой опыт.

Probably -- возможно.
Может быть тут лучше likely?

Originally Posted by Vincent Tailors

Probably -- возможно.
Может быть тут лучше likely?

'Возможно' - perhaps, maybe.
А 'probably' - наверное, вероятно

И мой словарь выдает probably и likely как синонимы, так что не думаю, что есть большая разница.

Some help: If you just say "Motorola," don't use the definite article. If you say Motorola company, make it articular. It sounds better to just say Motorola. Saying "keep its third place" sounds to me like there is more than one third place to fight for. I like "keep its place as third" better. We also need a comma after sales. As for the part you asked about, changing to "with the production of which" is quite too wordy. So, let's trample on the Russian a bit to make the English smoother. The finished product:

Motorola would probably keep its place as third in unit sales, since the market will keep demanding budget solutions which the company has great experience in producing.

Motorola would probably keep its third-place position in unit sales, since the market will keep demanding budget solutions,
you need the comma here
BUT this part is wrong:
> which the company has great experience in producing.
because "great" does not go with "experience". You mean a lot of" experience, or "a great deal of experience."

Also, "produce" a solution does not sound right to me here, so I would use a different verb (provide?) , or, as I did, omit the "produce" verb altogether.

Originally Posted by Ramil

So how about that?

Мои ненативные и, надеюсь, более понятные две копейки (ох уж эти артикли, столько с ними проблем у нас, славян). Старик, если уж ты говоришь "моторола кампани", то слово "моторола" становится вроде как определением (как "синий"), а перед "кампани" надо ставить артикль (не имя собственное, не общее понятие), в данном случае определённый, поскольку из всех компаний "моторольная" компания только одна. Когда ты говоришь the Motorola company, ты фактически сообщаешь "та самая "моторольная" компания" (если понятно, о чём я, не слишком хорошо звучит и по-русски). Если бы "моторольных" компаний было много, например, Моторола - это имя объединения многих компаний, то нужно было бы ставить неопределённый артикль. Тогда бы это звучало "некая "моторольная" компания".

Hope this helps. В России почему-то учат артиклям (по-крайней мере, меня так учили), как некоторому специфическому довеску, про который просто не надо забывать, и это неправильно. В английском артикли имеют существенную смысловую нагрузку.

If you say Motorla Company you need to use the definite article:

The Coca-Cola Company is one of the biggest in the world.
Coca-Cola is one of the biggest companies in the world.

He works for Motorola.
He works for the Motorola company.

Motorola is a proper noun and therefore does not need an article. But in Motorola company, the word Motorola is functioning as an adjective. The true noun is company which, being a ordinary noun requires an article.

The subway is fast.
The London subway is fast.

London is a proper noun and usually one would not used the word "the" with it. But since it is acting as an adjective (Лондонский), and it modifies the ordinary noun subway, then the definite article "the" is required.

Originally Posted by chaika

Also, "produce" a solution does not sound right to me here, so I would use a different verb (provide?) , or, as I did, omit the "produce" verb altogether.

Manufacture maybe?

I think one can say "great experience" in this context.

And "come up with a solution".

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by TATY

The Motorola Company would probably . . .

or simply:

Motorola would probably. . .

In the thread "Please clarify" I asked whether I should put in "the" before the name of the company, I was told that I shouldn't because it's the proper noun.

(The word company is not a part of the company name it's just a company in a general sense).

So how about that?

What did I tell you, man !!!

Originally Posted by Ramil

Motorola company would probably keep its third place in unit sales since the market will keep demanding budget solutions which production the company has a great experience in.

it russian equivalent is:
в производстве которых компания имеет большой опыт.

I think this is better: "...in production of which the company has a good experience"

Or, "...in production of which the company is very experienced"