 |
|
Subject: ознакомление с Подскажите, пожалуйста, как перевести "ознакомление с" в контексте программы визита: "Ознакомление с контролем качества и перспективными разработками (ЦЛП). Ознакомление с производством (цех №1, цех №2 и т.д.).Спасибо |
|
link 29.04.2005 13:56 |
| introduction? |
| qc induction |
| Если это для гостей, то можно и presenting.. |
| Мне нравится presentation of... |
| Спасибо. Presenting или presentation, наверно, больше всего нравятся. То есть будет Presenting/Presentation of ля-ля-ля to the visitors, так? |
| Если presenting, то presenting the трампампам, если presentation, то presentation of... |
| Можно и "familiarize (themselves) with" - бояться этой фразы не стоит, это не излишний русизм (если не злоупотребоять, конечно.) |
|
as an option: ("introduction" is fine) Indoctrination in/with as in "The College of Engineering and Applied Sciences offers curricula designed to provide a liberal education in both the humanities and the sciences, so that students gain insight into the roles of the engineer and scientist within the complex interactions of American society. Emphasis is placed upon developing the student's curiosity and creativity rather than on mere INDOCTRINATION in current industrialtechnologies." to indoctrinate- to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments |
| indoctrination would work for a communist party congress :-) i can just imagine the looks on everybody's faces when the good news r broken to them that they r about to be *indoctrinated* :-) |
| Талгат, это второй Ваш пост, который я читаю за сегодняшний день, и уже могу сказать: день прожит не зря! :-))))) |
| i do what i can, irisha. tell me if i need to crank it up :-) |
| talgat - you are doing great, no cranking is needed. :) |
|
The looks on everybody’s faces will not be any better (or worse) than the look on Kath’s face when you used your “ultimatism” (so familiar to a Russian year and so foreign for a native one). The truth is every word has its purpose and audience, and we need different levels of language for different writing occasions, just as we need formal attire for banquets and casual clothing for shopping and sports. So, my “indoctrination” (653’000 гуглей total, 17’600 гуглей site:uk, 11’600 гуглей site:ca) has the right to exist, just as your ‘ultimatism” (352 гуглей total, 18 гуглей site:uk, 6 гуглей site:ca). Besides, I never said “indoctrination” was my first choice - if you go back to my post, you will see that I offered it as an option and added that “introduction” would be just fine. Finally, here is a fact from the real life (not from a highly specialized dictionary): the very first document my project manager issued on a new project (even before Basis of Design) was Indoctrination in Project Philosophy. |
|
if u want to be a laughingstock using indoctrination in THIS situation is the way to do it. indoctrination is a perfectly legit word, but the way u used it, it was overkill borering on grotesque. game, game, will u ever admit a mistake? i guess we r not that much different as u would like to think. no, that is a scary thought for me. |
| mouse, if it is not too late, and if it is, for future references then, i've found the prefect word for u. orientation. works like a charm in so many situations, it is a preferred option for the circumstances u described in ur original post. in fact, it's so standard, it should have dawned on me immediatly. my only excuse is that i was distracted (by u know who) |
|
2 talgat Your post has probably made another day for Irisha, but your circular argument (“It is the way I say it, because I, talgat The Greatest, say so”) just does not cut it for me. So, I’ll stick to my guns, if you don’t mind. You know, for someone who was quick to cry out “ad hominem”, you commit too many logical fallacies yourself. Besides, not that long ago, you wrote,defending your right to “put your two cents in”, “…the asker deserves a wealth of options, which is what i strove to do. style of communication is a very credible option, but that does not mean i can't put my two cents in, does it?” (http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?a=ForumReplies&MessNum=18161&L1=1&L2=2&SearchString=two cents&MessageNumber=18161) How come you deny my the same write to put my two Canadian cents in? Что дозволено Юпитеру не дозволено быку? I have already told you that I found you to be an unscrupulous dispute opponent. You don’t have to prove it to me ad nauseam, at infinitum. This is my last post in this thread. I am sorry, but I am sick and tired of this squabble. |
| Game: Пожалуйста, не обижайтесь на меня. Просто меня действительно позабавили посты Талгата. :-) |
| No hard feelings. But you have to realize that sometimes a very innocent thing could add fuel to the fire. |
|
game, u r exactly what u r accusing me of. arrogant, full of urself, unable to fess up to a mistake. game, i don't deny u any rights. post as much as u want. i actually would encourage u to post more. it makes my life intesresting. :-) game, ad hominum is not correcting somebody. ad hominum is when u start making asinine generalizations about somebody's personality. i guess ur language canvass is painted in bold brushstrokes that leave u unable to pick up nuances. and, game, i did here what u did in resoponse to my socailization suggestion. remember? i only returned the favour (plus, i think ur suggestion here is not appropraite, u can't deny me the right to think so, can u, game? or this rights game works only to ur advantage?) so, u can dish it, but u can't take it? and game, for the last time, pull ur head out of ur a** for a second to realize that it is not all about u. u r more than welcome to post, again, i enjoy reading ur posts, and since i don't deny ur the right to express urself here, i guess i will not hear a peep out of u about my right to post in response. agreed? |
| ad hominem, of course. my computer dyslexia is getting worse. :-) |
|
link 3.05.2005 7:14 |
|
*Ad hominem* and *circular argument/reasoning* (also called *circulus in demonstrando*), along with many others, e.g. non sequitur, post hoc ergo propter hoc, ad populum, etc., are common logical fallacies. A fallacy is an invalid form of argument, an instance of incorrect reasoning. Therefore, “for someone who was quick to cry out “ad hominem”, you commit too many logical fallacies yourself” basically means “for someone who is quick to accuse others of having committed a logical fallacy (ad hominem), you should take extra care not to commit one (circular reasoning) yourself. Here is a good resource on rhetoric, logic and logical fallacies: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html |
| posting under different handles now, game? |
| You need to be logged in to post in the forum |