Traduko - Turka-Angla - Geçen hafta yerinden çıkartılan borular Limanda...

Hi Mesud

Another old one...

- Can you tell if the original is about pipes from a depth of 130 metres? Or if something else is meant? It is a bit cryptic in English...

- It was determined that both the attachments and (the) covers of the pipe had got or were damaged
sounds a bit more natural; is this ok with respect to the original?

- It was obvious that two weeks ago, the sea conditions being adverse and not being supported in a correct and sufficient way, pipes got damaged
-> the Turkish language seems fond of this kind of structure, but in this case it sounds a bit awkward in English. How about this?
It was obvious that two weeks ago, because the sea conditions were adverse and the pipes were not supported correctly and sufficiently, pipes were damaged

- ameliorated sounds just a bit off, but I am not sure why. Could we use the more neutral 'improved' here? (see http://users.wpi.edu/~nab/sci_eng/97_Oct_17.html)
Also, in general, things don't improve by reviewing - after a review? reviewed and improved?

- a depth of 130 metres ✓

I agree with your suggestions.

http://users.wpi.edu/~nab/sci_eng/97_Oct_17.html ✓

Thank you very much for the adjustments Lein

and covers of the pipe got damaged..> and covers of the pipe HAD got damaged

because the sea conditions were..> by reason of bad conditions on the sea and not supported correctly and sufficiently of the pipes , pipes were damaged.

Had

For the other one, have a look at my first post. I think the Turkish language likes this type of constructions, but they make for very confusing reading in English. That is why we changed the sentence around without changing the meaning

Dear Lein,
I didn't understand why did you change the sentences. They are two elementary sentences.
"by reason of bad conditions on the sea two weeks ago and not supported correctly and sufficiently of the pipes , pipes were damaged."
But you are our expert and you know better than me. I have nothing to say more.

Hi merdogan,

Your sentence just sounds rather convoluted and unnecessarily woolly in English.

Compare
by reason of bad conditions of the sea

versus
because sea conditions were bad

The meaning of the two is exactly the same, but the second one sounds better in English.


Similarly,

the pipes, not being supported correctly and sufficiently, were damaged

versus

because the pipes were not supported correctly and sufficiently, they were damaged

Again, the meaning is the same, but the second one sounds a lot more natural in English.
It is no problem at all (in fact, it is a positive thing) to change the structure of a sentence if that makes the sentence sound more natural in the target language, as long as the meaning is the same.

Thanks to everybody for help.
Regards,
Onur