Сразу куча вопросов (описания разных компьютерных утилит)

[newbie2k7]

1) <Название утилиты> allows you to create a many-to-many _ports_ connection, involving any number of real or virtual COM ports <...>

По-моему, слово "ports" здесь лишнее...

2) If you ever need to share a real COM port between several applications so that all of them _will_ receive data from the real port simultaneously, you should <...>

Мне кажется, "will" можно использовать, но вполне можно и убрать (я не использовал).

3) By default, all applications have the same access rights for their virtual serial ports: read and write, _effectively_ meaning that they are allowed to <...>

Употребленное здесь мной выражение "effectively meaning" вам не режет глаз (или слух)?

4) <Название утилиты> ActiveX is a powerful _add-on_ that you can easily embed into your application to enable ...

Как вы считаете, подходит ли термин "add-on" в данном контексте? (Мне сказали, что здесь лучше использовать слово "component".)

5) <Название утилиты> allows you not only to monitor serial communication, but also to intervene: as the virtual port <...> intercepts all data, you can substitute any of it by your own commands.

Правильно ли я употребил слово "intervene"? (Мне предложили другой вариант: "interfere into the monitoring process".)

6) <Название утилиты> enables you to share any USB device connected to a PC _on_ the local network or _on_ the Internet <...>

Как видно, речь идет о предоставлении доступа к устройству через сеть. Мой вариант подкорректировали, исправив "on" на "over" - требовалась ли такая корректировка?

7) <Название утилиты> gives you _an_ opportunity to test software tools that <...>

Мой вариант подкорректировали: "an" заменили на "the". Что на это скажете?

8) Вправе ли я говорить "medical instruments", если речь идет о каком-то медицинском оборудовании, которое можно подключать к компьютеру через COM-порт? Мой вариант почему-то исправили на "medical equipment".

Вопросы задаю больше из любопытства.
Заранее спасибо за любые ответы (но лучше всё же давайте правильные)))
К Гуглу просьба не посылать: только что оттуда вернулся :)

[sledopyt]

Вы переводили или писали?

[newbie2k7]

Переделывал уже имеющийся у заказчика англ. вариант, т.е. рерайтил :)

[sledopyt]

А вот к чему был Ваш недавний вопрос!
В большинстве Ваших случаев, употребление - вопрос стиля.

1) I agree, it's unnecessary (but if using a qualifier, "ports" should be singular "port connection").

2) Better without "will"
I would also shorten the sentence by removing unnecessary information --> To share a real COM port between several applications for/[to enable] simultaneous data reception, ...

3) режет. Do you need it at all? Who are the readers of this piece? Do you have to explain what read and write permissions mean?

4) mater of style/semantics, could also be "an add-on component"

5) "intervene" is a better choice between the two, but I would omit it altogether and would go right to the point. Don't try to be too fancy in technical writing. --> ...allows you not only to monitor serial communication, but also to substitute the data intercepted by virtual ports by your own commands.

6) depends on what you want to say (device ON the network or connect OVER the network)

7) i personally don't like "gives you an opportunity" in this context. "Enables/ allows you" fit better.

8) depends on context

[alk]

newbie2k7 - чтобы не плодить дублеров, не пользуйтесь кнопкой "Возврат" в браузере, просто жмите в "Форум" на странице сайта, выполните сортировку по Дате ответа, чтобы следить за обновлением форума.

Я думаю, чтобы правильно оценить Ваш перевод, надо видеть оригинал, как я понял русский текст.

[newbie2k7]

2 sledopyt

> А вот к чему был Ваш недавний вопрос!
Ага, угадали :) Просто у меня слово "рерайт" почему-то вызывает (или вызывало) негативные ассоциации, а теперь вот столкнулся на практике.

> В большинстве Ваших случаев, употребление - вопрос стиля.
В целом, я тоже так думал, но интересно было услышать стороннее мнение.

> 1) I agree, it's unnecessary (but if using a qualifier, "ports" should be singular "port connection").
The matter is I googled "many-to-many ports connection" and found only five (5) occurrences. Guessed someone might misunderstand me and got ridden of "ports" :)

> 2) Better without "will"
> I would also shorten the sentence by removing unnecessary information

Thanks for advice.

> 3) режет. Do you need it at all?

I don't need it, only wanted to sound more informally, just like a native speaker :)

> Who are the readers of this piece?
AFAIK, some programmers or experienced PC users (the utility runs only under Windows).

> Do you have to explain what read and write permissions mean?
I guess I do. Here's the last part of that sentence:
<...> read and write, effectively meaning that they are allowed to read from and write to the real serial port, but not to change its control lines' state.

> 4) mater of style/semantics, could also be "an add-on component"
OK, here's what I found at Microsoft's site:

Control Internet Explorer Add-ons with Add-on Manager
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/web/sp2_addonmanager.mspx

The Add-on Manager can do the following:
• Update: If the add-on is making your computer unstable, but you don't want to get rid of it, an updated version might be what you need to solve those problems. If the add-on is an ActiveX control, you can check to see if the item has been updated.
<...>

How about using "add-on" in this context?

> 5) <...> Don't try to be too fancy in technical writing.

Good advice.

> 6) depends on what you want to say (device ON the network or connect OVER the network)

Well, I think "over" is more appropriate, then.

> 7) i personally don't like "gives you an opportunity" in this context. "Enables/ allows you" fit better.

OK.

8) depends on context

Here's the sentence:

is designed to communicate with <...> external devices, such as modems, bar code readers, PBX, medical instruments, IrDA, Bluetooth and USB serial devices, etc.

Nothing medical is mentioned anymore :)

[newbie2k7]

Correction for 8.
[Utility name] is designed to communicate with <...> external devices, such as modems, bar code readers, PBX, medical instruments, IrDA, Bluetooth and USB serial devices, etc.

[newbie2k7]

2 alk

> чтобы не плодить дублеров, не пользуйтесь кнопкой "Возврат" в браузере
В том то и дело, что не пользуюсь (у меня Опера, всегда открываю несколько страниц, так что "Возврат" мне просто ни к чему). Почему появился дубль, не знаю.

> чтобы правильно оценить Ваш перевод, надо видеть оригинал
К сожалению, русского оригинала у меня нет (возможно, его просто не существует), а есть разнобойный (местами очень неважный) английский текст, который требуется привести к удобоваримому виду.

[sledopyt]

newbie2k7,

Technical writing in IT industry is largely governed by a number of standards. As a rule, each company has an in-house style guide, where all the issues, such as the ones that we discussed, are described. Many of these guides take roots from the documents published by industry-leading companies, such as Microsoft and Sun Microsystems. There are also techniques, such as minimalist writing, writing for localization, or writing for the web, which add their own rules of word usage and terminology. BTW, the Microsoft Style Guide has the follwing to say about "add-in, add-on":

"Use add-in to refer to utility programs, drivers, and other software added to a primary program, such as Microsoft BookShelf in Word [...]
Use add-on to refer to a hardware device such as an expansion board or external peripheral equipment, such as a CD_ROM [...]
In end-user documentation especially, use these terms as adjectives: "the add-in program," "an add-on modem.""

So, if we go by the Microsoft style guidelines, we were wrong using add-on for a software component. It should have been add-in component/utility. In your example, folks from Microsoft used "add-on" for a software component, which can mean at least two things:
- the documents hasn't been authored and/or reviewed by a technical publications department,
- the style guidelines have changed since the 1998 edition of the Microsoft SG.
But as I said, it's all a matter of style. For the guys in tech support, there's no difference between add-on and add-in, the problem arises (for translators mainly and for users at times) when they use two different terms to refer to the same thing in one document. That's why styles guides were invented.

re: 8) - "medical instruments" is ambiguous, in that it can also mean, for example, "surgical instruments"; "devices" would probably do, if you don't find "equipment" sexy enough.

[newbie2k7]

sledopyt, thanks again for such comprehensive answers!