How do I translate “isolation”?

This post was last edited by perpetualinf on 2011-7-14 at 16:30. This results in the isolation of the feed and hydrogen flows to the reactor and effluent from the reactor. The key words here are “this”, “results in”, and “isolation”; the latter part of the sentence seems to contain too many “ands”, so it can be translated as: This enables the feed to be isolated, with hydrogen flowing into the reactor while waste gases flow out of it. If that’s what is meant, phrasing it this way is not likely to cause misunderstandings: This results in the isolation of the feed. (A pause here) Hydrogen flows to the reactor and effluent from the reactor. (One ‘flows’ has been omitted to make the sentence more concise.)

The result of doing this is that hydrogen is isolated from the inlet of the reaction device, and hydrogen flows out of the reaction device. In other words, the consequence is that hydrogen cannot enter the reaction apparatus, and the hydrogen already inside the apparatus will continue to flow out

I feel that the translations by the people above are not suitable at all! This will result in the feed and hydrogen entering the reactor being separated from the reactor outlet stream. But when I translate it as \"isolation\" or \"separation\", it still doesn’t sound right

This post was last edited by Little Boy Selling Poison on 2011-7-19 18:54. This results in the isolation of (the feed and hydrogen flows to the reactor) and (effluent from the reactor.). The punctuation used above is my personal opinion. The grammar skills of the person on the 7th floor are definitely better than mine. . I personally admire it, but in professional translation, grammar rules can sometimes not be applied. Actually, I don’t know if it’s right or not. After all, without any context or drawings, who can guarantee that their translation is correct? . At first, I also had the idea of using the lower floors, but in the end I rejected it myself! In the isolation of........and.......... I think everyone surely has no objections (of course, some people say that the word \"and\" isn’t necessary; if that’s the case, it wouldn’t be \"the feed\" but rather \"feeds\"). The disagreement among people lies in whether \"in the isolation of\" should be paired with the previous \"and\" or the subsequent one – if it’s the previous \"and\". This results in the isolation of the feed and hydrogen (which flow into the reactor) and the effluent from the reactor. We can only assume that \"flows\" modifies \"hydrogen\", and the part that follows should be understood as a coordinating clause. But if that’s the case, “effluent from the reactor” is clearly not grammatical, after all, “effluent” is a noun. In the case of the latter ‘and’, it is like this: This results in the isolation of (the feed and hydrogen flows to the reactor) and (the effluent from the reactor.). This can be translated as: This allows the materials and hydrogen that flow into the reactor to be separated from the waste that comes out of the reactor. Isolating the reactants and pollutants is more in line with the principles of reactor design as well as the emergency response procedures for reactor accidents. (Statement: It is best for the original poster to understand on their own within the context given; my opinion is for reference only. After all, the chemical industry is related to many people’s lives, so please be responsible! ）

Thank you to both of you for giving me points! :handshake

The last edit to this post was made by perpetualinf on 2011-7-15 at 19:27. Reply to 5# Little Boy Who Sells Poisons: This results in the isolation of (the feed and hydrogen flows to the reactor) and (effluent from the reactor.). As for the feed and hydrogen that flow into the reactor, if it is a relative clause, a subject is missing; therefore it cannot be omitted. 6 situations in which the relative pronoun in an attributive clause can be omitted. I. Omission when the relative pronoun functions as an object When the relative pronouns who, whom, which, and that are used as objects of verbs in an attributive clause, or as objects of prepositions when those prepositions appear at the end of the sentence, they can be omitted. For example: it can be omitted when used as the object of a verb in a relative clause or as the object of a preposition when the preposition is at the end of the sentence. For example: Is there anything (which) you wanted? Do you want anything? Who is the man (that / who / whom) you were talking to? Who was the person you were speaking with just now? II. Omission of relative pronouns when they function as predicates. When the relative pronoun that is used as a predicate in an attributive clause, it can be omitted. For example: China is not the country (that) it was. China is no longer what it used to be. (that functions as a predicate). III. Omission of the relative pronoun when it functions as an object complement: When the relative pronoun that is used as an object complement in a relative clause, it can be omitted. For example: I’m not the madman (that) you thought me. I’m not the crazy person you think I am. (that functions as an object complement) IV. Omission of the relative adverb when: The relative adverb when, which is used as a temporal adverbial, generally cannot be omitted. However, there is a special case in which it can be omitted when it follows a few words such as day, year, and time (it can also be replaced by that). For example: That was the year (that) I first went abroad. It was in that year that I went abroad for the first time. I’ll never forget the day (that) we met. I will never be able to forget the day we met. V. Omission of the relative adverb where. The relative adverb where, which is used as a adverb of place, generally cannot be omitted. However, there is a special case: it can be omitted when it follows certain words such as place, somewhere, anywhere, everywhere, and nowhere (it can also be replaced by that). For example: This is the place (where) they met yesterday. This is the location where they met yesterday. Do you have a place where I can lie down for an hour? Is there any place where I can rest for an hour? VI. Omission of the relative adverb why The relative adverb why is usually used only after \"the reason\" to introduce a relative clause, and it can generally be replaced by \"that\" or \"for which\", both of which can be omitted. For example: That’s the reason (why, for which, that) he came. That is why he came. Give me one reason (why) we should help you. Give me an example of a reason why we should assist you. In his absence, nothing could be done. Since he was absent, nothing could be accomplished.

Reply to 7# perpetualinf: I’m not sure if my explanation in 5# is correct; please help verify it

This post was last edited by Be cautious sh on 2011-7-20 21:32. This results in the isolation of the feed and hydrogen flows to the reactor and effluent from the reactor. Without any context before or after this sentence, its meaning isn’t entirely clear. Could it be translated as follows: This leads to the isolation of the feed, allowing hydrogen gas to flow into the reactor and then exit it again?

This results in the isolation of (the feed and hydrogen flows to the reactor) and (the effluent from the reactor.). Your way of breaking up the sentence makes sense as well; indeed, it is necessary to analyze how to break the sentence down in the specific context, just as Hashiba said. But what’s unclear is (the feed and hydrogen flows to the reactor) – what kind of structure should this be considered as? It can only function as an attributive clause, because what follows in isolation of must be a nominal structure. (The feed and hydrogen flows to the reactor) Both this structure and the punctuation style of “the feed and hydrogen (flows to the reactor)” are problematic; the relative clause omits the subject, which is against grammar rules. It’s good to discuss things; personally, I feel that without grammar, it’s like traffic without rules – chaotic and disorganized.

Reply to 5# Little Boy Who Sells Poisons: I fully agree with you; approaching chemical translation from a grammatical perspective seems like sacrificing the essence and focusing on the trivial details. Just as in the chemical industry we must take the process as the guiding principle to determine the structure of the facilities, rather than doing the opposite. The same is true for translation: one must first understand the true intent of the original text before organizing the language structure, rather than distorting the original intent in order to create a seemingly reasonable structure. In simultaneous interpretation, there is a Top Down translation technique: by having a thorough understanding of the background knowledge related to what the speaker is saying, it becomes possible to predict the general content of what will be spoken, allowing one to carry out this task, which requires high levels of concentration, with ease from a position of greater understanding. In technical translation, the Top Down approach can also be utilized, but this requires the establishment of a knowledge structure and the accumulation of relevant knowledge over time.