Terminology fun...
Sep. 22nd, 2008 06:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpThe staff at the doctor's office did the usual stuff and I walked out with prescriptions to keep me going for awhile, though I did promise to get some blood work done tomorrow. The break sort of put a crimp in my grandiose plans to Get Everything Done As Soon As Possible™, and after making a couple of calls, I managed to stretch some deadlines, so I may end up working a few extra days before we leave for New York to take care of... well... New York stuff.
I've accepted some more work (so much for my resolution), but to be fair, a piece of the new stuff is directly linked with an upcoming interpretation gig, so it's hard to refuse.
As is often the case, the client supplied a glossary with the work, except this is actually a glossary and not a digital slop bucket of stuff that may or may not be actual terminology. Looking the document over (because it's actually possible to do so, as opposed to one of those multi-megabyte, 300-page collections of fish guts), I noticed some terminology issues.
Basically they all have to do with the abbreviations РН, РКН, and РКК, which all appear to be applicable when referring to what is called in English, a "launch vehicle" or LV.
The problem (at least from my perspective) is this: is that the case or are there some subtlties here that escape me, making it incorrect to use LV in each case?
One of these abbreviations, РН, is an old friend. It stands for ракета-носитель or, literally, a "carrier rocket." I have no problem using LV as the equivalent abbreviation.
What the other two guys may mean isn't as clear-cut.
In previous assignments, РКН has expanded to "ракета космического назначения," which has really no good translation, as the Russian literally means "rocket intended for use in space" (as opposed to, I suppose, "rocket intended to blow up that ship over there," mais je rigole...).
The first attempt at standardizing an equivalent English term was "space rocket," which sounds as if the speaker has spent too much time watching serial episodes of Buck Rogers on Saturday morning. Eventually, "integrated launch vehicle" (meaning a launch vehicle with all of the parts attached, ready for propellant loading and launch) gained favor - as did the abbreviation, ILV - and it was a quantum improvement, let me tell you.
However, on this assignment, РКН seems to refer to only the launch vehicle (no payload, no upper stage), so it's not an ILV. Multitran gives "flight vehicle," "space-mission vehicle," and "space rocket" as alternatives. None, as it were, light my fire. So, what is it?
Then there is РКК. I've only seen this Russian abbreviation in one place, and that's as the run-in to the name of one of the (if not the) principal Russian aerospace company, РКК Энергия (or "Rocket-Space Corporation Energia," or "RSC-E" if you're really pressed for time).
"Rocket-Space Corporation" might just work if you're trying to translate the descriptive "ракетно-космическая корпорация," but what might РКК mean when used to describe a launch vehicle?
There's no time to dally now. I've got 3,500 words due starting tomorrow morning!
Cheers...
I've accepted some more work (so much for my resolution), but to be fair, a piece of the new stuff is directly linked with an upcoming interpretation gig, so it's hard to refuse.
As is often the case, the client supplied a glossary with the work, except this is actually a glossary and not a digital slop bucket of stuff that may or may not be actual terminology. Looking the document over (because it's actually possible to do so, as opposed to one of those multi-megabyte, 300-page collections of fish guts), I noticed some terminology issues.
Basically they all have to do with the abbreviations РН, РКН, and РКК, which all appear to be applicable when referring to what is called in English, a "launch vehicle" or LV.
The problem (at least from my perspective) is this: is that the case or are there some subtlties here that escape me, making it incorrect to use LV in each case?
One of these abbreviations, РН, is an old friend. It stands for ракета-носитель or, literally, a "carrier rocket." I have no problem using LV as the equivalent abbreviation.
What the other two guys may mean isn't as clear-cut.
In previous assignments, РКН has expanded to "ракета космического назначения," which has really no good translation, as the Russian literally means "rocket intended for use in space" (as opposed to, I suppose, "rocket intended to blow up that ship over there," mais je rigole...).
The first attempt at standardizing an equivalent English term was "space rocket," which sounds as if the speaker has spent too much time watching serial episodes of Buck Rogers on Saturday morning. Eventually, "integrated launch vehicle" (meaning a launch vehicle with all of the parts attached, ready for propellant loading and launch) gained favor - as did the abbreviation, ILV - and it was a quantum improvement, let me tell you.
However, on this assignment, РКН seems to refer to only the launch vehicle (no payload, no upper stage), so it's not an ILV. Multitran gives "flight vehicle," "space-mission vehicle," and "space rocket" as alternatives. None, as it were, light my fire. So, what is it?
Then there is РКК. I've only seen this Russian abbreviation in one place, and that's as the run-in to the name of one of the (if not the) principal Russian aerospace company, РКК Энергия (or "Rocket-Space Corporation Energia," or "RSC-E" if you're really pressed for time).
"Rocket-Space Corporation" might just work if you're trying to translate the descriptive "ракетно-космическая корпорация," but what might РКК mean when used to describe a launch vehicle?
There's no time to dally now. I've got 3,500 words due starting tomorrow morning!
Cheers...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-23 05:08 am (UTC)РКН - 'ракета космического назначения'. If it's true, so, can you use 'space launcher'?
РКК - 'ракетно-космический комплекс', not 'Ракетно-Космическая Корпорация (Энергия)', as it seems for me. So, it means space launcher together with ground equipments and buildings. For sure see it in the context.
Good luck!
I mean...
Date: 2008-09-23 05:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-23 07:11 am (UTC)The problem I am faced with is making sure the English sounds, um, authentic (can one say серьезно звучать?). Americans don't talk about "space rocket complexes" or "space rockets" if they work in the aerospace business.
Thanks for the tips.
Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2008-09-23 01:46 pm (UTC)