begrenzing

07:42 Apr 10, 2017 

I do like Lianne's translation for its succinctness, but in a scientific context I might prefer to keep closer to the original phrasing. The various points of view on this among experienced translators are interesting and helpful to consider.

As to "delimiting factor", well, it's a pity it is one word longer than the source text. :-) But I'm reassured by the fact that several translators here consider it to be fine.

Thanks to all.

19:34 Apr 7, 2017 

Ik snap de gedachte.
Als je elk woord bij opbod verkoopt, is het simpel een kwestie van hoe meer woorden, hoe meer vreugd.

:-)

Lianne, ik heb nog nooit een klant gehad die zei 'gebruik zo veel mogelijk woorden' in je vertaling.
Of: wees zo langdradig mogelijk.

Jij wel?

16:54 Apr 7, 2017 

Het is niet ondenkbaar dat een pagina zoals deze zoveel mogelijk 'inhoud' wil hebben (aantal woorden). Behalve vertalen van informatie en stijlkeuze, komen er dus altijd nog meer factoren bij kijken. De klant zou daar meer over moeten kunnen zeggen.

14:31 Apr 7, 2017 

As far as 'accuracy' is concerned...

I think you could also opt for:

...; de sensor is tot een helling van 40 graden in staat betrouwbaar te meten.

...; the sensor provides reliable results up to a surface angle of 40 degrees.
...; the sensor is capable of providing...

14:10 Apr 7, 2017 

I also like to make things as concise as possible, but in technical texts (as opposed to marketing or website copy), I also try to remain as faithful to the source as possible, so if the source sentence has three elements, linked in a specific way, I try to ensure that all three elements are present in my sentence, linked in the same way as in the source.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Lianne's solution, but when you shorten things (and possibly make them sound better), there is often a risk of slightly changing the original meaning, albeit inadvertently and with the best of intentions.

13:04 Apr 7, 2017 

In general I like the idea of trying to keep a translation concise. But since this text is from a fairly lengthy technical document, presumably targeted at buyers with a scientific background and penchant for detail, I think it may be best to avoid shortening the sentences if possible.

Today I checked with someone who studies science, and he was inclined to think the kind of language I’ve used is reasonably typical of technical papers.

I think the aim of the description may be not so much to admit a limitation (which could sound negative) as to indicate how the device can achieve its full potential and highest level of accuracy: for best results it needs to be positioned at an angle of no more than 40 degrees relative to the surface being measured. I’m hoping that “delimiting factor” gets that across as a simple statement of fact, without negative implications.

11:30 Apr 6, 2017 

I would go with the device accuracy being limited... It sounds more decisive, clear, short.
At the end of the sentence, it's probably better to say "not exceeding 40 degrees"

14:26 Apr 5, 2017 

I guess I don't like the word "factor" in this context. It's just a plain straighforward limit/limitation of this device. I see limiting factor more useful in reflective context (beschouwende teksten) than device descriptions. Who would say "a reason not to buy this device (=limiting factor) would be that it is not accurate on angles over 40 degrees" instead of just "the accuracy of this device is limited to 40 degrees." At least that's how I read the nuance in word choice.

14:18 Apr 5, 2017 

Limit, delimiting factor, both are fine.

11:56 Apr 5, 2017 

What's wrong with: A clear delimiting factor is... ??

Seems fine to me.

11:45 Apr 5, 2017 

An obvious limit to what the sensor can do is...

06:22 Apr 5, 2017 

I think that you can take this text with some freedom, yes, just don't change the numbers (e.g. 50 or 30 degrees instead of 40). I think the fact that the text was compiled from different sources is another point in case.

A "delimiting factor" is a "beperkende factor" which dimiminishes (gradual) an effect or result. In this case there is rather a concrete limit (begrenzing) to the usefulness of the tool/instrument. Does that make sense?

05:49 Apr 5, 2017 

Thanks, Lianne! Helpful points to consider.

The text appears to be taken from a 5-page document describing the instrument in detail. It includes scientific/mathematical terms that would not be easily understood by the average reader.

It's still designed for selling purposes, however, as you say. But perhaps targeted at buyers who are particularly concerned with detail and scientific accuracy. Would you still be inclined to pare it down a bit?

05:20 Apr 5, 2017 

I think Barend said it quite well in that previous question: reliable up to a surface angle of 40 degrees. That's a limitation. Your text (auction) is a bit wordy or sometimes evasive or indirect for selling purposes. I would take it liberally.