Gevaert (Agfa) "How film is made" video of 1954

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Q.G.

Hi Marco,

Dutch is my mother tongue as well.
And a "wiek", as used here, is the thing you find in candles or in oil lamps. Not just a propeller blade. The similarity between the Dutch and English words too holds a clue.
It is perhaps more common in Zuid-Nederlands, but still a proper and correct Dutch word.

---

Well, although I was born in the south of the Netherlands (Boxtel), I left it when I was six. But I have never before heard a "lont" (wick) being referred to as a "wiek"...

The "VanDale" Dutch online dictionary, doesn't give this meaning either. So although it may well be valid dialect, it hasn't made it to "official" Dutch ;)

I do get hits for wiek / lont in Google though, referring to "wiek" as in the sense of "wick"

Still, I think what we need is a definitive answer from a native English speaker...

Now that you know that it is a Dutch word meaning what it does?
Knowing that that meaning is fully consistent with what we see happening?
Knowing about the similarity between "wiek" and "wick", thus having etymology confirm it?
And knowing (most important) that the man in the film clearly said "wiek"?

You're being too cautious, really! ;)

P.S.
Oh, and knowing that a Zuid-Nederlander recognizes and understands the word without having to look it up? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Q.G.

Now that you know that it is a Dutch word meaning what it does?
Knowing that that meaning is fully consistent with what we see happening?
Knowing about the similarity between "wiek" and "wick", thus having etymology confirm it?
And knowing (most important) that the man in the film clearly said "wiek"?

You're being too cautious, really! ;)

---

I definitely appreciate you pointing out the - to me - unknown usage of the word "wiek" in Dutch and its etymological similarity to the English word "wick"

But sometimes direct, literal, translations are just plain wrong...

Not because the meanings are not the same (as you have shown is not the case here), but because there is actually another term from the jargon of the (technical) field involved that is the normal, day-to-day spoken, term for the device by those who actually used it. That term may not be wick here, and if not, I think we should translate it to what the native English speakers would use here, instead of the more literal translation.

Again, I do highly appreciate your input ;), but we need a final answer from a native speaker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco B

I definitely appreciate you pointing out the - to me - unknown usage of the word "wiek" and its etymoligical similarity to "wick"

But sometimes direct, literal, translations are just plain wrong...

Not because the meanings are not the same (as you have shown is not the case here),

---

I suspect there is a "not" too many in the "as you have shown [etc.]".
But to be clear: if anything, i have shown the opposite, that the meaning is indeed exactly the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco B

but because there is actually another term from the jargon of the (technical) field involved that is the normal, day-to-day spoken, term for the device by those who actually used it. That term may not be wick here, and if not, I think we should translate it to what the native English speakers would use here, instead of the more literal translation.

---

That goes against any translation rules (it's not about what someone else might use, but what the original says), but if you think it better.
It is your 'translation'. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco B

Again, I do highly appreciate your input ;), but we need a final answer from a native speaker

---

Of what language? ;)


P.S.

Oh, and thanks to you and AgX for translating the narrative!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Q.G.

That goes against any translation rules (it's not about what someone else might use, but what the original says), but if you think it better.

---

Is that so? My farther, who regularly had the need for some of his work being translated in another language, always told me that translators usually do "research" on existing documents to find out what is the "jargon" used in a certain work field. How else would a translator create a proper translation for less common field specific terms, not part of the day-to-day spoken "street" language?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Q.G.

It is your 'translation'. ;)

---

Yes, it's mine ;), but also a bit AgX's. Actually, it was AgX who also suggested "wick", but I rejected it :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Q.G.

Oh, and thanks to you and AgX for translating the narrative!

---

Next time, its your turn! ;):D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco B

Is that so? My farther, who regularly had the need for some of his work being translated in another language, always told me that translators usually do "research" on existing documents to find out what is the "jargon" used in a certain work field. How else would a translator create a proper translation for less common field specific terms, not part of the day-to-day spoken "street" language?

---

It indeed is.
A translator must know the field the text he is translating is about. Else you get stupid mistakes (which we all too often see in TV subtitles, where translators clearly show they haven't the faintest idea of what the text is about).

But it is also a Deadly Sin to change things because you think it might be better.

What if they used a wick at Gevaert's and you change that to brush, because some other manufacturer never used a wick, never ever heard of a wick being used, and says that it must be brush?
You would rob the world, keeping that little bit of information from everyone, just because you think it more appropriate to use the terms someone else uses, instead of following the original.

A Deadly Sin indeed!
;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco B

Yes, it's mine ;), but also a bit AgX's. Actually, it was AgX who also suggested "wick", but I rejected it :D

---

Really?!
Well there you (as in: you) go!
:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco B

Next time, its your turn! ;):D

---

Will gladly help, if an occassion presents itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco B

but because there is actually another term from the jargon of the (technical) field involved that is the normal, day-to-day spoken, term for the device by those who actually used it.

---

Marco, but the problem is that you do not know how this machine worked. Neither does the rest of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Q.G.

But it is also a Deadly Sin to change things because you think it might be better.

---

I don't "think" it might be better, I am posting here in the hope someone with real knowledge about the history of Gevaert (Agfa) could give the definite answer. Believe me, I already asked AgX, and although he has lots of knowledge and literature about Gevaert / Agfa history, he couldn't tell me conclusively what the correct term was... :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Q.G.

What if they used a wick at Gevaert's and you change that to brush, because some other manufacturer never used a wick, never ever heard of a wick being used, and says that it must be brush?

---

Good point ;), but on the other, if manufacturers DID agree on the general terms for these kind of devices, it would be rather stupid (as in your TV show example), not to use the correct term either... ;)

Marco

Regarding wick......

Many early coaters that made paper used a brush or wick to remove excess baryta during the manufacturing process. On cold pressed papers, when coating hot emulsion, so much was absorbed by the paper that excess emulsion was "scraped away" by a brush or wick.

More commonly though for paper and film, a blade of metal was placed about 0.005" above the surface of the coating to remove any excess and to even out the thickness of the coating. This method would have been in use in the 40s. Some cases used an air knife or air brush to remove excess emulsion.

I hope this helps.

PE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgX

Marco, but the problem is that you do not know how this machine worked. Neither does the rest of us.

---

Well, "here we go" :p, that is exactly what I am saying. We need someone to dig down the Gevaert history!