Re: [PSES] User Documents & EU Official Languages, Friday Question

[Ted Eckert]

Don’t forget Malta. English is one of the official languages.

Ted Eckert
Microsoft

The opinion expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer or the country of Malta.


From: Dan Roman <0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 5:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] User Documents & EU Official Languages, Friday Question

There's always Ireland...
--
Dan Roman, N.C.E.
IEEE Senior Member
dan.ro...@ieee.org<mailto:dan.ro...@ieee.org>
dan.n2...@verizon.net<mailto:dan.n2...@verizon.net>
On Aug 23, 2019, at 7:06 PM, Doug Powell 
mailto:doug...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks all,

As always, the discussion is interesting and also surprising in some ways.

Have a great weekend,

Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com<mailto:doug...@gmail.com>
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdougp01=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C157229a318354241215908d728277b5c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637022022355757139=TpXTdfguS8cuZkJH9UibACwS17f2eSVzsXsIvSefRYw%3D=0>

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:01 AM Doug Powell < 
doug...@gmail.com<mailto:doug...@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,

I haven't written a Friday Question in some time, so here is a new installment.

With the exit of Britain for the European Union (Brexit), I find it interesting 
but not surprising that English remains one of the official languages, at least 
for now. For many years there has been a large body of documentation provided 
in English and indeed, many of the European Norms are based on IEC standards 
originating in French & English. I wonder, will this policy change in the 
foreseeable future?

It has been my practice to tell clients that the minimum requirement for 
translation of user document(s) and product markings is they must first be in 
one of the official languages and upon request by the end user, the local 
language becomes a requirement as well. I haven't checked in some time, but the 
Machinery Directive may require this without end user involvement. In some 
cases, local regulatory requirements may dictate which languages must be used 
for specific information especially involving EHS. Incidentally, a good friend 
who is in Planetary Aeronomy and Astro-geophysics has told me, if you know just 
one of a handful of languages, you can just about go anywhere in the scientific 
world community; these being English, French, German, Japanese and possibly 
Russian.

So now there is the question of which "English" is the official language of the 
EU, British (Cambridge) English?  I suspect that Brits, Aussies and Americans 
will all have no trouble understanding one another, even with differences in 
spelling, grammar and possibly idioms. Or as Wikipedia puts it, these are 
"mutually comprehensible" ( 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dialects_of_English<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FList_of_dialects_of_English=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C157229a318354241215908d728277b5c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637022022355757139=pfTkgiDnLoJRr07ztNE98TZCCiTRNFVOoONAxeCR%2FPI%3D=0>).
  I noticed one form of English not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, Texas.

All the best, Doug

PS - The bottom line, every Tom, Dick and Harry should avoid cliché at all 
costs.


--

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com<mailto:doug...@gmail.com>
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdougp01=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C157229a318354241215908d728277b5c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637022022355767142=tPn0HrzHUWBOFgx6tfKnzEQHLALGgDYAVUGzHpDyDIs%3D=0>


--

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com<mailto:doug...@gmail.com>
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdougp01=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C157229a318354241215908d728277b5c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637022022355777150=4wmBSuIgyxjtMdjtFxrTEOUemxQz6Mb0HwwVK0f4k0k%3D=0>
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C157229a318354241215908d728277b5c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637022022355787158=NNR6kpOK4cA%2B9eNkul8kyUuhIP4lhAnxepm%2BQIM7ylg%3D=0>

Attachment

Re: [PSES] User Documents & EU Official Languages, Friday Question

[Dan Roman]

There's always Ireland...

⁣--
Dan Roman, N.C.E.
IEEE Senior Member
dan.ro...@ieee.org
dan.n2...@verizon.net​

On Aug 23, 2019, 7:06 PM, at 7:06 PM, Doug Powell  wrote:
>Thanks all,
>
>As always, the discussion is interesting and also surprising in some
>ways.
>
>Have a great weekend,
>
>Doug
>
>
>Douglas E Powell
>Laporte, Colorado USA
>doug...@gmail.com
>http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>
>On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:01 AM Doug Powell  wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I haven't written a Friday Question in some time, so here is a new
>> installment.
>>
>> With the exit of Britain for the European Union (Brexit), I find it
>> interesting but not surprising that English remains one of the
>official
>> languages, at least for now. For many years there has been a large
>body of
>> documentation provided in English and indeed, many of the European
>Norms
>> are based on IEC standards originating in French & English. I wonder,
>will
>> this policy change in the foreseeable future?
>>
>> It has been my practice to tell clients that the minimum requirement
>for
>> translation of user document(s) and product markings is they must
>first be
>> in one of the official languages and upon request by the end user,
>the
>> local language becomes a requirement as well. I haven't checked in
>some
>> time, but the Machinery Directive may require this without end user
>> involvement. In some cases, local regulatory requirements may dictate
>which
>> languages must be used for specific information especially involving
>EHS.
>> Incidentally, a good friend who is in Planetary Aeronomy and
>> Astro-geophysics has told me, if you know just one of a handful of
>> languages, you can just about go anywhere in the scientific
>> world community; these being English, French, German, Japanese and
>possibly
>> Russian.
>>
>> So now there is the question of which "English" is the official
>language
>> of the EU, British (Cambridge) English?  I suspect that Brits,
>Aussies and
>> Americans will all have no trouble understanding one another, even
>with
>> differences in spelling, grammar and possibly idioms. Or as Wikipedia
>puts
>> it, these are "mutually comprehensible" (
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dialects_of_English).  I
>noticed
>> one form of English not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, Texas.
>>
>> All the best, Doug
>>
>> PS - The bottom line, every Tom, Dick and Harry should avoid cliché
>at all
>> costs.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Douglas E Powell
>>
>> doug...@gmail.com
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>>
>
>
>--
>
>Douglas E Powell
>
>doug...@gmail.com
>http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>
>-
>
>This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
>emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
>e-mail to 
>
>All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
>Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
>at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
>well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
>Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
>unsubscribe)
>List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
>For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>Scott Douglas 
>Mike Cantwell 
>
>For policy questions, send mail to:
>Jim Bacher:  
>David Heald: 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] User Documents & EU Official Languages, Friday Question

[Doug Powell]

Thanks all,

As always, the discussion is interesting and also surprising in some ways.

Have a great weekend,

Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:01 AM Doug Powell  wrote:

> All,
>
> I haven't written a Friday Question in some time, so here is a new
> installment.
>
> With the exit of Britain for the European Union (Brexit), I find it
> interesting but not surprising that English remains one of the official
> languages, at least for now. For many years there has been a large body of
> documentation provided in English and indeed, many of the European Norms
> are based on IEC standards originating in French & English. I wonder, will
> this policy change in the foreseeable future?
>
> It has been my practice to tell clients that the minimum requirement for
> translation of user document(s) and product markings is they must first be
> in one of the official languages and upon request by the end user, the
> local language becomes a requirement as well. I haven't checked in some
> time, but the Machinery Directive may require this without end user
> involvement. In some cases, local regulatory requirements may dictate which
> languages must be used for specific information especially involving EHS.
> Incidentally, a good friend who is in Planetary Aeronomy and
> Astro-geophysics has told me, if you know just one of a handful of
> languages, you can just about go anywhere in the scientific
> world community; these being English, French, German, Japanese and possibly
> Russian.
>
> So now there is the question of which "English" is the official language
> of the EU, British (Cambridge) English?  I suspect that Brits, Aussies and
> Americans will all have no trouble understanding one another, even with
> differences in spelling, grammar and possibly idioms. Or as Wikipedia puts
> it, these are "mutually comprehensible" (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dialects_of_English).  I noticed
> one form of English not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, Texas.
>
> All the best, Doug
>
> PS - The bottom line, every Tom, Dick and Harry should avoid cliché at all
> costs.
>
>
> --
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] User Documents & EU Official Languages, Friday Question

[John Woodgate]

That's the same comma (Polygonia c-album) whose flapping wings caused 
the hurricane.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-08-23 15:57, Ted Eckert wrote:


I’ll note that even the incorrect use of punctuation can cause 
confusion in standards and regulations. Recently, a missing comma 
resulted in a $5 million legal settlement.


https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/08/584391391/maine-dairy-drivers-settle-overtime-case-that-hinged-on-an-absent-comma

Ted Eckert

Microsoft Corporation

The opinions experessed are my own and do not necessarily reflect 
those of my employer.





-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] User Documents & EU Official Languages, Friday Question

[Ted Eckert]

I'll note that even the incorrect use of punctuation can cause confusion in 
standards and regulations. Recently, a missing comma resulted in a $5 million 
legal settlement.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/08/584391391/maine-dairy-drivers-settle-overtime-case-that-hinged-on-an-absent-comma

Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation

The opinions experessed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: John Woodgate 
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 7:34 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] User Documents & EU Official Languages, Friday Question


You have 'yet to see' because you are setting a very high standard. In your 
example, 'apparatus' without any qualification (I.e. adjective, such as 
'electronic') means 'all apparatus'. 'Includes... or' is strictly wrong simply 
because there are in fact no two cases (like 'apples or pears'). When you ask 
'Is AC powered apparatus included?, the answer is 'Yes'. If you ask 'Is battery 
powered apparatus included?, the answer is also 'Yes'. So 'and' is better.

There are many cases in English usage of small words being chosen wrongly. A 
classic case is 'This is different than that', which should be 'This is 
different from that'. But any difference in real meaning is microscopic at 
most. For example, 'You are taller from me' is wrong (and isn't said anywhere 
in Britain as far as I know); that should be 'than'.

Electrical and electronics engineers are not selected for language skills. 
Amongst that population there is a selection process that puts those with more 
language skills into standards committees, where they become the proactive 
members who do most of the work. Many other members are not proactive and 
prefer not to write anything but just agree or disagree.

Best wishes

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates 
www.woodjohn.uk<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodjohn.uk=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cba8aba57238b4149a21c08d727d7007c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637021676703689572=GZaQrRlfNuMQC5uN0WPt%2FCy5ndixsa9r24dJHuyzqdg%3D=0>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-08-23 15:04, Gert Gremmen wrote:

 > I think it would be very difficult to get ambiguous language accepted by 
 > National Committees, the Chairman and Secretary of the committee and the 
 > Central Office editors.

On that topic we do differ in opinion.

I have yet to see a standard which is fully clear, complete and exhaustive and 
precise in its technical specifications.

A simple example from the scope of a recent concept standard:

This document applies to apparatus intended for use in residential, commercial 
and light-industrial
environments as well as to apparatus intended for use in industrial 
environments, and includes AC-, DC-
or battery powered apparatus.

What type of apparatus is included ?

Is the "or" in front of battery correctly used, should it not be "and", or is 
this an example of Euro-English (contextual comprehensible ?), and what would 
lawyers make of this.
--
On 23-8-2019 14:10, John Woodgate wrote:

Yes, of course I know about ISO/IEC Directives Part 2 and CEN/CENELEC IRs Part 
3, but in 2005 when I wrote the document these rules were not widely known (and 
they still aren't known widely enough). What 'makes a difference in a legal 
sense' is a very big subject indeed. How 'creative' is your lawyer? Is that 
'black' or 'very dark white'?

I think it would be very difficult to get ambiguous language accepted by 
National Committees, the Chairman and Secretary of the committee and the 
Central Office editors.

Best wishes

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates 
www.woodjohn.uk<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodjohn.uk=02%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7Cba8aba57238b4149a21c08d727d7007c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637021676703689572=GZaQrRlfNuMQC5uN0WPt%2FCy5ndixsa9r24dJHuyzqdg%3D=0>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-08-23 12:25, Gert Gremmen wrote:

Hi John,

Great many thank's ;<)

I will study them and use them for the benefit of standardization.

You must be aware of Internal Regulations 3 (CENELEC) that included some of 
your "must", "shall" and similar constructions to use and not use.

Thank you for noticing my own euro-english (must be inspired by your example); 
what i would like to know is if such "errors" create any difference in a legal 
sense.

Many of the to-be-cited-in-the-official-journal harmoni(z)(s)ed standards fail 
because of (intentional?) ambiguous language, plainly confusing constructions 
and sometimes even the -opposite of what is meant- is said, though the meaning 
is clear when read in context (contextual comprehensible ?) Legally some (euro 
english) constructions create problems.

So if anymore has more examples, let them come to this list !

Thank

Re: [PSES] User Documents & EU Official Languages, Friday Question

[John Woodgate]

You have 'yet to see' because you are setting a very high standard. In 
your example, 'apparatus' without any qualification (I.e. adjective, 
such as 'electronic') means 'all apparatus'. 'Includes... or' is 
strictly wrong simply because there are in fact no two cases (like 
'apples or pears'). When you ask 'Is AC powered apparatus included?, the 
answer is 'Yes'. If you ask 'Is battery powered apparatus included?, the 
answer is also 'Yes'. So 'and' is better.


There are many cases in English usage of small words being chosen 
wrongly. A classic case is 'This is different than that', which should 
be 'This is different from that'. But any difference in real meaning is 
microscopic at most. For example, 'You are taller from me' is wrong (and 
isn't said anywhere in Britain as far as I know); that should be 'than'.


Electrical and electronics engineers are not selected for language 
skills. Amongst that population there is a selection process that puts 
those with more language skills into standards committees, where they 
become the proactive members who do most of the work. Many other members 
are not proactive and prefer not to write anything but just agree or 
disagree.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-08-23 15:04, Gert Gremmen wrote:


 > I think it would be very difficult to get ambiguous language 
accepted by National Committees, the Chairman and Secretary of the 
committee and the Central Office editors.


On that topic we do differ in opinion.

I have yet to see a standard which is fully clear, complete and 
exhaustive and precise in its technical specifications.


A simple example from the scope of a recent concept standard:

/This document applies to apparatus intended for use in residential, 
commercial and light-industrial//
//environments as well as to apparatus intended for use in industrial 
environments, and includes AC-, DC-//

//or battery powered apparatus. /

What type of apparatus is included ?

Is the "or" in front of battery correctly used, should it not be 
"and", or is this an example of Euro-English (contextual 
comprehensible ?), and what would lawyers make of this.


--

On 23-8-2019 14:10, John Woodgate wrote:


Yes, of course I know about ISO/IEC Directives Part 2 and CEN/CENELEC 
IRs Part 3, but in 2005 when I wrote the document these rules were 
not widely known (and they still aren't known widely enough). What 
'makes a difference in a legal sense' is a very big subject indeed. 
How 'creative' is your lawyer? Is that 'black' or 'very dark white'?


I think it would be very difficult to get ambiguous language accepted 
by National Committees, the Chairman and Secretary of the committee 
and the Central Office editors.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-08-23 12:25, Gert Gremmen wrote:


Hi John,

Great many thank's ;<)

I will study them and use them for the benefit of standardization.

You must be aware of Internal Regulations 3 (CENELEC) that included 
some of your "must", "shall" and similar constructions to use and 
not use.


Thank you for noticing my own euro-english (must be inspired by your 
example); what i would like to know is if such "errors" create any 
difference in a legal sense.


Many of the to-be-cited-in-the-official-journal harmoni(z)(s)ed 
standards fail because of (intentional?) ambiguous language, plainly 
confusing constructions and sometimes even the -opposite of what is 
meant- is said, though the meaning is clear when read in context 
(contextual comprehensible ?) Legally some (euro english) 
constructions create problems.


So if anymore has more examples, let them come to this list !

Thanks, list members.

Gert


On 23-8-2019 11:26, John Woodgate wrote:


Hello, Gert. In my opinion, there is no 'factually wrong' for 
British English. We don't have an 'Academy' as in France.  The only 
thing you can say about 'I were going to work' is that 'were' is 
'contrary to usage', which is 'was'. Of course, some wordings may 
be more 'contrary to usage' than others.


You own message has an example of Euro-English - 'within the next 
years'. I would say 'within the next few years'. There is no 
sensible grammatical reason for including 'few', it's just 'what 
people say'.


I actually wrote a document on this subject many years ago, 
although it was not widely circulated. I have attached it.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-08-23 09:16, Gert Gremmen wrote:


Hi John (et al),

I noticed with quite interest your statement on the Euro-English; 
do you think that is where it shall go within the next years, 
eventually ?


I'd appreciate if you would provide us with other (many please) 
examples of -factually wrong- but common phrases as found in EU 
language, be it legal text or standards text.

Re: [PSES] User Documents & EU Official Languages, Friday Question

[Gert Gremmen]

 > I think it would be very difficult to get ambiguous language 
accepted by National Committees, the Chairman and Secretary of the 
committee and the Central Office editors.


On that topic we do differ in opinion.

I have yet to see a standard which is fully clear, complete and 
exhaustive and precise in its technical specifications.


A simple example from the scope of a recent concept standard:

/This document applies to apparatus intended for use in residential, 
commercial and light-industrial//
//environments as well as to apparatus intended for use in industrial 
environments, and includes AC-, DC-//

//or battery powered apparatus. /

What type of apparatus is included ?

Is the "or" in front of battery correctly used, should it not be "and", 
or is this an example of Euro-English (contextual comprehensible ?), and 
what would lawyers make of this.


--

On 23-8-2019 14:10, John Woodgate wrote:


Yes, of course I know about ISO/IEC Directives Part 2 and CEN/CENELEC 
IRs Part 3, but in 2005 when I wrote the document these rules were not 
widely known (and they still aren't known widely enough). What 'makes 
a difference in a legal sense' is a very big subject indeed. How 
'creative' is your lawyer? Is that 'black' or 'very dark white'?


I think it would be very difficult to get ambiguous language accepted 
by National Committees, the Chairman and Secretary of the committee 
and the Central Office editors.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-08-23 12:25, Gert Gremmen wrote:


Hi John,

Great many thank's ;<)

I will study them and use them for the benefit of standardization.

You must be aware of Internal Regulations 3 (CENELEC) that included 
some of your "must", "shall" and similar constructions to use and not 
use.


Thank you for noticing my own euro-english (must be inspired by your 
example); what i would like to know is if such "errors" create any 
difference in a legal sense.


Many of the to-be-cited-in-the-official-journal harmoni(z)(s)ed 
standards fail because of (intentional?) ambiguous language, plainly 
confusing constructions and sometimes even the -opposite of what is 
meant- is said, though the meaning is clear when read in context 
(contextual comprehensible ?) Legally some (euro english) 
constructions create problems.


So if anymore has more examples, let them come to this list !

Thanks, list members.

Gert


On 23-8-2019 11:26, John Woodgate wrote:


Hello, Gert. In my opinion, there is no 'factually wrong' for 
British English. We don't have an 'Academy' as in France.  The only 
thing you can say about 'I were going to work' is that 'were' is 
'contrary to usage', which is 'was'. Of course, some wordings may be 
more 'contrary to usage' than others.


You own message has an example of Euro-English - 'within the next 
years'. I would say 'within the next few years'. There is no 
sensible grammatical reason for including 'few', it's just 'what 
people say'.


I actually wrote a document on this subject many years ago, although 
it was not widely circulated. I have attached it.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-08-23 09:16, Gert Gremmen wrote:


Hi John (et al),

I noticed with quite interest your statement on the Euro-English; 
do you think that is where it shall go within the next years, 
eventually ?


I'd appreciate if you would provide us with other (many please) 
examples of -factually wrong- but common phrases as found in EU 
language, be it legal text or standards text.


As a not-native speaker these alterations of the "offcial British 
Enlish" go noticed for me (but for some), and i think it is 
important  to have a list of these available. In my current job at 
the EU i encounter all kind of non-native speaker created English 
language constructions, not always fully in error, and if one wants 
can understood as meant, but do create confusions in some cases.


So please, all UK and of course all US native speakers, use your 
Friday spare time and let us all know what you have found, if 
possible with some explanation, if not evident.


I will create a list and re-publish for the use of all.

Thanks

Gert Gremmen



On 23-8-2019 9:40, John Woodgate wrote:


Two points:

  *  EN standards are not 'European Norms', which were/are a very
old set of standards to do with the Coal and Steel Community,
a forerunner of the EU. ENs are 'European Standards'.

  * Nominally, 'British English' is used, but since no-one knows
exactly what that is, few people bother. There is also
'Euro-English', which has a few word-forms that are not used
by British English native speakers (e.g. 'within the next
days', different meanings of 'respectively' and 'eventually').

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK



--

Re: [PSES] User Documents & EU Official Languages, Friday Question

[John Woodgate]

Yes, of course I know about ISO/IEC Directives Part 2 and CEN/CENELEC 
IRs Part 3, but in 2005 when I wrote the document these rules were not 
widely known (and they still aren't known widely enough). What 'makes a 
difference in a legal sense' is a very big subject indeed. How 
'creative' is your lawyer? Is that 'black' or 'very dark white'?


I think it would be very difficult to get ambiguous language accepted by 
National Committees, the Chairman and Secretary of the committee and the 
Central Office editors.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-08-23 12:25, Gert Gremmen wrote:


Hi John,

Great many thank's ;<)

I will study them and use them for the benefit of standardization.

You must be aware of Internal Regulations 3 (CENELEC) that included 
some of your "must", "shall" and similar constructions to use and not use.


Thank you for noticing my own euro-english (must be inspired by your 
example); what i would like to know is if such "errors" create any 
difference in a legal sense.


Many of the to-be-cited-in-the-official-journal harmoni(z)(s)ed 
standards fail because of (intentional?) ambiguous language, plainly 
confusing constructions and sometimes even the -opposite of what is 
meant- is said, though the meaning is clear when read in context 
(contextual comprehensible ?) Legally some (euro english) 
constructions create problems.


So if anymore has more examples, let them come to this list !

Thanks, list members.

Gert


On 23-8-2019 11:26, John Woodgate wrote:


Hello, Gert. In my opinion, there is no 'factually wrong' for British 
English. We don't have an 'Academy' as in France.  The only thing you 
can say about 'I were going to work' is that 'were' is 'contrary to 
usage', which is 'was'. Of course, some wordings may be more 
'contrary to usage' than others.


You own message has an example of Euro-English - 'within the next 
years'. I would say 'within the next few years'. There is no sensible 
grammatical reason for including 'few', it's just 'what people say'.


I actually wrote a document on this subject many years ago, although 
it was not widely circulated. I have attached it.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-08-23 09:16, Gert Gremmen wrote:


Hi John (et al),

I noticed with quite interest your statement on the Euro-English; do 
you think that is where it shall go within the next years, eventually ?


I'd appreciate if you would provide us with other (many please) 
examples of -factually wrong- but common phrases as found in EU 
language, be it legal text or standards text.


As a not-native speaker these alterations of the "offcial British 
Enlish" go noticed for me (but for some), and i think it is 
important  to have a list of these available. In my current job at 
the EU i encounter all kind of non-native speaker created English 
language constructions, not always fully in error, and if one wants 
can understood as meant, but do create confusions in some cases.


So please, all UK and of course all US native speakers, use your 
Friday spare time and let us all know what you have found, if 
possible with some explanation, if not evident.


I will create a list and re-publish for the use of all.

Thanks

Gert Gremmen



On 23-8-2019 9:40, John Woodgate wrote:


Two points:

  *  EN standards are not 'European Norms', which were/are a very
old set of standards to do with the Coal and Steel Community, a
forerunner of the EU. ENs are 'European Standards'.

  * Nominally, 'British English' is used, but since no-one knows
exactly what that is, few people bother. There is also
'Euro-English', which has a few word-forms that are not used by
British English native speakers (e.g. 'within the next days',
different meanings of 'respectively' and 'eventually').

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK



--
Independent Expert on CE marking
Harmonised Standards (HAS-) Consultant @ European Commission for RED and EMC
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, 

Re: [PSES] User Documents & EU Official Languages, Friday Question

[Gert Gremmen]

Hi John,

Great many thank's ;<)

I will study them and use them for the benefit of standardization.

You must be aware of Internal Regulations 3 (CENELEC) that included some 
of your "must", "shall" and similar constructions to use and not use.


Thank you for noticing my own euro-english (must be inspired by your 
example); what i would like to know is if such "errors" create any 
difference in a legal sense.


Many of the to-be-cited-in-the-official-journal harmoni(z)(s)ed 
standards fail because of (intentional?) ambiguous language, plainly 
confusing constructions and sometimes even the -opposite of what is 
meant- is said, though the meaning is clear when read in context 
(contextual comprehensible ?) Legally some (euro english) constructions 
create problems.


So if anymore has more examples, let them come to this list !

Thanks, list members.

Gert


On 23-8-2019 11:26, John Woodgate wrote:


Hello, Gert. In my opinion, there is no 'factually wrong' for British 
English. We don't have an 'Academy' as in France.  The only thing you 
can say about 'I were going to work' is that 'were' is 'contrary to 
usage', which is 'was'. Of course, some wordings may be more 'contrary 
to usage' than others.


You own message has an example of Euro-English - 'within the next 
years'. I would say 'within the next few years'. There is no sensible 
grammatical reason for including 'few', it's just 'what people say'.


I actually wrote a document on this subject many years ago, although 
it was not widely circulated. I have attached it.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-08-23 09:16, Gert Gremmen wrote:


Hi John (et al),

I noticed with quite interest your statement on the Euro-English; do 
you think that is where it shall go within the next years, eventually ?


I'd appreciate if you would provide us with other (many please) 
examples of -factually wrong- but common phrases as found in EU 
language, be it legal text or standards text.


As a not-native speaker these alterations of the "offcial British 
Enlish" go noticed for me (but for some), and i think it is 
important  to have a list of these available. In my current job at 
the EU i encounter all kind of non-native speaker created English 
language constructions, not always fully in error, and if one wants 
can understood as meant, but do create confusions in some cases.


So please, all UK and of course all US native speakers, use your 
Friday spare time and let us all know what you have found, if 
possible with some explanation, if not evident.


I will create a list and re-publish for the use of all.

Thanks

Gert Gremmen



On 23-8-2019 9:40, John Woodgate wrote:


Two points:

  *  EN standards are not 'European Norms', which were/are a very
old set of standards to do with the Coal and Steel Community, a
forerunner of the EU. ENs are 'European Standards'.

  * Nominally, 'British English' is used, but since no-one knows
exactly what that is, few people bother. There is also
'Euro-English', which has a few word-forms that are not used by
British English native speakers (e.g.  'within the next days',
different meanings of 'respectively' and 'eventually').

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK



--
Independent Expert on CE marking
Harmonised Standards (HAS-) Consultant @ European Commission for RED and EMC
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
<>

Re: [PSES] User Documents & EU Official Languages, Friday Question

[John Woodgate]

Hello, Gert. In my opinion, there is no 'factually wrong' for British 
English. We don't have an 'Academy' as in France.  The only thing you 
can say about 'I were going to work' is that 'were' is 'contrary to 
usage', which is 'was'. Of course, some wordings may be more 'contrary 
to usage' than others.


You own message has an example of Euro-English - 'within the next 
years'. I would say 'within the next few years'. There is no sensible 
grammatical reason for including 'few', it's just 'what people say'.


I actually wrote a document on this subject many years ago, although it 
was not widely circulated. I have attached it.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-08-23 09:16, Gert Gremmen wrote:


Hi John (et al),

I noticed with quite interest your statement on the Euro-English; do 
you think that is where it shall go within the next years, eventually ?


I'd appreciate if you would provide us with other (many please) 
examples of -factually wrong- but common phrases as found in EU 
language, be it legal text or standards text.


As a not-native speaker these alterations of the "offcial British 
Enlish" go noticed for me (but for some), and i think it is important  
to have a list of these available. In my current job at the EU i 
encounter all kind of non-native speaker created English language 
constructions, not always fully in error, and if one wants can 
understood as meant, but do create confusions in some cases.


So please, all UK and of course all US native speakers, use your 
Friday spare time and let us all know what you have found, if possible 
with some explanation, if not evident.


I will create a list and re-publish for the use of all.

Thanks

Gert Gremmen



On 23-8-2019 9:40, John Woodgate wrote:


Two points:

  *  EN standards are not 'European Norms', which were/are a very old
set of standards to do with the Coal and Steel Community, a
forerunner of the EU. ENs are 'European Standards'.

  * Nominally, 'British English' is used, but since no-one knows
exactly what that is, few people bother. There is also
'Euro-English', which has a few word-forms that are not used by
British English native speakers (e.g.  'within the next days',
different meanings of 'respectively' and 'eventually').

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK




-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
<>

Re: [PSES] User Documents & EU Official Languages, Friday Question

[Gert Gremmen]

Hi John (et al),

I noticed with quite interest your statement on the Euro-English; do you 
think that is where it shall go within the next years, eventually ?


I'd appreciate if you would provide us with other (many please) examples 
of -factually wrong- but common phrases as found in EU language, be it 
legal text or standards text.


As a not-native speaker these alterations of the "offcial British 
Enlish" go noticed for me (but for some), and i think it is important  
to have a list of these available. In my current job at the EU i 
encounter all kind of non-native speaker created English language 
constructions, not always fully in error, and if one wants can 
understood as meant, but do create confusions in some cases.


So please, all UK and of course all US native speakers, use your Friday 
spare time and let us all know what you have found, if possible with 
some explanation, if not evident.


I will create a list and re-publish for the use of all.

Thanks

Gert Gremmen



On 23-8-2019 9:40, John Woodgate wrote:


Two points:

  *  EN standards are not 'European Norms', which were/are a very old
set of standards to do with the Coal and Steel Community, a
forerunner of the EU. ENs are 'European Standards'.

  * Nominally, 'British English' is used, but since no-one knows
exactly what that is, few people bother. There is also
'Euro-English', which has a few word-forms that are not used by
British English native speakers (e.g.  'within the next days',
different meanings of 'respectively' and 'eventually').

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-08-23 08:01, Doug Powell wrote:

All,

I haven't written a Friday Question in some time, so here is a new 
installment.


With the exit of Britain for the European Union (Brexit), I find it 
interesting but not surprising that English remains one of the 
official languages, at least for now. For many years there has been a 
large body of documentation provided in English and indeed, many of 
the European Norms are based on IEC standards originating in French & 
English. I wonder, will this policy change in the foreseeable future?


It has been my practice to tell clients that the minimum requirement 
for translation of user document(s) and product markings is they must 
first be in one of the official languages and upon request by the end 
user, the local language becomes a requirement as well. I haven't 
checked in some time, but the Machinery Directive may require this 
without end user involvement. In some cases, local regulatory 
requirements may dictate which languages must be used for specific 
information especially involving EHS. Incidentally, a good friend who 
is in Planetary Aeronomy and Astro-geophysics has told me, if you 
know just one of a handful of languages, you can just about go 
anywhere in the scientific world community; these being English, 
French, German, Japanese and possibly Russian.


So now there is the question of which "English" is the official 
language of the EU, British (Cambridge) English?  I suspect that 
Brits, Aussies and Americans will all have no trouble understanding 
one another, even with differences in spelling, grammar and possibly 
idioms. Or as Wikipedia puts it, these are "mutually comprehensible" 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dialects_of_English). I 
noticed one form of English not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, 
Texas.


All the best, Doug

PS - The bottom line, every Tom, Dick and Harry should avoid cliché 
at all costs.



--

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com 
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>


-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

Re: [PSES] User Documents & EU Official Languages, Friday Question

[John Woodgate]

Two points:

 *   EN standards are not 'European Norms', which were/are a very old
   set of standards to do with the Coal and Steel Community, a
   forerunner of the EU. ENs are 'European Standards'.

 * Nominally, 'British English' is used, but since no-one knows exactly
   what that is, few people bother. There is also 'Euro-English', which
   has a few word-forms that are not used by British English native
   speakers (e.g.  'within the next days', different meanings of
   'respectively' and 'eventually').

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-08-23 08:01, Doug Powell wrote:

All,

I haven't written a Friday Question in some time, so here is a new 
installment.


With the exit of Britain for the European Union (Brexit), I find it 
interesting but not surprising that English remains one of the 
official languages, at least for now. For many years there has been a 
large body of documentation provided in English and indeed, many of 
the European Norms are based on IEC standards originating in French & 
English. I wonder, will this policy change in the foreseeable future?


It has been my practice to tell clients that the minimum requirement 
for translation of user document(s) and product markings is they must 
first be in one of the official languages and upon request by the end 
user, the local language becomes a requirement as well. I haven't 
checked in some time, but the Machinery Directive may require this 
without end user involvement. In some cases, local regulatory 
requirements may dictate which languages must be used for specific 
information especially involving EHS. Incidentally, a good friend who 
is in Planetary Aeronomy and Astro-geophysics has told me, if you know 
just one of a handful of languages, you can just about go anywhere in 
the scientific world community; these being English, French, German, 
Japanese and possibly Russian.


So now there is the question of which "English" is the official 
language of the EU, British (Cambridge) English?  I suspect that 
Brits, Aussies and Americans will all have no trouble understanding 
one another, even with differences in spelling, grammar and possibly 
idioms. Or as Wikipedia puts it, these are "mutually comprehensible" 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dialects_of_English). I noticed 
one form of English not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, Texas.


All the best, Doug

PS - The bottom line, every Tom, Dick and Harry should avoid cliché at 
all costs.



--

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com 
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] User Documents & EU Official Languages, Friday Question

[Doug Powell]

All,

I haven't written a Friday Question in some time, so here is a new
installment.

With the exit of Britain for the European Union (Brexit), I find it
interesting but not surprising that English remains one of the official
languages, at least for now. For many years there has been a large body of
documentation provided in English and indeed, many of the European Norms
are based on IEC standards originating in French & English. I wonder, will
this policy change in the foreseeable future?

It has been my practice to tell clients that the minimum requirement for
translation of user document(s) and product markings is they must first be
in one of the official languages and upon request by the end user, the
local language becomes a requirement as well. I haven't checked in some
time, but the Machinery Directive may require this without end user
involvement. In some cases, local regulatory requirements may dictate which
languages must be used for specific information especially involving EHS.
Incidentally, a good friend who is in Planetary Aeronomy and
Astro-geophysics has told me, if you know just one of a handful of
languages, you can just about go anywhere in the scientific
world community; these being English, French, German, Japanese and possibly
Russian.

So now there is the question of which "English" is the official language of
the EU, British (Cambridge) English?  I suspect that Brits, Aussies and
Americans will all have no trouble understanding one another, even with
differences in spelling, grammar and possibly idioms. Or as Wikipedia puts
it, these are "mutually comprehensible" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dialects_of_English).  I noticed one
form of English not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, Texas.

All the best, Doug

PS - The bottom line, every Tom, Dick and Harry should avoid cliché at all
costs.


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: EU Official Languages

[TinBear]

I also wondered... the European Commission publishes the Official Journal of 
the European Communities in three languages, French, German and English.   
Why can't we?

In a message dated 6/30/99 5:05:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
s_doug...@ecrm.com writes:

 
 We had several discussions about this issue. I presented to Engineering and 
 Marketing the legal requirements from the directives and let them make the 
 choice as to what languages we should actually use. In the end we decided 
 to print in five languages - English, French, German, Spanish, Italian as a 
 matter of course. Marketing came back with one special request to add 
 either Swedish or Finnish, I can't remember which. We don't do any other 
 languages. We have had no complaints as to what languages we either have or 
 don't have. Except from our documentation people who have to make out the 
 purchase requisitions for the translations which are very costly.
 
 Scott
 s_doug...@ecrm.com
 
 -Original Message-
 From:  wo...@sensormatic.com [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com]
 Sent:  Tuesday, June 29, 1999 1:44 PM
 To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
 Subject:   EU Official Languages
 
 
 When a Directive requires information to be provided to the user, and that
 equipment is intended to marketed in every EU and EFTA country, what
 minimal
 set of languages must be used? I can think of the following languages that
 are used in these countries. Are there more languages that must be
 included?
 Can some of these be deleted?
 
 English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Greek, Dutch,
 Danish,
 Swedish, Finnish, and Norwegian (EFTA)
  

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: EU Official Languages

[Nick Williams]

Certification type documentation such as Declarations of Conformity can be
in any EU language. User documentation relating to safe use of the product
MUST  be in the language(s) of the country in which the product is being
sold, although if the product has separate installation or maintainance
instructions these can be in a language likely to be understood by
appropriately trained personnel.

This requirement is a function of the directives (most clearly elucidated
in the Machinery Directive, but the principle applies to LVD and EMC, as
well as all the other CE mark directives), independently of any
requirements contained in harmonised standards. It's a fairly basic
principle of criminal law (which this is) that you can't alter your legal
obligations by contractual means, so I'm afraid that the basic premise of
your approach is flawed. Sorry to say, but you may be living on borrowed
time if you are not providing manuals in appropriate languages in all
markets.

It's also a basic principle of article 100a of the Treaty of Rome (which is
the root of all CE-mark directives) that member states of the EU cannot
oblige manufacturers of legitimately CE marked goods to meet any different
or additional requirements to those laid out in the directives. The
requirements of the national public safety law in Germany are required to
be harmonised with those of all other EU member states - compliance with
any additional requirements (such as any required for the application of
certification/agency approval marks) is optional and, in this sense, has
nothing to do with CE marking.

The effect on your products is as you descibe, but the basis of the
requirements is not.

Nick.


Richard,

I can only speak from my experience with the LVD and EMC directives.

1) The requirement for CE marked products is that the user documentation and
the DoC be in one of the official languages of the EU.  So, we use English
as one of the languages.

2) That being said, the safety standards my company uses to comply with the
CE mark, require that we provide user documentation in any of the other
official languages if in fact our customer explicitly requires it by
contract.  However this may be a reduced size document containing only those
portions that are specifically related to the safe installation, operation,
maintenance and disposal of the product.  It is not required that you
translate sections like theory of operation, applications, sales literature,
etc.

3) Additionally, when we certify a product through a notified body, in this
case LGA in Nurnberg Germany, the national public safety law requires a
manual in German.  I suspect other nationalities within the EU have similar
requirements for certified products.

This policy has been confirmed by our representative from LGA America.

-doug


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: RE: EU Official Languages

[Nick Williams]

Bill,

What you have said does not actually contradict my own statement (and maybe
that wasn't your intention!).

One must not confuse the requirement to draw the instructions up in one of
the languages of the EU with that of then translating the instructions into
the other languages for each territory in which the product is sold.

Annex 1 section 1.7.4b of the Machinery Directive says:

The instructions must be drawn up in one of the Community languages by the
manufacturer or his authorised representative established in the Community. On
being put into service, all machinery must be accompanied by a translation
of the
instructions in the language or languages of the country in which the
machinery is to
be used and by the instructions in the original language. This translation
must be
done either by the manufacturer or his authorised representative
established in the
Community or by the person introducing the machinery into the language area in
question. By way of derogation from this requirement, the maintenance
instructions
for use by specialised personnel employed by the manufacturer or his authorised
representative established in the Community may be drawn up in only one of the
Community languages understood by that personnel.

What the directive is trying to achieve is a process whereby a complete and
coherent set of instructions are created in a community language, and then
are translated to be comprehensible to people in states with other
languages. You only need one Declaration of Conformity, and this must be in
the language in which the instructions were originally drafted. However,
this does not mean that you only need to provide the user instructions in
one language - it is very clear that every territory which has a different
language will require the instructions to be translated accordingly.

Quite what the EC hoped to achieve by requiring the instructions to be
originally drafted in a community language is not made clear. I would guess
the idea was that the structure and culture of the western European
languages are sufficiently similar that so long as the instructions make
good sense in one of them, they will still be useable in other languages
even if they 'loose a bit' in translation. However, if one were to start
from (for instance) a coherent document in Chinese, and translate to
English one might end up with a document which was pretty well useless
unless it's carefully re-written after translation.

Regards

Nick.







At 09:29 -0400 1/7/99, Bill  Somerfield  wrote:
Please check the following :
Annex II of the Machinery Directive
   A. Contents of the EC Declaration of conformity (1)

(1) This declaration must be drawn up in the same language as the
instructions ( see Annex I, point 1.7.4) and must be either typwritten or
handwrittrn in block capitals.



SNIP


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: EU Official Languages

[Colgan, Chris]

Richard

You may find that Swedish can be acceptable for the four Scandinavian
countries plus Iceland.

Chris Colgan
EMC  Safety
TAG McLaren Audio Ltd

mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com


 -Original Message-
 From: WOODS, RICHARD [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com]
 Sent: 29 June 1999 18:44
 To:   'emc-pstc'
 Subject:  EU Official Languages
 
 
 When a Directive requires information to be provided to the user, and that
 equipment is intended to marketed in every EU and EFTA country, what
 minimal
 set of languages must be used? I can think of the following languages that
 are used in these countries. Are there more languages that must be
 included?
 Can some of these be deleted?
 
 English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Greek, Dutch,
 Danish,
 Swedish, Finnish, and Norwegian (EFTA)
 
 -
 This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
 To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
 with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the
 quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
 jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
 roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
 
=
Authorised on 06/30/99 at 09:01:55; code 37453441FFF928DE.

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: EU Official Languages

[Scott Douglas]

We had several discussions about this issue. I presented to Engineering and 
Marketing the legal requirements from the directives and let them make the 
choice as to what languages we should actually use. In the end we decided 
to print in five languages - English, French, German, Spanish, Italian as a 
matter of course. Marketing came back with one special request to add 
either Swedish or Finnish, I can't remember which. We don't do any other 
languages. We have had no complaints as to what languages we either have or 
don't have. Except from our documentation people who have to make out the 
purchase requisitions for the translations which are very costly.

Scott
s_doug...@ecrm.com

-Original Message-
From:   wo...@sensormatic.com [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, June 29, 1999 1:44 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:EU Official Languages


When a Directive requires information to be provided to the user, and that
equipment is intended to marketed in every EU and EFTA country, what
minimal
set of languages must be used? I can think of the following languages that
are used in these countries. Are there more languages that must be
included?
Can some of these be deleted?

English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Greek, Dutch,
Danish,
Swedish, Finnish, and Norwegian (EFTA)

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: EU Official Languages

[Dave Wilson]

It should be borne in mind that there may be certain national consumer laws
which require user documentation to be in the national language.

Dave Wilson
EMC Manager
BABT Product Service
-- Original Text --

From: POWELL, DOUG doug.pow...@aei.com, on 6/30/99 9:56 AM:


Richard,

I can only speak from my experience with the LVD and EMC directives.

1) The requirement for CE marked products is that the user documentation and
the DoC be in one of the official languages of the EU.  So, we use English
as one of the languages.

2) That being said, the safety standards my company uses to comply with the
CE mark, require that we provide user documentation in any of the other
official languages if in fact our customer explicitly requires it by
contract.  However this may be a reduced size document containing only those
portions that are specifically related to the safe installation, operation,
maintenance and disposal of the product.  It is not required that you
translate sections like theory of operation, applications, sales literature,
etc.

3) Additionally, when we certify a product through a notified body, in this
case LGA in Nurnberg Germany, the national public safety law requires a
manual in German.  I suspect other nationalities within the EU have similar
requirements for certified products.

This policy has been confirmed by our representative from LGA America.

-doug

===
Douglas E. Powell, Compliance Engineer
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
===


-Original Message-
From: WOODS, RICHARD [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 11:44 AM
To: 'emc-pstc'
Subject: EU Official Languages



When a Directive requires information to be provided to the user, and that
equipment is intended to marketed in every EU and EFTA country, what minimal
set of languages must be used? I can think of the following languages that
are used in these countries. Are there more languages that must be included?
Can some of these be deleted?

English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Greek, Dutch, Danish,
Swedish, Finnish, and Norwegian (EFTA)

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).




-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

EU Official Languages

[WOODS, RICHARD]

When a Directive requires information to be provided to the user, and that
equipment is intended to marketed in every EU and EFTA country, what minimal
set of languages must be used? I can think of the following languages that
are used in these countries. Are there more languages that must be included?
Can some of these be deleted?

English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Greek, Dutch, Danish,
Swedish, Finnish, and Norwegian (EFTA)

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).