I can’t think of a clear way to do this without recasting the sentence to introduce some reference to the actual value, whatever it might be.
"[The actual value] should neither rise above nor fall below the limit values."
"[The actual value] should not be permitted to rise above or fall below the limit values."
Or, more simply:
"[The actual value] should not [or never] fall outside the limit values."
That was my conclusion, too. I was hoping there was another solution, since I’m translating a handbook and wanted to stick to the original German.
German can be frustratingly passive at times and often sentences have to be recast by adding a subject. That’s OK in this case, because the subject clearly is "the value". It’s more difficult when it is not apparent from the context what the subject is.
I also see you changed my "may" to "should". I’m still having difficulty with that. "Should not" sounds to me like the value ought to but doesn’t have to stay within the limit. "May not" sounds like the value is forbidden from falling outside of the limit, similar to "You may not go out tonight because you didn’t clean the house".
"[The actual value] should not [or never] fall outside of the limit values."
I like this one the best. I personally would put in an of here, but I once heard that is a stylistic difference between BE and AE.
[quote author=ilka link=board=what;num=1041118821;start=0#2 date=12/29/02 at 02:55:37]I also see you changed my "may" to "should".
Didn’t notice myself doing that, sorry. It may be that I have misunderstood the sense of your sentence.
If you are sending the message that it’s impossible for the actual value to fall outwith the limit values (because of the nature of the machine or software you’re describing), I’d use cannot. But if the idea is that a bad thing will happen if the actual value is permitted, by the user, to fall outwith the limit values, I’d use should not or ought not to. The problem (in my dialect of English, at least) with may not is that it has both an absolute sense and a conditional sense that can only be deduced from context:
You may not go out tonight because you didn’t clean the house I may not go out tonight ... but, then again, I might.
In the phrase you give, there’s no context to clue me in to which usage of may not is intended, which I think is why I unconsciously changed the word to convey the meaning I assumed was intended.
[quote author=ilka link=board=what;num=1041118821;start=0#2 date=12/29/02 at 02:55:37]I like this one the best. I personally would put in an of here, but I once heard that is a stylistic difference between BE and AE.
I think you’re right - the phrase now looks American to me with your change.
[quote author=granthutchison link=board=what;num=1041118821;start=0#3 date=12/29/02 at 11:09:44]But if the idea is that a bad thing will happen if the actual value is permitted, by the user, to fall outwith the limit values, I’d use should not or ought not to. The problem (in my dialect of English, at least) with may not is that it has both an absolute sense and a conditional sense that can only be deduced from context.
Grant, you changed the sentence to the sense it was intended to have. If the actual value falls outside of the limit values, an error message comes up. Therefore, the actual value should remain within the limit.
I see what you mean that may not is ambiguous. It is for me, too. But should not is not a perfect solution, either. The German word is dürfen, "to be permitted to".
Now WHAT is outwith? The first time you used it I thought it was a typo. Then it came up again!
[quote author=ilka link=board=what;num=1041118821;start=0#5 date=12/29/02 at 11:59:53]Fall below is good, but it doesn’t get me around having to name the thing that actually falls below, because I can’t write:
The limit values may not be exceeded or fallen below.
*wrinkling nose*
You can’t write that? I did understand it, even if it’s not grammatically ideal.
Also, how about must not? That sounds like something bad will happen if they are exceeded or fallen below.
[quote author=ilka link=board=what;num=1041118821;start=0#6 date=12/29/02 at 12:05:17]Now WHAT is outwith? The first time you used it I thought it was a typo. Then it came up again!
It just means "outside of".
It’s unfortunate that without has taken on two meanings: "outside of" and "completely lacking in". Outwith is a fine old word that’s certainly still in everyday use in Northern England and Scotland, and it solves the problem - we tend to use outwith for "outside of" and without exclusively for "completely lacking in". It’s such common usage for me that I used it unconsciously - probably not an ideal choice for you if no-one else understands it, though!
Anyone out there encountered outwith before?
I’ve never heard it, though I appreciate the distinction.
So, without originally meant "with-not?"
And outwith, "out-of?"
Funny, it seems that with and out have two different senses here. Could you explain the distinction? (And, if so, would you please? (I remember you’re a man.))
[quote author=tamisaac link=board=what;num=1041118821;start=0#9 date=12/29/02 at 12:21:04]So, without originally meant "with-not"
No, without was originally the opposite of within, but has also taken on the confusing role of the opposite of with.
As a separate but closely related etymological strand there is outwith, the opposite of inwith, which have identical meanings to the first usage of without and its opposite within. In my part of the world inwith has died out in competition with within, but outwith has flourished to preserve the original meaning of without.
[quote author=granthutchison link=board=what;num=1041118821;start=0#8 date=12/29/02 at 12:17:14]... probably not an ideal choice for you if no-one else understands it, though!
I’d run the risk of being accused of writing "funny English" again, as a Japanese salesman of ours once said!
[quote author=ilka link=board=what;num=1041118821;start=0#13 date=12/29/02 at 18:57:21]Oh, thanks. I’ll save up your congratulations till my birthday in July, though. What change did you see?
Ilka
I had been certain your age was 38. From this thread, however, I’m seeing my memory is not to be trusted. :-[
Funny, when I looked at it to check what had changed, it struck me that it said 39 (which is correct) although for some reason I thought it had always said 38. Anyway, the date stored in the profile is correct. The years go by so fast I sometimes have to pause a moment to consider what year I’m in now (so much for the number lines in my head!)
