Swedish: shorthand, and omitted punctuation

Gavril

Senior Member
English, USA
I'm looking at a plant inspection report written in Swedish, where the writer makes extensive use of shorthand.

Here's an example (far from the worst) of what I mean:

Avvikelse7 Fel reducering av steriliseringstemperatur hade ställts in i stället för 110.0 grader hade man använt 110.1 grader beslut om att köra om program, program hade körts om.
The writer has omitted basic punctuation here, perhaps assuming that whoever reads it can fill it in as needed.

For example, it's not clear if fel is an adjective here, or a noun meaning "fault"/"error". (In the latter case, it would be followed by a colon or similar if the text had proper punctuation.)

Would you say that, even to Swedish speakers who aren't proficient in this technical field, it would be easy to discern what the writer intends to say in the quoted sentence?

(I.e., could they easily fill in the gaps left by the omitted punctuation, even if they didn't understand all the individual terms used?)

Thanks
 
  • MattiasNYC

    Senior Member
    Swedish
    It's sort of clear to me. "Fel" seems to be an adjective here referring to "reducering", i.e. "Inaccurate reduction of.."

    It obviously looks awful as you've clearly noticed, and I would assume that the text would be reformatted before being 'published' to whomever needs the information within it. Especially with technical documentation I think it's important to get language correct as it otherwise can lead to misinterpretations. To me it basically reads as:

    "Avvikelse 7: Fel reducering av steriliseringstemperatur hade ställts in. I stället för 110.0 grader hade man använt 110.1 grader. Beslut om att köra om program. Program hade körts om."

    That last sentence I would then read as

    "Beslut om att köra om programmet hade fattats och programmet hade körts om."

    or

    "Beslut om att köra om programmet fattades och programmet kördes om."

    Come to think of it, without further context that last sentence is then a bit ambiguous. I would either take it to mean that there was a decision to rerun the program, the program was rerun, and the resulting deviation was encountered due to the error - OR - that the error was noticed first and that as a result of that the decision to rerun was made after which the program was rerun. I'd say that seeing that this sentence is last it may represent the 'solution' to the problem, i.e. rerunning the program due to the error. But I'm not convinced that is entirely clear.
     

    Wilma_Sweden

    Senior Member
    Swedish (Scania)
    I'm looking at a plant inspection report written in Swedish, where the writer makes extensive use of shorthand.

    Here's an example (far from the worst) of what I mean:

    The writer has omitted basic punctuation here, perhaps assuming that whoever reads it can fill it in as needed.

    For example, it's not clear if fel is an adjective here, or a noun meaning "fault"/"error". (In the latter case, it would be followed by a colon or similar if the text had proper punctuation.)

    Would you say that, even to Swedish speakers who aren't proficient in this technical field, it would be easy to discern what the writer intends to say in the quoted sentence?

    (I.e., could they easily fill in the gaps left by the omitted punctuation, even if they didn't understand all the individual terms used?)

    Thanks
    Avvikelse7 Fel reducering av steriliseringstemperatur hade ställts in i stället för 110.0 grader hade man använt 110.1 grader beslut om att köra om program, program hade körts om.

    Hehe, I have to clean up this sort of writing by my boss every day - no punctuation and plenty of typos. He also often writes '7' instead of '/' - these characters share the same key on the Swedish keyboard layout and consequently an '/' becomes a '7' if you're too lazy to hit the Shift key! I find this pretty straightforward even without technical knowledge as the context reveals the meaning of 'Fel' : they had set the reduction of sterilisation temperature to the wrong value, instead of 110.0 degrees they had set 110.1 degrees. [A] decision to re-run the programme was made, and the programme was re-run.

    "Avvikelse/[insert LF or :] Fel reducering av steriliseringstemperatur hade ställts in. I stället för 110.0 grader hade man använt 110.1 grader. Beslut [fattades/togs] om att köra om program. Program hade körts om."

    It still follows the standard format for anomaly reports (avvikelserapport): What happened? What caused it? What was done to rectify it?

    In Swedish healthcare the anomaly reports have a fourth question: What has been done to prevent it from happening again? Whenever there is a mishap in healthcare that could endanger the health or life of a patient, an anomaly report is mandatory, and a full investigation is carried out to answer the four above questions. Also of course action to prevent it from happening again must be taken by the erring party (i.e. any kind of healthcare provider).
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top