French term
United Kingdom
Sworn translator. Master's in Law. DPSI
Native in: Spanish 
, English
Works in: Spanish to English, English to Spanish, French to English, and 1 more.
plus
"d’autant plus que le rythme de l’innovation y est dicté par la multitude et plus par les entreprises de l’amont"
I'm not entirely sure of what the second "plus" means. I guess it means "all the more so because the pace of innovation is now dictated by the masses instead of companies upstream in the value chain" but I'm not 100% sure.
How would you translate this?
Thanks in advance!
| 5 +9 | no longer |
Vic Ward
|
| 4 | even more so given that |
Daryo
|
Jun 7, 2014 10:58: writeaway changed "Field (specific)" from "Business/Commerce (general)" to "General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters"
Jun 7, 2014 18:01: Jessica Noyes changed "Term asked" from "plus (in this context)" to "plus"
Non-PRO (1): Michele Fauble
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Proposed translations
no longer
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2014-06-07 12:38:26 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
My (French) wife and I have read the whole paragraph and we remain sure it means 'no longer', as any other interpretation would make no sense. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, when you eliminate the impossible, then whatever is left, no mater how improbable, is the answer.
| agree |
Daryo
24 mins
|
| agree |
Kirsten Bodart
39 mins
|
| agree |
philgoddard
1 hr
|
| agree |
Marc Quantin
1 hr
|
| agree |
C. Tougas
2 hrs
|
| agree |
patrickfor
: Yes. I can't see any other meaning making sense. "not anymore" could do I think...
2 hrs
|
| agree |
Bertrand Leduc
9 hrs
|
| agree |
Tony M
: Yes, it is now being dictated by X, and no longer by Y.
1 day 6 hrs
|
| agree |
Michele Fauble
2 days 19 hrs
|
even more so given that
..., even more so given that its (=> "y est")[...] is driven by [...] and no longuer by [...]
Discussion
- La faiblesse d’une stratégie de repli sur l’amont de la chaîne (pour y conquérir une position dominante) est sa vulnérabilité aux innovations de rupture qui, régulièrement, surviennent en aval de la chaîne de valeur.
- Le rythme de l’innovation est dicté par la multitude et plus par les entreprises de l’amont.
- Certaines entreprises de l’aval peuvent être confrontées à la tentation de l’intégration verticale (par acquisition ou par croissance organique) pour remonter progressivement la chaîne de valeur afin de se libérer du pouvoir de marché des entreprises de l’amont.
And this is certainly not the transcription of a speech (which makes it even more confusing). It's full of citations and references, plus is structured into chapters, with the source text being around 30K words.
I agree this is not a nice piece of French at all. The more complete extract does help though. I share Patrick's reservations, although we do now have the advantage of seeing what precedes and what follows. The author has gone overboard with his use of amont/aval. It seems more reasonable to suppose that there is a negative structure missing, common enough in spoken French. Further evidence, as if more were needed, of a truly sloppy writing style.
If this were my job, I'd contact the client to be absolutely sure. Otherwise, breaking the text down into three more digestible chunks gives it more coherence. You might try that on a bit of scrap screen somewhere. ;-)
To be fair, I've encountered much worse. I especially dislike texts full of buzzwords like "mise en valeur" and "patrimoine" (which are becoming quite common in French marketing-speak).
La faiblesse d’une stratégie de repli sur l’amont de la chaîne, pour y conquérir une position dominante, est sa vulnérabilité aux innovations de rupture qui, régulièrement, surviennent en aval de la chaîne de valeur – d’autant plus que le rythme de l’innovation y est dicté par la multitude et plus par les entreprises de l’amont: certaines entreprises de l’aval peuvent être confrontées à la tentation de l’intégration verticale et, soit par acquisition, soit par croissance organique, remonter progressivement la chaîne de valeur pour se libérer du pouvoir de marché des entreprises de l’amont.
Cette phrase n'est pas claire en français... Comment pouvez-vous en tirer des conclusions ?
"le rythme de l’innovation y est dicté par la multitude" ??? Mais la multitude de quoi ? Comment peut-on être sûr de savoir de QUOI on parle ???
Multitude des fournisseurs ? des demandes ? des clients ?
"et plus par les entreprises de l’amont"
Here from the context it looks like the meaning is "not anymore" but what if the following words were "et plus par les entreprises de l’amont que par celles de l'aval"
then the meaning would be exactly the opposite !
So quite honestly giving a translation here is like betting... and I won't
assuming this product is not meant for the B2B market, start-ups have definitely "the masses" in mind, so it would validate the "et non plus" reading od this text.
Also, as I said, the source isn't all that clear (the tone is persuasive and a bit 'all over the place').
It may say that "consumer demand drives innovation in the industry" in one paragraph and then, three pages down, it may say "start-ups with ground-breaking ideas set the gears of corporate innovation in motion".
You have the whole ST available - you can see which variant agrees with the rest.
Also, linguistics apart, "et plus" = "et non plus" makes far more real life sense. Innovation is pointless if potential end-users are not interested, whatever might be the wishes of "upstream companies".
More context doesn't really help as it keeps going back and forth about how a company can adapt to innovation demanded by consumers or innovate to stay on top of by adapting to the needs of companies upstream in the value chain.
However, I couldn't find a single instance where it clearly states that "consumers are now in control of innovation" or "upstream companies have more control over innovation than consumers" or anything of the like.
"d’autant plus que"