dubbing of

[navi tasan]

Which of theses sentences are correct:
1-"The only times I heard French slang, it was the dubbing of English fillms."
2-"The only times I heard French slang, it was dubbing of English films."
3-"The only times I heard French slang, it was in the dubbing of English films."
4-"The only times I heard French slang, it was in dubbing of English films."
Which of these sentences imply, or could imply:
a- that I was doing the dubbing
and which imply:
b- that it was in the dubbed version that I heard French slang?

[Red5]

Which of theses sentences are correct:
1-"The only times I heard French slang, it was the dubbing of English fillms."
2-"The only times I heard French slang, it was dubbing of English films."
3-"The only times I heard French slang, it was in the dubbing of English films."
4-"The only times I heard French slang, it was in dubbing of English films."
Which of these sentences imply, or could imply:
a- that I was doing the dubbing
and which imply:
b- that it was in the dubbed version that I heard French slang?

Personally, I prefer #3: "The only times I heard French slang, it was in the dubbing of English films."

I'm not sure that any of them imply that you were doing the dubbing. One variation could be "The only times I heard French slang, it was whilst I was dubbing English films."

Also, I would use I've in the first half... "The only times I've heard French slang,..."

[Anonymous]

Which of theses sentences are correct:
1-"The only times I heard French slang, it was the dubbing of English fillms."
2-"The only times I heard French slang, it was dubbing of English films."
3-"The only times I heard French slang, it was in the dubbing of English films."
4-"The only times I heard French slang, it was in dubbing of English films."
Which of these sentences imply, or could imply:
a- that I was doing the dubbing
and which imply:
b- that it was in the dubbed version that I heard French slang?

I would not use "it" because if you do, there is a double subject. The noun phrase "The only times" is already the subject. We can't have another subject. If we use "it" in that sentence, we end up with 2 subjects.

Here's what I mean: The only times were during the dubbing of English films. In order to illustrate what I mean I have omitted the dependent clause "that I heard French slang".

I would use "during" in this sentence.

The only times I heard French slang were during the dubbing of English films.

Change "was" to "were". The simple subject "times" is plural. We need a plural verb here. If you wrote "time" instead of "times" we could use "was".

The only time I heard French slang was during the dubbing of English films.

Also, I would consider using the word "ever" in this sentence. I'd say "ever" seems to make the sentence sound more natural and smoother.

The only times I ever heard French slang were during the dubbing of English films.


Now that we are using "ever", I'd say it is a good idea to switch from the simple past to the present perfect.

The only times I've ever heard French slang were during the dubbing of English films.

Even though there was more than one time that you heard French slang, I would prefer that "times" be made singular.

The only time I've ever heard French slang was during the dubbing of English films.

It could be tacitly understood that there was or is more than one time that you heard French slang. I'd say that because the object of the prepositional phrase is plural, this is implied in a strong way.

"during the dubbing of English films"

[Anonymous]

Which of theses sentences are correct:
1-"The only times I heard French slang, it was the dubbing of English fillms."
2-"The only times I heard French slang, it was dubbing of English films."
3-"The only times I heard French slang, it was in the dubbing of English films."
4-"The only times I heard French slang, it was in dubbing of English films."
Which of these sentences imply, or could imply:
a- that I was doing the dubbing
and which imply:
b- that it was in the dubbed version that I heard French slang?

Which of these sentences imply, or could imply:
a- that I was doing the dubbing <<

I don't think that any of these 4 sentences could imply that you were doing the dubbing. If you want to imply or state that, I would write the sentence as follows: The only time I've ever heard French slang was when I participated in the dubbing of English films.

This sentence really states that you were in some way doing the dubbing. I can't really think of a way to simply imply that you were doing the dubbing.

You could also say: The only time I've ever heard French slang was when I was dubbing English films.

Once again, this states that you were dubbing English films. I can't think of writing it in such a way as to only imply that you were doing the dubbing. I'd say you either were doing the dubbing or you were not. Why would you need to only imply this? Do you know what I mean?

...........................
and which imply:
b- that it was in the dubbed version that I heard French slang? <<

Once again, I don't think any of these statements "imply" that it was in the dubbed version that you heard French slang. I'd say the statement acknowledges that you heard French slang in the dubbed version as a fact and that it is not implied, but openly stated. It also so happens that these times were the only times that you have ever heard French slang.

[navi tasan]

Thanks for your replies. This time I sort of got answers I did not expect.
Do you think that my sentence #2 could be considered correct at all?
"The only times I heard French slang, it was dubbing of English films."

[Red5]

Thanks for your replies. This time I sort of got answers I did not expect.
Do you think that my sentence #2 could be considered correct at all?
"The only times I heard French slang, it was dubbing of English films."

The problem I have with this is that it sounds like the slang was doing the dubbing! The subject that the it refers to is ambiguous to my mind, which is why I would use something like "...it was whilst I was dubbing English films."

[navi tasan]

Thanks!

[mediamovers]

Dubbing/Subtitling

Dubbing/Subtitling are integral part of cultural transfer between all countries.
Though the debate is always between preference of dubbing or subtitling each of it requires high level of artistic/technical input to ensure the final output is more local in every sense.

Dubbing brings more life to characters of a film than subtitles though a bad dubbed film can be a nightmare.
Most Scandivian countries prefer subtitling over dubbing but now it is most preferred also for Deaf community.Same language subtitling(SLS) is one of essential way to educate people.

Lawrence Vishnu
CEO
Media Movers, Inc.
Dubbing.Subtitling.Voice-over