Good English or Bad English?

[Judge Brybe]

Last week RSPP, the State Duma and the Ministry of Public Health were turned into platforms for public debate over the draft law on circulation of medicines, already dubbed ‘the law of the decade’. Comments ranged from highly negative to ones praising the document as a ‘high-quality’ one. The Duma vowed to conduct parliamentary proceedings prior to second reading of the amended draft law.
The draft law on circulation of medicines, emanating from the Public Health Ministry, is supposed to enter into force on September 1, 2010 replacing the obsolescent 1998 federal law on medicines. Already passed on first reading by the Duma on January 29, the document came under severe criticism from manufacturers of pharmaceuticals. Everybody agrees that the current law was ripe for revision, and yet the leitmotif of the RSPP discussion was that the draft law was ‘impossible to enact in its present stage’. The Association of the Russian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers (ARPM) pointed to its lack of harmonization with international regulations and called for a more elaborate conceptual framework of the document. For example, the procedure for determination of price ceiling for essential drug list pharmaceuticals uses the notion of ‘innovative drug’ which is somehow absent from the draft law. According to ARPM head Viktor Dmitriyev, the draft law gives no clear vision of the officials’ and government agencies’ responsibility for decisions taken in the market. ‘Signing the bill into a law in its current state will turn the clock back 5-7 years on the whole industry’, said Executive director of the Association of International Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Vladimir Shipkov, adding that the provision demanding mandatory design measures for clinical trial of drugs already proven safe and effective abroad would simply result in soaring drug prices besides adding 3-7 years to the new drug registration process in Russia. Co-chairman of the Russian Patient League Alexander Saversky voiced concern that the draft law makes no mention of patients. The draft law violates the doctor’s and patient’s right to choose therapy, Saversky said. The Federal Antimonopoly Service called the draft law ‘outright weak’. According to Head of FAS Department for Protection of Competition in the Social Sphere and Trade Timofey Nizhegorodtsev, separating registration from trial procedures may result in losing control over drug quality altogether.

Collocations, grammar, style, everything. Thanks a million. Brybe.

[Gillnetter]

Last week RSPP {first identify who or what RSPP is}, the State Duma and the Ministry of Public Health were turned into platforms for public debate over the draft law on circulation of medicines, already dubbed ‘the law of the decade’. Comments ranged from highly negative {either - "the highly negative" or "highly negative ones"}to ones praising the document as a ‘high-quality’ one. The Duma vowed to conduct parliamentary proceedings prior to the second reading of the amended draft law.

The draft law on circulation of medicines, emanating from the Public Health Ministry, is supposed to enter into force on September 1, 2010 replacing the obsolescent 1998 federal law on medicines. Already passed on first reading by the Duma on January 29, the document came under severe criticism from manufacturers of pharmaceuticals. Everybody agrees that the current law was ripe for revision, and yet the leitmotif {this word is usually associated with musical themes} of the RSPP discussion was that the draft law was ‘impossible to enact in its present stage’. The Association of the Russian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers (ARPM) pointed to its lack of harmonization with international regulations and called for a more elaborate conceptual framework of the document. For example, the procedure for the determination of price ceilings for the essential drug list pharmaceuticals uses the notion of ‘innovative drug’ which is somehow absent from the draft law. According to ARPM head, Viktor Dmitriyev, the draft law gives no clear vision of the officials’ and government agencies’ responsibility for decisions taken in the market. ‘Signing the bill into a law in its current state will turn the clock back 5-7 years on the whole industry’, said Executive director of the Association of International Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, Vladimir Shipkov, adding that the provision demanding mandatory design measures for the clinical trial of drugs already proven safe and effective abroad would simply result in soaring drug prices besides adding 3-7 years to the new drug registration process in Russia. Co-chairman of the Russian Patient League, Alexander Saversky, voiced concern that the draft law makes no mention of patients. The draft law violates the doctor’s and patient’s right to choose therapy, Saversky said. The Federal Antimonopoly Service called the draft law ‘outright weak’. According to the head of the FAS Department for Protection of Competition in the Social Sphere and Trade, Timofey Nizhegorodtsev, separating registration from trial procedures may result in losing control over drug quality altogether.

Collocations, grammar, style, everything. Thanks a million. Brybe.

Nicely written. Good structure. The text flows well and is easy to read. You might want to review the rules for countable and uncountable nouns. For example, it is not "According to head of FAS...", it should be, "According to the head of the FAS..."

[Judge Brybe]

Nicely written.

First of all, allow me to thank you once again for your time and good advice. I must confess the text isn't mine. I only did the translating. May I just trespass once more upon your time a bit?

... it should be, "According to the head of the FAS..."

You don't always put the article before the 'U.S.', do you? Although you do say it. The reason why I ommitted the article before 'FAS' is, I was following the 'no article - U.S.' pattern. Is that wrong? What is the rule? Do you always/preferably type 'the' before acronyms?

{first identify who or what RSPP is}

Stupid me. It stands for the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (Rossiyskiy Soyuz Promyshlennikov i Predprinimateley).

prior to the second reading

Then this part - Already passed on first reading - must be incorrect as well?

leitmotif {this word is usually associated with musical themes}

Oh yes it is, that's why I like it

the procedure for the determination of price ceilings ...

I don't understand why 'the determination', honestly.

Thanks again, I'm the only one at the office who has some English and there's absolutely no one to turn to for constructive criticism. Special thanks for the punctuation, mine is a disaster. Is the translation stylistically uniform, more or less?

[Gillnetter]

First of all, allow me to thank you once again for your time and good advice. I must confess the text isn't mine. I only did the translating. May I just trespass once more upon your time a bit?
You don't always put the article before the 'U.S.', do you? Although you do say it. The reason why I ommitted the article before 'FAS' is, I was following the 'no article - U.S.' pattern. Is that wrong? What is the rule? Do you always/preferably type 'the' before acronyms?
{The rule has nothing to do with acronyms.}

I went to the U.S.
A “the” is required here because the U.S. is composed of specific states – they are countable. Countable nouns are things that we can count. Take horses for example, we can count horses. We can have one, two, three or more horses. Here are some more countable nouns: bottle, man, animal, person, coin, and contract.

I went to Russia.
A “the” is not required here because “Russia” is an uncountable noun. It is the same as saying – “I went to Alaska”. Uncountable nouns are substances, concepts, etc, that cannot be divided into separate elements. They cannot be counted. For example, we cannot count "water". We can count "glasses of water" or "quarts of water", but we cannot count "water" itself. Russia and Alaska fall into this category – Russia and Alaska cannot be divided into separate parts.

But…if you wrote, “I went to the major cities of Russia”, a “the” would have to be included because the major cities of Russia are countable.

I went to the cities of Alabama (countable because the cities in Alabama can be counted)
I went to cities in Alabama (uncountable because I don’t know how many cities you went to in Alabama) }

Stupid me. It stands for the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (Rossiyskiy Soyuz Promyshlennikov i Predprinimateley).

Then this part - Already passed on first reading - must be incorrect as well?

Oh yes it is, that's why I like it

I don't understand why 'the determination', honestly.

{The procedure for the determination of price ceilings requires the article “the” because it is a specific determination – determination is a countable noun (i.e there was one determination made).

More examples – I went to heaven (heaven is an uncountable noun)
I went to the heaven of my people – (here heaven is countable because it is a specific heaven – the heaven of my people)

I want a glass of water (any water is fine – uncountable noun)
I want a glass of the blue water (I just want the blue water - specific and countable)}

Thanks again, I'm the only one at the office who has some English and there's absolutely no one to turn to for constructive criticism. Special thanks for the punctuation, mine is a disaster. Is the translation stylistically uniform, more or less?

I hope this makes sense to you. It is a bit confusing. The translation is fine and flows well.

[Judge Brybe]

I hope this makes sense to you. It is a bit confusing.

Not at all. I'm well aware of the rule concerning the use of the definite article with compound toponyms (Russia - THE Russian Federation etc.). My question was more specific. Do you always type the definite article with acronyms for names that require the def. article or do you ommit it in writing on and off?

By the way, what about the following intricate instances of ommitted articles?
Abbas said that he expected U.S. Middle East special envoy George Mitchell to get back to him with further clarification about the talks a week from now. <...>
U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis C. Blair told the House intelligence committee last week that. (These come from today's issue of the Washington Post, not from headlines)

Thanks for your time and help.
Brybe

[RonBee]

Possibly:
.

Comments ranged from highly negative to highly positive.

.
The essay needs to be made of two or maybe three paragraphs.

[Judge Brybe]

to highly positive.

Ah, yes, thank you. But that's not what's in the original.

The essay needs to be made of two or maybe three paragraphs.

This is not an essay. This is a fragment of a newspaper article translated by me for our organization's website. I'll try and reach the author on the phone. He'll probably tell me to get lost, but what do I lose?

[RonBee]

Gilnetter's suggestion ("ones...ones") and my suggestion do the same thing. I just used fewer words. G's reposting made it into two paragraphs. I suggested that one more might be possible. (It doesn't matter what you call it.)

[Judge Brybe]

I suggested that one more might be possible. (It doesn't matter what you call it.)

Of course it doesn't. I'm not a lover of lengthy paragraphs myself. But as the text is not originally mine, I suppose I shouldn't take liberties with it.
Muchas gracias, gospoda! You're lifesavers!
Yours, Sincerella (Brybe)

[Gillnetter]

Not at all. I'm well aware of the rule concerning the use of the definite article with compound toponyms (Russia - THE Russian Federation etc.). My question was more specific. Do you always type the definite article with acronyms for names that require the def. article or do you ommit it in writing on and off?

By the way, what about the following intricate instances of ommitted articles?
Abbas said that he expected U.S. Middle East special envoy George Mitchell to get back to him with further clarification about the talks a week from now. <...>
U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis C. Blair told the House intelligence committee last week that. (These come from today's issue of the Washington Post, not from headlines)

Thanks for your time and help.
Brybe

I understand your confusion. The articles you cite are written in what is called either telegraphic or newspaper style. When telegrams were the fastest means of communication, people learned to write in a shorter style so as to not to spend so much money for the telegram. Newspapers used this shorter style of writing as it brought more attention to their articles and it cost less to print.

If you are writing in a formal style, you should include the correct articles in a sentence.

Most newspapers, as well as radio and television stations, have style guides that instruct their employees as what is and what is not acceptable. In an effort to save time and money, many of these guides will allow language usage that is not acceptable in more formal settings.

Which style you decide to use is largely dependent on whom you perceive your audience to be. If you are writing to an educated audience it may be preferable to only write in a formal style. If your audience is less educated, or if you desire to write shorter passages, you may elect to use an informal style.

Consider these examples –

Local Cops Nab Gang Members
The Los Angles police department arrested some people who were members of an organized crime syndicate

Chicago DA caught in raid by cops
The Chicago District Attorney was arrested by members of the local police department while the police were conducting an investigation of illegal providers of alcohol.