unique vs. no analogs

[Jack8rkin]

Hello!

Is it possible to say "the XYZs have no analogs in the world"? (XYZ being e.g. a piece of equipment; in my particular case these are "catcher bearings").
Does it sound too Russian structure wise?
Should it not be better to say "XYZs are unique in the world"?

What do you say on that?

Thanx

 

[Munch]

Hello!

Is it possible to say "the XYZs have no analogs in the world"? (XYZ being e.g. a piece of equipment; in my particular case these are "catcher bearings").
Does it sound too Russian structure wise?
Should it not be better to say "XYZs are unique in the world"?

What do you say on that?

Thanx

Hi,

Firstly, you don't need to say "in the world" in either phrase.

If you want to say that these catcher bearings are unlike any other catcher bearings, I think it would be better to use the word "unique". "No analog" would mean you can't make an analogy between these bearings and any other object.

But, if you want to say that these catcher bearings perform a function unlike any other object in any other system, you could say they have no analog. Literally, no analogy can made regarding your catcher bearings.

It may be better to rephrase entirely though. From a little googling, Russians do seem to like the phrase "no analog in the world".

 

[Jack8rkin]

Thanks for your opinion.
Yeah, this is a direct translation of a Russian phrase that is quite often used to say that the piece of equipment is a new one and nobody else has developed anything of the sort with the matching characterisitics. I suspected "no analogs" might sound cheesy in English.

Anyway, why should not I use "in the world"? Could not they be unique in/for Russia, for example?

 

[Munch]

Thanks for your opinion.
Yeah, this is a direct translation of a Russian phrase that is quite often used to say that the piece of equipment is a new one and nobody else has developed anything of the sort with the matching characterisitics. I suspected "no analogs" might sound cheesy in English.

Anyway, why should not I use "in the world"? Could not they be unique in/for Russia, for example?

That is a good point but I think "in the world" is assumed. If they are only unique to Russia, then you should qualify the statement.

 

[Jack8rkin]

How about "no counterparts in the world"? (Just found it on an American site)

 

[Munch]

How about "no counterparts in the world"? (Just found it on an American site)

Again, googling that phrase, I get mainly Russian writers of English which is interesting. I think that phrase has a meaning similar to "no analog" in that it says that nothing else performs the same role.

In any case, it is quite clear what you are trying to say. The phrasing may be unusual but it is not ambiguous to me.

If I can offer a suggestion, it would be something like, "XYZ are unlike any other catcher bearings because..." and explain why they are unique / have no analog / have no counterparts.

 

[Jack8rkin]

Thanks a lot for help!
I wish I were an author of the text. I could express it in this or that way or use proper English structures. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I'm an interpreter/translator, and here I'm restricted with the sentence frames. The author tried to explain what so special is about these XYZs throughout the entire PowerPoint presentation. In conclusions he wanted to summarize that his XYZs are unmatched in the world - it's a short summarizing phrase in the last viewgraph.

I guess that English speaking people when listen to Russians speaking English get the general sence but wonder why such odd or weird structures are used to express such a simple idea.

 

[Munch]

You are in a difficult situation that I am familiar with. Often foreign friends or colleagues have asked me to translate a phrase into English with ridiculous limitations, when it is really better to rephrase entirely.

Anyway, "XYZs are unmatched in the world" is fine too.