Diving bottle is my mistake. There is no mention of a scuba tank, but yes, what is inside. And yes these are native English speakers.

@Lambie

It was pretty obvious I was not talking about French Canadians in response to your request. Give me a break.

You're playing dumb to hijack the discussion. Now you have the info. Go improve the answer I posted on your behalf and remove your comment if not already done.

@MontréalCité-État No! An English text written by native speakers. Hmm, of course you needed to specify they weren't native Japanise speakers!

Obvious.

C'est encore une ostie de niaiserie où je dois me mettre à genoux pour que la question passe le test de madame sur la qualité de l'anglais. Eff that.

Native speakers de tous pays, unissez-vous ! ;-)

@Lambie *Please go improve...

@Lambie I'm not here to challenge the speakers and lecture them. I have work to do and experts in a field might not be experts at expressing themselves etc. I have to deal with the hand I'm dealt. As do you.

Now these considerations you have, these could easily be part of an answer. This is not a show-stopper.

Intéressant:

invibio.com/en/news/2022/covid-19-statement

Une autre catégorie d'emplois c'est le développement durable. Dans le sens de compatible avec la vie.

Une troisième catégorie d'emplois c'est une nuance dans le domaine médical : «...are not designed for use in medical, life-saving, or life-sustaining applications or for any other application in which the failure of the ICW product could result in personal injury or death. ».

L'emploi dans le lien de invbio c'est quasiment « essentiel ».

Ces exemples montrent qu'on peut utiliser « life-sustaining » de différentes manières, dans différents contextes, et différemment de « life-saving ».

britannica.com/dictionary/life%E2%80%93saving

britannica.com/dictionary/life-sustaining

Il y a assez de matériel pour répondre et même ajouter de nouvelles réponses.

@jlliagre He said: @Lambie I replied that Canadian native speakers wrote this. So, your comment makes little sense: No! An English text written by native speakers. //Now, I have often been confronted by poor English (not translated) written by native English speakers. I don't get why this is so annoying to you. This can only become a guessing game. You aren't helping me help you. You are fighting with me.

Who cares for the reason why I find it annoying or not. You have your info.

It's not the fault of editors or translators that texts they are given are not good or full of oddities. ERGO, before translating or editing, one asks for clarification. This is standard operating procedure for any editor or translator. And there's nothing wrong with it. Why does it bother you so much??

1- English Canadian native speakers.

2- Many contexts and semantics of "life-sustaining".

OK, well, it's still odd. For example, it says MARINE, but wouldn't the product also work for divers in lakes and rivers? In other words, in any aquatic environment?

(what is in the tank) for diving and marine life-sustaining applications.

What more do you want? It's not like the writer can expand a lot on what this means.

The writer is considering applications which are not exactly "diving".

Also, life-sustaining [noun] SURE. But marine life-sustaining applications is quite odd. As marine implies NOT rivers or lakes. Marine implies salt water.

The writer can of course expand a lot on what this means.

Marine has many meanings too.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marine

You are moving the goalpost.

Yes, but in that usage, it implies sea water, not fresh water. So I ask you: only in the sea?? it's IN THE LANGUAGE; marine is either like marine mammals (in salt water) or marine applications like for boats and ships: marine paints.

It is clearly not animals. This is an industrial operating procedure about the product in the tank.

This is obvious.

It's not "marine life".

You could just name the product.

What goes inside a scuba diving tank? Come on.

Right, then it's about boats/ships/submarines and oil platforms. //Why are you denigrating me and playing this game?

??

Denigrating you??

I don't have to disclose what I do, for whom, the entire context. None of it. This is my question.

Minutes after jlliagre asked it was clear what this was about.

It was clear this was written by English native speakers.

It was clear "life-sustaining" need not be "life saving".

It was clear it was never "marine animals/life".

Yes, picking on me: What more do you want? I think I understand, you wrote it and now want to translate it. Clear? marine life-sustaining applications is clear? Well, maybe he can help you. scuba bottles contain air. Is that all this is? Air?

Yet you challenge every single of those points.

No, I challenge this: marine life-sustaining applications. The entire phrase is BAD.

I did not write this.

Again, the only thing you want to do here is lecture people on how English is presented. And most of the time people come up with material which shows you the error of your way. Then you change the subject.

This site is about the finer points of the French language. What is wrong with you?

Well, I can't help you as I don't GET what it means. Your TONE is terrible in that message with It was clear said three times. It's as IF you think I am insulting you or Canadians. I'm not. I'm questioning the text.

You don't get that a product is in the scuba tank?

And that this is used for diving??

NO, I merely want to UNDERSTAND The text. The English comments are only about that.

You think people just open the valve on the tank and fill it with random air and that's it?

The product in a scuba tank is AIR, plus I dunno what. I'd have to CHECK.

No, but I can go look it up.

So go educate yourself, but don't pretend this is not clear because you don't know this.

It is clear.

It still isn't clear at all.

Hahaha.

Frank and None were able to provide answers and get it without all these antics.

Scuba tanks contain oxygen-rich air mix rather oxygen itself.

They even had less info than you do now.

So now you know. Therefore you can now answer or upgrade your answer.

Please make an effort to stop condescending on English speakers who don't speak according to your expectations.

I did not write this because if I did I would know how to translate it.

No, I don't and I will not answer a thing I cannot understand. Why is it plural? Why is it marine? REPEAT: editors and translators often ask for clarifications. They are not responsible for poor writing or ideas that are poorly expressed.

...for diving and marine life-sustaining applications.

Plural because there might be many, or because it applies to diving too i.e. "diving applications".

Marine because it's in the sea, or nautical. Not all diving is in the sea. You can have diving in a deep pool.

But this is all beside the point. One need not become an expert at this to provide a useful translation.

Only you seemingly.

And I, or any asker, has to be the one providing you with all the education required.

This is standard in these professions and your constant sarcasm and meanness do not help. ///Personally, diving and marine-live sustaining MEANS for divers AND to sustain marine life. Maybe they are aerating the seabeds, which IN TURN would help the creatures living there.

It's tiring.

it's marine LIFE-SUSTAINING.

there is a hyphen.

You are willingly wasting my time. In all the years I've known you I told myself I should never engage with you because it always boils down to the same thing. You end up making up stuff and stating things which are completely excluded from the scope, and obviously so.

Good luck then.

Didn't you know that in that case. an application to sustain marine life BECOMES marine life-sustaining??

How can a diving gas sustain marine life??????

I'm done.

to sustain marine life: marine life-sustaining applications, OF COURSE: aeration of seabeds

It's not a diving gas per se: It is part of a mixture used in scuba tanks and canala etc. aeration. That improves the ecology and sustains marine life.

I will check this specific possibility with the writer out of fairness.

If you're right about this, I will provide you with an apology.

@Lambie

Provide an answer on this and if this is the case, I will accept it.

So, I deleted that answer made from your comment. You can provide an answer based on your newfound understanding then.

I'm curious to know. If you're right, I will admit to my mistake, it's no big deal for me. But I will be providing an answer to rectify all this.

No antics needed when you know that in the medical field life-sustaining equipment (alternative life-support equipment) such as ventilators, defibrillators, dialysis machines, ECMO, etc. is translated as matériel (équipement) de maintien des fonctions vitales. maintien des fonctions vitales is sort of a set phrase.

I haven't followed the whole conversation but "sustaining" means "supporting" not "saving"... how the hell could anyone come to that? Beats me.

@guillaume31 voir chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/66557380#66557380

@None cc Lambie a juste créé un doute dans mon esprit, donc je vais vérifier un truc avec l'auteur.

There are several key design challenges that must be overcome in order to develop a viable dual-loop or bailout rebreather. Perhaps foremost among them is the need to maintain proper gas volume and composition in the breathing loop...

not currently in use by the diver. The gas volume must be maintained in a way that compensates for depth changes without adversely impacting buoyancy control, and the gas composition must be continuously monitored and maintained as life-sustaining to ensure that a switch to a secondary loop is safe.

omao.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/…

@None I will tell you this: When I first saw it, I was convinced that it was equipment [or whatever] that sustains marine life. But the OP said it was not that because of the hyphen. Well, I know that there are times when a hyphen works like this in English but everytime I try and say something like that I am shot down and the personal remarks start.

So, maybe if you read the entire preceding discussion None, you'll see I was sort of forced into saying life-saving since the OP said it was NOT x that sustains marine life. Understand?

Finally, marine life-sustaining is not the same as the latest use of it here: gas composition must be continuously monitored and maintained as life-sustaining, which would be something like: pour soutenir la vie.

But I would like to make the following point: translation can be messy and it can take time to suss out meaning in an L1 text. Instead of berating me and trying to put down everything I say, it would be more useful for Montréal Cité-État to engage in a conversation and not be so stentorian.

When I was told it was not "that sustains marine life", it then sounded TO ME as if the text was poorly written when in fact my first instinct was to read it as: that sustains marine life. And I should have just stuck to that even though there really was not sufficient context to understand what was really going on.

@MontréalCité-État encore un exemple de question où le contributeur (toi) a une idée très fermée de ce que doit être une bonne réponse et a du mal à entendre des recommandations et interprétations dissonnantes. C'est vraiment dommage.

@Lambie I wasn't going into technical details about marine life and the type of equipment or how it works. I'm just pretty adamant about "life-sustaining (equipment) being (matériel) de maintien des fonctions vitales, it's a set phrase in French just as it is in English, it is used in medical environment. We would not use soutenir in this context in French.

I've done my share of translating in my time and know one can spend days on a single sentence. But no technical writing.

@None But it is not life-sustaining equipment. It's x [some subtance] that sustains marine life. You can't just throw out the marine like that. Obviously, if it were life-sustaining equipment it would be maintien des fonctions vitales.//MCE stated above that it is a gas added to like scuba tanks. ERGO, the suggestion is that maybe this concoction (same as put in scuba tanks) can be used for aeration applications in the sea (salt water).

@Lambie That's all too technical for me, you've lost me. Even in French I would not know. Not my field at all. I leave it to those who know better.

@guillaume31 Je t'avais mis le lien, je viens de préciser la question avec son contenu. Il y a des trucs que je ne peux présenter et un contexte avec différentes informations que je ne peux partager, c'est tout. J'ai essayé de couper la poire en deux, et j'ai fait une erreur et le résultat est plus ou moins heureux. Tu te plains de quoi déjà ??

Combien de questions as-tu posé, toi, sur notre langue ? Aucune, c'est vraiment dommage.

@Lambie So, it was "life(-)supporting" so you ended up being right about this. On the other hand I posted a link where sustaining is used in such a context.

omao.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/…

The context is basically z275.2 CSA. Similar to this: laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-86-304/…

I've updated the question to reflect some of this. I can confirm this is not related to marine life.

As in animals, wildlife in the sea.

I don't know the specific applications. Maybe a room/compartment underwater connected to some offshore rig and which uses the same type of product to support the life of the people who are there for work.

So at this point, no need to derail this further.

Although I am thankful for you showing me the error of my ways with support/sustain (although I don't suspect this will change much of anything in terms of translation, and I believe because of the link I provided etc. that life-sustaining is also possible in context), I think our discussions show we cannot get along.

This is based on a long-standing history between you and me. I am one who tries to promote women, who has respect for people who have seniority, and who tries to support people coming from diverse backgrounds. So you have no idea how it pains me to not be able to get along with you.

I perceive your behaviour in ways that truly aggravate me. I believe you must have faced difficult and uphill battles to behave in the way I perceive you behave.

For me, things of great import and irrelevant, but things of small import are very important. Not being able to get along with you and make you see the light in terms of contributing other stuff than comments about the English language feels to me like a great failure.

I am really stubborn and have lots of empathy and I have hoped for things to change. But I must come to terms with the fact our differences are irreconcilable.

And therefore I would request we never ever interact again on this network in any way, shape or form.

If you comment on my content for clarification, I may update it to reflect a valid concern. But I will not reply or engage. Ever. Best of luck to you.

Cheers.

The one time where you actually engaged in a conversation or an exchange of views, you decide you want a divorce. That diatribe sounds like une raison pour demander un décret de divorce. pffft. What a waste of my time.