Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
was not completely asymptomatic of the lack of improvement
English answer:
was to some extent symptomatic of (= responsible for?) the lack of improvement
- The asker opted for community grading. The question was closed on 2014-12-14 17:54:08 based on peer agreement (or, if there were too few peer comments, asker preference.)
Dec 11, 2014 13:10
9 yrs ago
English term
United Kingdom
reliable interpreting/translation
Native in: Polish 
Works in: English to Polish, Polish to English, English, and 1 more.
was not completely asymptomatic of the lack of improvement
English
Other
Medical (general)
x felt that your second operation was likely to have been the result of an operative complication which required intervention and that this was not completely felt that your second operation was likely to have been the result of an operative complication which required intervention and that this was not completely asymptomatic of the lack of improvement in your functional capacity in your functional capacity
I'm a bit confused about this part "this was not completely asymptomatic of the lack of improvement in your functional capacity in your functional capacity"
I'm a bit confused about this part "this was not completely asymptomatic of the lack of improvement in your functional capacity in your functional capacity"
Responses
+2
30 mins
Selected
was to some extent symptomatic of (= responsible for?) the lack of improvement
You can be forgiven for finding this confusing. There are three problems at least. One is straightforward: if the text you've been given is exactly as you've copied it, there are repetitions which must be errors. It should presumably read:
"x felt that your second operation was likely to have been the result of an operative complication which required intervention and that this was not completely asymptomatic of the lack of improvement in your functional capacity."
The second problem is the double negative of "not completely asymptomatic", which seems to me an unnecessarily elaborate way of putting it. It's rather like the expression "not unrelated to", which some people are fond of. Since "asymptomatic" means "non-symptomatic", "not completely asymptomatic" clearly means "somewhat symptomatic" or "symptomatic to some extent".
So it is saying that the complication requiring a second operation, or the fact that this complication arose, is to some extent symptomatic of the lack of improvement in functional capacity. But here the third problem arises, in my opinion, because to me this doesn't really make sense. It would mean that the complication was indicative of or a sign of the lack of improvement. But common sense would suggest it's the other way round: the lack of improvement in functional capacity is surely observable, and the complication is not a sign or symptom of it but the cause of it. So I would suggest (tentatively, of course) that what they actually mean is "was to some extent responsible for" or "was to some extent the cause of" the lack of improvement.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 36 mins (2014-12-11 13:47:35 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
In practice, B D Finch is probably right; they probably don't mean anything more precise than that the complication had something to do with the lack of improvement. But I think the implication must be that the former caused the latter, and even without the convoluted double negative "symptomatic" is the wrong word.
"x felt that your second operation was likely to have been the result of an operative complication which required intervention and that this was not completely asymptomatic of the lack of improvement in your functional capacity."
The second problem is the double negative of "not completely asymptomatic", which seems to me an unnecessarily elaborate way of putting it. It's rather like the expression "not unrelated to", which some people are fond of. Since "asymptomatic" means "non-symptomatic", "not completely asymptomatic" clearly means "somewhat symptomatic" or "symptomatic to some extent".
So it is saying that the complication requiring a second operation, or the fact that this complication arose, is to some extent symptomatic of the lack of improvement in functional capacity. But here the third problem arises, in my opinion, because to me this doesn't really make sense. It would mean that the complication was indicative of or a sign of the lack of improvement. But common sense would suggest it's the other way round: the lack of improvement in functional capacity is surely observable, and the complication is not a sign or symptom of it but the cause of it. So I would suggest (tentatively, of course) that what they actually mean is "was to some extent responsible for" or "was to some extent the cause of" the lack of improvement.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 36 mins (2014-12-11 13:47:35 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
In practice, B D Finch is probably right; they probably don't mean anything more precise than that the complication had something to do with the lack of improvement. But I think the implication must be that the former caused the latter, and even without the convoluted double negative "symptomatic" is the wrong word.
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Tina Vonhof (X)
46 mins
|
|
Thanks, Tina :)
|
|
| agree |
acetran
19 hrs
|
|
Thanks, acetran :)
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Selected automatically based on peer agreement."
25 mins
had something to do with the lack of improvement ...
Now that I've ploughed through and eliminated those extraneous negatives.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 27 mins (2014-12-11 13:37:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
And misguided use of "asymptomatic" when simple English would do.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 27 mins (2014-12-11 13:37:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
And misguided use of "asymptomatic" when simple English would do.
+1
1 hr
surgery 2 (*presumably*) did not result in complete resolution of symptoms
I read it as:
There was surgery 1 which obviously went badly.
Another surgery was performed ( surgery 2)
Tthen this particular X was asked for his opinion on it ( so I reckon).
He says that it was S2 was the result of S1 ( corrective surgery). And S2 didn't go that well either since the patient did not improve in his functional capacity.
So, for the time being, I read it as: Surgery 1 was the reason for surgery 2, the patient still hasn't recovered 100% after surgery 2.
The main question is what the "this" refers to in the second part of the sentence. Without much context and given the poor author's English, we can only guess...
If you leave out "2" from surgery 2 you can make it neutral enough...
There was surgery 1 which obviously went badly.
Another surgery was performed ( surgery 2)
Tthen this particular X was asked for his opinion on it ( so I reckon).
He says that it was S2 was the result of S1 ( corrective surgery). And S2 didn't go that well either since the patient did not improve in his functional capacity.
So, for the time being, I read it as: Surgery 1 was the reason for surgery 2, the patient still hasn't recovered 100% after surgery 2.
The main question is what the "this" refers to in the second part of the sentence. Without much context and given the poor author's English, we can only guess...
If you leave out "2" from surgery 2 you can make it neutral enough...
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Yvonne Gallagher
: agree with your discussion comment
27 mins
|
|
Thanks, Gallagy!
|
|
| neutral |
B D Finch
: It could mean that the symptoms were a consequence of the surgery.
4 hrs
|
|
Thanks for your input.
|
Discussion