Rachel Douglas Oct 25, 2012:

Re: "just a set of words" 1) I believe that proposed translations and glossary entries should be "sets of words" in fluent, idiomatic English appropriate to the "set of words" they are proposed to translate, and that "negative cash flow balance cover[ing]" isn't. I already indicated the relevant pattern of this common, but still grating problem, namely the piling on of nouns instead of using of more idiomatic constructions.

2) My comment did not suggest some problem with adding the concept of "need" or "requirement" (regardless of financial modelling or who might be going it, about which the given phrase neither tells us nor implies anything); I myself added "would be required". Rather, I said that I saw a problem with the ABSENCE, in your version, of "amount" (also known as "what", in my version) in association with that requirement.

Oleg Lozinskiy Oct 25, 2012:

To: Rachel Thank you for your reply. My entry was just a set of words that imho would work in this context to be, possibly, included in the glossary.

As to my insertion of the "need" OR "requirement" into the variant of translation of a particular sentence related, imho, to a FINANCIAL MODEL of a project or an operating company, the "need" would be used if such a model is being developed by a project team on its own initiative, while the "requirement" - if such a model is being developed as a response to an RFP to become part of tender documentation. Your suggestion, imho, does not cover the first possibility.

Rachel Douglas Oct 25, 2012:

In reply 1) My suggestion and comment were made under the strong impression of your entry "negative cash flow balance cover[ing]". I didn't pay close attention to the other version, which was in your later note.

2) But, now that you mention it: there's an obvious difference between "based on the need/requirement to cover" (which would mean basing a size calculation/estimate merely on the fact that a need/requirement exists, and that's something rather difficult to do) and "based on what would be required to cover..." (in which "what would be required" brings in the idea of calculating a specific amount).

Oleg Lozinskiy Oct 25, 2012:

To: Rachel Thank you for your most valuable comment. I always try to follow the same approach. Now could you, please, tell me what is the substantial difference between my "...was calculated [estimated] based on the need [requirement] to cover the negative cash flow balance during the first 6 months of project implementation (слова в квадратных скобках - в зависимости от контекста)" suggested at 19 minutes after the question had been posted and yours "[based on] what would be required to cover the negative cash flow balance" suggested at 5 hours thereafter. Truly yours.