# A questo punto



## Parergon

_Contesto: in un lungo scritto formale. Obiettivo: introdurre un nuovo argomento_

A questo punto,

my attempts

At this point,
At this stage, 
Now, 


Esistono formule diverse per esprimere questo concetto?


----------



## Siberia

Depending on what went on before there are various ways of introducing new points:
On the contrary, on the other hand, With regards to, Furthermore, - there may actually be a thread on link words.



Here is the link: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=296914&highlight=linkers


----------



## TimLA

Parergon said:


> _Contesto: in un lungo scritto formale. Obiettivo: introdurre un nuovo argomento_
> A questo punto,
> my attempts
> 
> At this point,
> At this stage,
> Now,
> Esistono formule diverse per esprimere questo concetto?


 
Tutte e tre vanno bene...ma ci sono altre, e dipendano dal contesto...

With respect to...
To further elaborate...
But this raises a new issue...
But this raises a new issue in terms of...

Ci puoi dare un pocco del resto della frase?


----------



## Parergon

Certamente:

(frase precedente)
One of the most interesting academic disputes took place in the pages of the Strategic Management Journal during 1990 and 1991 (Mintzberg 1990, 1991; Ansoff, 1991). In a first article Mintzberg (1990) strongly criticised the design school. This approach sees the strategic formation as a process of conception, rational and fully deliberate. In their eyes, firms should take decisions in order to achieve an essential fit between external circumstances (threats and opportunities) and internal distinctive competencies. Such decisions are based on model of consciously controlled thought in which the leadership sets plans and goals. Mintzeberg’s critique underlines some limits of such model, stressing the importance of learning and the consequences of static and standardized procedures.
Ansoff’s answer (1991) not only firmly defends the prescriptive schools’ approach, but also attacks Mintzberg’s argumentation, which is considered based on methodological deficiencies. Regarding the importance of learning, Ansoff opposes a rational model of learning based on the importance of cognition and analytical assessment. Ansoff circumscribes the validity of Mintzberg’s model to a limited set of contexts or to a descriptive purpose. Mintzberg’s (1991) further response was not long in coming. In his sarcastic and acute “reply to Igor Ansoff”, Mintberg focused this attention on the underlying paradigm claimed by Ansoff. In this regard, he observed how fragile could be the rational and ‘positivistic’ theoretical framework, even if “it saves time”.
The preceding theoretical debate is the epitome of a much more wide-ranging discussion. Less theoretical, but still quite relevant to this paper’s purpose are the Honda case (Pascal, 1984; Mintzberg et al, 1996) as well as the heated debate over the SWOT model (Hill and Westbrook, 1997; Stopford, 2001; Dyson, 2004). In both, two main paradigms can similarly be observed. 
----------------------------------
*** Qui vorrei introdurre una classificazione in scuole di pensiero; pertanto
pensavo a qualcosa come "a questo punto", così da poter interrompere la "critical review" e procedere con l'identificazione di categorie.

PS. By the way, how does the latter sentence sound? Or, a different sentence would be required in order to better link to my next considerations.

Hope this helps.


----------



## TimLA

One of the most interesting academic disputes took place in the pages of the Strategic Management Journal during 1990 and 1991 (Mintzberg 1990, 1991; Ansoff, 1991). In a first article Mintzberg (1990) strongly criticised the design school. This approach sees the strategic formation as a process of conception, rational and fully deliberate. In their eyes, firms should take decisions in order to achieve an essential fit between external circumstances (threats and opportunities) and internal distinctive competencies. Such decisions are based on a model of consciously controlled thought in which the leadership sets plans and goals. Mintzeberg’s critique underlines some limits of such models, stressing the importance of learning and the consequences of static and standardized procedures.

Ansoff’s answer (1991) not only firmly defends the prescriptive schools’ approach, but also attacks Mintzberg’s argumentation (arguments), which is considered based on methodological deficiencies. Regarding the importance of learning, Ansoff opposes a rational model of learning based on the importance of cognition and analytical assessment. Ansoff circumscribes the validity of Mintzberg’s model to a limited set of contexts or to a descriptive purpose. Mintzberg’s (1991) further response was not long in coming. In his sarcastic and acute “reply to Igor Ansoff”, Mintberg focused this attention on the underlying paradigm claimed by Ansoff. In this regard, he observed how fragile the rational and ‘positivistic’ theoretical framework could be, even if “it saves time”.

The preceding theoretical debate is the epitome of a much more wide-ranging discussion. Less theoretical, but still quite relevant to this paper’s purpose are the Honda case (Pascal, 1984; Mintzberg et al, 1996) as well as the heated debate over the SWOT model (Hill and Westbrook, 1997; Stopford, 2001; Dyson, 2004). In both, two main paradigms can similarly be observed. 

It is important now to raise issues regarding the dominant schools of thought....

At this juncture, it is imperative to place these ideas in a larger format of the dominant schools of thought...

At this point...
----------------------------------

PS. By the way, how does the latter sentence sound? 
If you can link "two main paradigms" to "schools of thought" then I don't see a problem.

Or, a different sentence would be required in order to better link to my next considerations.

I think the sentence is OK, but, to me, the order of the concepts should be determined by the overall structure of the text. For example, is a short text/essay it might not be relevant to tightly organize the thoughts, whereas in a large complex text, it may be mandadory to group all similar concepts together e.g. I-Introduction II-Review of literature III-Schools of thought IV-Implications for furture research...ecc...


----------



## Parergon

Tim, eventually I edited using one of your early suggestions and I removed the sentence previously underlined.

At the moment, it is:



The preceding theoretical debate is the epitome of a much more wide-ranging discussion. Less theoretical, but still quite relevant to this paper’s purpose are the Honda case (Pascal, 1984; Mintzberg et al, 1996) as well as the heated debate over the SWOT analysis (Hill and Westbrook, 1997; Stopford, 2001; Dyson, 2004). 
To further distinguish the main paradigms and their underlying methodologies, a taxonomy will be proposed. 


Do not hesitate to let me know what you think.
Thanks.


----------



## TimLA

I like it!!

PS - beautifully done.............. 



Parergon said:


> Tim, eventually I edited using one of your early suggestions and I removed the sentence previously underlined.
> 
> At the moment, it is:
> 
> 
> 
> The preceding theoretical debate is the epitome of a much more wide-ranging discussion. Less theoretical, but still quite relevant to this paper’s purpose are the Honda case (Pascal, 1984; Mintzberg et al, 1996) as well as the heated debate over the SWOT analysis (Hill and Westbrook, 1997; Stopford, 2001; Dyson, 2004).
> To further distinguish the main paradigms and their underlying methodologies, a taxonomy will be proposed.
> 
> 
> Do not hesitate to let me know what you think.
> Thanks.


----------



## ElaineG

> To further distinguish the main paradigms and their underlying methodologies, a taxonomy will be proposed.


 
Well is it proposed or isn't it?  This paper proposes a taxonomy.

Italian loves the passive in ornate writing.  It's the hallmark of bad and unclear style in English.


----------



## Parergon

ElaineG said:


> Well is it proposed or isn't it?  This paper proposes a taxonomy.
> 
> Italian loves the passive in ornate writing.  It's the hallmark of bad and unclear style in English.



Yes, the taxonomy is provided.

Are you serious?  I think, you are...
Avoiding to open up a structured justification mentioning Cicerone versus Tacito... I simply ask you, what would you reccomend in this care?
No passive?


----------



## ElaineG

To further distinguish..., this paper/the next section etc. propose a taxonomy.

What is good style in one language is not in another.  That's part of what keeps life interesting!


----------



## Parergon

ElaineG said:


> To further distinguish..., this paper/the next section etc. propose a taxonomy.
> 
> What is good style in one language is not in another.  That's part of what keeps life interesting!


 Good point!


----------



## gaiaam

Ciao a tutti, 

come tradurreste:

A QUESTO PUNTO credo che ci siano davvero dei problemi di comunicazione

grazie

gaia


----------



## bushbaby4891

"Now we can say that we have some comunication problems"


----------



## Siberia

At this point, I think there must really be communication problems.

or
If that's the case, it must really be a problem of communication.


----------



## gaiaam

grazie mille e buonaserata


gaia


----------



## alizzia1985

Ciao a tutti, ho visto che l'italiano "a questo punto" si può tradurre con l'inglese "at this/that point"... ma non sono sicura che sia corretto tradurlo in questo modo per introdurre un'azione che inizia quando finisce quella precedentemente descritta. Qualche parere?

Questa è la frase:

"Una volta all'interno, entra nelle vescicole sinaptiche attraverso il ...(nome del trasportatore), scambiandosi con la X e quindi stimolando l'efflusso di X dalle vescicole al citoplasma; a questo punto, la X citoplasmatica viene trasportata ..."

"Once inside, it enters synaptic vesicles via ...(name of the transporter), exchanging with X and thus stimulating X efflux from the vesicles to the cytoplasm; at that point, cytoplasmic X is transported ..." 

Avevo pensato che potrei usare un semplice "then", ma mi piacerebbe utilizzare qualcosa che "stacchi" un po' di più...


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Hai letto questi?

A questo punto
A questo punto, è l'unica soluzione per chiudere la questione
una domanda è legittima e pertinente a questo punto


----------



## alizzia1985

Sì Paul, ma non hanno chiarito i miei dubbi... mi sembra che nei casi proposti non ci sia una "consequenzialità" come invece è richiesto nel mio caso...
Con questo intendo: vorrei una parola che mi aiuti a spiegare che, dopo che è successo quello che è stato descritto nella prima parte della frase (prima del punto e virgola), allora (e solo allora) avviene quello che descrivo nella seconda parte (dopo il punto e virgola)... spero di essere riuscita a spiegarmi...


----------



## CPA

_At *this *point _mi sembra che vada benissimo.


----------



## alizzia1985

Altri pareri?
Non è che non mi fidi di CPA... solo mi piacerebbe sentire altre opinioni...


----------



## Phil9

alizzia1985 said:


> Ciao a tutti, ho visto che l'italiano "a questo punto" si può tradurre con l'inglese "at this/that point"... ma non sono sicura che sia corretto tradurlo in questo modo per introdurre un'azione che inizia quando finisce quella precedentemente descritta. Qualche parere?
> 
> Questa è la frase:
> 
> "Una volta all'interno, entra nelle vescicole sinaptiche attraverso il ...(nome del trasportatore), scambiandosi con la X e quindi stimolando l'efflusso di X dalle vescicole al citoplasma; a questo punto, la X citoplasmatica viene trasportata ..."
> 
> "Once inside, it enters synaptic vesicles via ...(name of the transporter), exchanging with X and thus stimulating X efflux from the vesicles to the cytoplasm; at that point, cytoplasmic X is transported ..."
> 
> Avevo pensato che potrei usare un semplice "then", ma mi piacerebbe utilizzare qualcosa che "stacchi" un po' di più...



'at that point' sounds fine to me in that sentence.


----------



## longplay

Qualche parere su "hence...is (transported) (carried by...?)" ?


----------



## alizzia1985

Thanks Phil!
I've never used this expression and it seemed a little strange to me because it appears as a mere translation of Italian.
I wanted something "stronger" than "then"; something that can let me say that X transport occurs AFTER and ONLY if what I wrote in the first part of the sentence has happened.

Longplay, grazie per il tuo suggerimento... ma credo di aver usato pochissimo "hence" in vita mia, quindi non riesco ad avere un parere in merito. Attendo però pareri altrui


----------



## Phil9

Well, 'hence', apart from being a little dated, implies that what comes after follows logically and inevitably from what goes before. As the whole sentence is rather technical and beyond my knowledge, I can't tell if that is so. If it is then 'hence' might work.

By the way, I agree with CPA that 'at this point' is also good.


----------



## longplay

Dopo il tuo post 9, mi permetto di insistere su "hence" (il dizionario del forum, qui 'sopra' mi pare chiarissimo).

Phil, sorry: "cross posting!"


----------



## alizzia1985

Thanks to both of you!

What about "consequently"?
(questa è solo curiosità: visto che ci sono, vorrei approfittarne per ampliare il mio vocabolario... nel caso in cui dovesse servirmi più avanti). Esprime anche un senso di ""posteriorità" o solamente un'implicazione causale?


----------



## longplay

Credo che in dipendenza del contesto equivalga a "hence"...


----------



## alizzia1985

Grazie longplay! E' così difficile a volte cogliere certe sfumature...


----------



## bicontinental

I don’t think I’d use ‘_hence_’ here, for the following reasons:

1.    As Phil9 pointed out, it sounds a bit dated which is perfectly fine per se and works well in many contexts, but… at least in my opinion… it makes it seem a little out of place in this scientific context.

_2__.    _‘_Hence_’ is used to introduce a fact, or statement that follows as a consequence of something. Synonyms are _consequently, therefore, accordingly, for this reason, as such,_ etc. Contextually it would work well in the above sentence, but it changes the meaning and is not what is stated in the original text by _'a questo punto' (at this point)._ 

“_At this point, (a questo punto) [i.e. now, here in the process] cytoplasmic X is transported….”_

Vs. 
“_Therefore, (quindi), consequently [i.e. as a consequence of what has just happened] cytoplasmic X is transported.”_

In sum, there’s nothing wrong with the word ‘hence’; I like it and use it a lot, as it’s very useful in many contexts, but I just find it a little out place here. 

Bic.


----------



## longplay

I would accept "hence" in a scientific paper, for "therefore+from this point...". It's my own opinion, of course. Something "more" than <from now on>... .


----------



## alizzia1985

Thanks bicontinental! The synonims you wrote made me understand that "at this point" is what I was looking for


----------

