Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
get everybody on board
English answer:
to assure, first, that everyone knows what the purpose of the program is and, secondly,...
English term
get everybody on board
Non-PRO (1): writeaway
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Responses
to assure, first, that everyone knows what the purpose of the program is and, secondly,...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 mins (2009-12-05 21:47:01 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Or, more clearly:
to assure, first, that participants know what the purpose of the program is and, secondly, that they are willing to act in accordance with this purpose.
agree |
Tina Vonhof (X)
: Working together towards the same goal.
54 mins
|
Exactly. Thank you, Tina.
|
|
agree |
Veronika McLaren
: getting everyone to the same level of understanding the goal
1 hr
|
Thank you, Veronika.
|
|
agree |
Bernhard Sulzer
: or to "ensure" that... (my pref.) I tend to use assure more for "to assure somebody of something" / I think Nadia's additional context confirms your explanation. Your word "purpose" could be replaced with "objectives."
2 hrs
|
Thank you, Bernhard.
|
|
disagree |
Travelin Ann
: too many assumptions in your definition////the "and, secondly" portion is not there in the source question. Or for that matter, "first" is not there either.
3 hrs
|
In terms of what "being on board" *ideally* would mean, I think I've provided a comprehensive definition. You have provided a somewhat more minimal definition. We have no way of knowing what the intent is on the part of the speaker in Asker's example....
|
|
agree |
British Diana
: O.K., it's a bit long, but it's the meaning here, I'm sure.
15 hrs
|
It is long, but I think each of the ideas I mentioned are implicit in the meaning of the term--at least in the ideal sense. Thank you, British Di.... :)
|
|
agree |
Alexandra Taggart
: "get involved" - that would be enough
17 hrs
|
Thank you, Alex.
|
|
agree |
kmtext
: Everyone understands what's expected of them and gives their full support.
19 hrs
|
Right. *Ideally*, this is what it would mean. More minimally, it might mean that there is a tacit agreement to not express dissent and to promote whatever the stated agenda happens to be. Thank you, KM.
|
|
agree |
Rolf Keiser
20 hrs
|
Thanks, Gold.
|
understanding
It might be "agreed" , "concentrated", "informed" "beaten over the head" etc.
convince everyone of your idea and get them involved
agree |
Polangmar
1 hr
|
agree |
John Detre
: this comes closest to my sense of what "on board" means, securing people's agreement, support and participation
5 hrs
|
agree |
Liam Hamilton
10 hrs
|
Discussion
Next time you look at the rules, please note that after :
3.4 "The only acceptible means of commenting on another's answer is by using the peer comment feature."
the next rules are:
3.5 "Peer comments must be purely linguistic."
3.6 "No attempt may be made to influence others' decisions."
3.7 "Commentary on askers or answers, and their postings or decisions to post, is not allowed."
Making comments on a contributor's apparent need to parade his ego is definitely not acceptible.
Any more context, Nadia?
it's curious isn't it? :o)
goodnight and, again, thank you
The point is that in Italian too there is this expression 'essere (tutti) a bordo" but it implies doing together the same thing, not necessarily (and really) sharing the same convincement.
Seamen collaborate to bring the boat to the same (of course ;) place but they can do it for money, for adventure, for escaping home problems... So the motivational part is not so intrinsic to its figurative origin. And both languages refer to the same image.
Neverthless the committment you use to underlie the importance of convincement phase could hardly be applied to its Italian counterpart (at least, this is my perception about it).
So I suspect that this difference, if it really exists (sorry but I really can't feel it so I still have problems to accept it), could be linked with psychosociological/cultural reasons more than with simple linguistic peculiarities.
I guess that it could deal with a different perception of the undertaking of social responsabilities... :)
-->
Instead, everybody here seems compelled to stress that this collaboration phase necessarily follows a convincement phase.
Googling gives ambigous results.
So, I wonder: is this convincement phase really included in the concept of '... on board'?
Or,
ethical localization differences push all these Answerers and these Discussion partecipants to feel that this phase has to be stressed because it is really an unforgettable element in 'getting everybody on board'?
otherwise said
To you, is ethically unconceivable to think that one can appear to be on board even if not convinced, or, this convincement really is semanthically part of the process of 'gettin on board'?
I mean people can 'get on board' even if they're not really convinced. They can have other reasons why partecipate, even opportunistic/selfish reasons that won't ever be disclosed, can't they? But still they can appear/be 'on board' as everyone else.
So, resuming my post, is everybody sure that this convincement phase is really included in the expression 'get everybody on board'?
tnx :)