1

This mood is mainly created by the voice-over that consists of a sound clip, probably recorded in 1949, in which a man reads article 24 of the Geneva Convention in a very serious tone.

Is this sentence correct? '...the voice-over that consists of a sound clip...' sounds a bit 'double' to me, because a voice-over is a sound clip.

  • You could remove "that consists of a sound clip" and retain the same meaning without fear of redundancy. – Juhasz Jan 3 at 21:38
  • Okay. So, it is okay to say: '... the voice-over in which a man reads article 24 of the Geneva Convention in a very serious tone.'? – Rowan Jan 3 at 21:40
  • Yes, it's fine. As a commentor points out below, there may be a slight difference in meaning, which you may want to capture. But "...the voice-over, probably recoded in 1949, in which a man..." is a reasonable option. – Juhasz Jan 3 at 21:46
0

Maybe the word that you're looking for is "dubbed." I'm not entirely sure that I understand what you're asking, but I'm assuming that you mean that the sound clip was recorded after the video was made, instead of using the live audio. (I'm also making that assumption because the Spanish word for 'dubbed' is 'doblado' which also means 'double' in English.)

If this is the case, the word would be 'dubbed' as in:

The voice-over sounds a bit dubbed to me.

|improve this answer|||||
  • It's about the following: '... the voice-over that consists of a sound clip...' This sounds a bit 'double' to me, because a voice-over is always a sound clip. That's why I am asking if the sentence is correct. – Rowan Jan 3 at 21:32
  • The larger context would be needed to see if it was truly redundant. (It sounds like it is redundant, though) However, if they meant that the voice-over was from something else pre-recorded, it wouldn't be redundant, since sound clip has the connotation that it was something recorded and used out of context with the video being shown, while a voice-over is something that is used hand-in-hand with the video. Therefore, it might not be redundant, depending on the larger context, but it probably is. – William Terrill Jan 3 at 21:40
  • In the video, you hear a man who reads article 24 of the Geneva Convention. This was probably recorded in 1949 and used in a video from 2011. So this isn't redundant, I suppose? – Rowan Jan 3 at 21:43
  • If the video was recorded...and the sound came from another source (someone else that was recording the audio of the event) then it would not be redundant, because the sound clip came from another source. However, if the sound is from the person themselves, then it would be redundant. – William Terrill Jan 3 at 21:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.