poutreuse

11:04 Feb 21, 2017 

As you say: "We all(?) know that banana “plants” are not trees in the botanical sense of the word, they are grasses. But that does not invalidate the analogy with wood-processing technologies once we move from the sphere of pure botany to that of (Asker’s) civil engineering."

It's perfectly logical to refer to logs in the context of "non-wood" banana stems, as that's about a shape they can be cut into and how things that shape are handled. However, it's wrong to refer to "heart wood" or "bark", or to mention banana logs in a way that might be taken to imply they can be burned in a wood burner. (Green pine logs will also destroy your wood burner.) The different characteristics of wood and banana stems mean that chipboard is made from them and veneer is cut from them using different techniques from those used for wood. There are also differences in the properties of the resulting products.

23:36 Feb 20, 2017 

Am I the only one here who finds it odd that BD Finch insists that banana “thingies” are not trees, and that references to “wood” are wrong in Asker’s context? – And promptly refers to “logs” and “logging”? A “log” is:
US: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/log
a usually bulky piece or length of a cut or fallen tree; especially : a length of a tree trunk ready for sawing and over six feet (1.8 meters) long.

UK: dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/log
a thick piece of tree trunk or branch, especially one cut for burning on a fire.

Aren’t trees – both trunks and branches – composed of wood?

We all(?) know that banana “plants” are not trees in the botanical sense of the word, they are grasses. But that does not invalidate the analogy with wood-processing technologies once we move from the sphere of pure botany to that of (Asker’s) civil engineering.

I strongly suspect that the “poutreuse” is a machine invented by the company behind the video. It’s most likely a proprietary process; and that may explain why the video doesn’t show us the machine.

The translation should reflect what it does, not what forensic linguistics suggests it should be called.

17:43 Feb 19, 2017 

Well, that's already an enormous help! You have to remember that WE don't have all this information in front of us, and every scrap of additional context can provide valuable clues...

17:24 Feb 19, 2017 

Le problème c'est que c'est un contrat d'achat de la ligne de transformation et qu'il ne contient pratiquement information sur le procédé de transformation lui-même.
J'ai une liste d'équipements composant le ligne de transformation: poutreuse, trancheuse assembleuse (mot que j'ai aussi demandé sur proz), presse, sécheur et entoileuse.
Puis un diagramme des étapes du processus de production: récolter, poutrer, trancher, presser 1, assembler, presser 2, sécher, entoiler et conditionner.
Le reste du document est du juridique pur.

17:09 Feb 19, 2017 

Could it be that the largest parts of the trunks are first cut up to make 'beams', and then the smaller bits left over are in some way 'chopped up' to make these 'feuilles de placage' — do you mean something like chipboard?
If you have the verb 'poutrer' in a diagram, what does this diagram show, and where does it fit in with the rest of the diagram? Perhaps you could find a way of uploading it to an image-hosting site, so we can see it?

16:37 Feb 19, 2017 

Je n'ai pas plus d'informations. Ce mot figure dans l'énumération des équipements de la ligne de transformation et le verbe poutrer dans un schéma.

16:29 Feb 19, 2017 

We can't help you if you can't help us. Please provide some CONTEXT and the sentences or paragraphs in which your words appear.