| Sidor om ämnet: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8] | Second opinion needed on grammar Trådens avsändare: Mirella Biagi
|
|---|
Ty Kendall 
Storbritannien
Local time: 20:46
Hebreiska till Engelska
| Tongue in cheek post ... for the avoidance of doubt | Nov 22, 2013 |
Can we please stop saying "vendor declares to have" ...we are bumping up the number of Google hits, it's now hit 18! 
| | | |
A deed is basically a declaration. You can actually make a contract as a deed, but normally a deed is a non-causal (roughly unconditional) declaration that's basically the unilateral counterpart of a bilateral contract. This is clearer in continental law than in common law because continental law basically defines a contract as a coincidence of two declarations of will, while a donation or similar instrument is a unilateral declaration of will that takes legal force. This is further highlighted by the use of notarial or similar form, which basically means that dude goes on the record saying something that the law makes significant. He declares his intention, the law throughout the mediation of the solemn form recognises and affirms its power et voila, words have changed reality.
| | | | Phil Hand
Kina
Local time: 04:46
Kinesiska till Engelska
| Point of principle | Nov 23, 2013 |
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
That may well be, but unless you are a lawyer and you know very well what you are doing, you can't just add things to contracts...A contract from across the Channel is not equal to a contract in common law. The client wants a translation of what is there in black and white...
This is an interesting one. I disagree with this as a general principle in translation, and I don't think that working on legal documents makes a difference.
To me, the whole point of translation is to avoid "what is there in black and white". What's there in black and white is words, and that's specifically what the client doesn't want. The client wants to know the meaning of the words, and has asked for that meaning to be expressed in the target language.
It's meaningless to translate "Elle a douze ans" as "She has twelve years"; and if you see a representation in a French contract, it is meaningless to translate it into anything other than the standard way of writing a representation in an English contract. (If your lawyer is going to be confused by this and is incapable of checking the governing law clause, then you should get a new lawyer.)
This is something that I feel strongly about, because in my pair you still often meet people who seem to think that word-for-word dictionary translating is a sort of acceptable baseline, and taking the time to understand the text is an optional cherry on top. If you can't recognise the basic functional parts of a contract/whatever this document is, you've really got to ask yourself if you should be translating it.
I still think the problem is with the word "declare". It's the wrong flipping word! If this clause is a representation, then it would be useful to put "represent" in somehow. If it's a warranty, the translator should use warranty. If it's some other category unique to Italian law, then the appropriate word in English should be found. But declare is a legal term in English, with a range of meanings that we *don't* want to invoke here. It can't be the right word, surely?
Having said all that...
Michael Wetzel wrote:
...
However, I accept Kirsten's point that what clients are often really looking for and really need in a contract translation is an interlinear version and not a normal, standard translation. The key is the purpose and context of the translation. OK.
I also agree with Michael on this. If clients are not looking for a standard translation, and I agree that they're often not, then sure, the translator can and should deviate as necessary from standard practice.
[Edited at 2013-11-23 16:23 GMT]
| | | |
Phil Hand wrote:
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
That may well be, but unless you are a lawyer and you know very well what you are doing, you can't just add things to contracts...A contract from across the Channel is not equal to a contract in common law. The client wants a translation of what is there in black and white...
This is an interesting one. I disagree with this as a general principle in translation, and I don't think that working on legal documents makes a difference.
To me, the whole point of translation is to avoid "what is there in black and white". What's there in black and white is words, and that's specifically what the client doesn't want. The client wants to know the meaning of the words, and has asked for that meaning to be expressed in the target language.
It's meaningless to translate "Elle a douze ans" as "She has twelve years"; and if you see a representation in a French contract, it is meaningless to translate it into anything other than the standard way of writing a representation in an English contract. (If your lawyer is going to be confused by this and is incapable of checking the governing law clause, then you should get a new lawyer.)
This is something that I feel strongly about, because in my pair you still often meet people who seem to think that word-for-word dictionary translating is a sort of acceptable baseline, and taking the time to understand the text is an optional cherry on top. If you can't recognise the basic functional parts of a contract/whatever this document is, you've really got to ask yourself if you should be translating it.
I still think the problem is with the word "declare". It's the wrong flipping word! If this clause is a representation, then it would be useful to put "represent" in somehow. If it's a warranty, the translator should use warranty. If it's some other category unique to Italian law, then the appropriate word in English should be found. But declare is a legal term in English, with a range of meanings that we *don't* want to invoke here. It can't be the right word, surely?
Well, Phil, with your having put it that way, perhaps I'll be able to offer some useful insight here. Basically, I agree with you. Like I said, I don't blink an eye when replacing 'declarations' with 'representations' myself, I also steamroll over a bunch of other established phrasings with cultural implications for normal business purposes. So I'm not a word-for-word translator, nor is the law the only area in which I work, anyway. But, strictly speaking a continental 'declaration of will' still is a different concept from a common-law 'representation'.
When you translate legal documents, the crucial distinction is between the language and the law. You can look at the difference between a 'declaration' and a 'representation' in terms of language, it's hard even to imagine a single situation in which it would do harm to do so. On the other hand, you can look at it in terms of legal concepts. Legal concepts are separate from language concepts.
A relatively distant analogy is the redaction of court opinions. A French-style judgement will be a freaking huge single sentence with a bunch of adverbial clauses, followed by usually a separate 'justification'. The entire thing is expressed in the third person, recording whatever the court did. You might as well call it an affidavit by the court clerk. By contrast, a common-law judgement is an opinion written in the first person by a judge who actually has a name. There is often no clear 'sentence' (disposal) or 'thesis' (legal assertion) but a 'holding' that you need to extract from the surrounding 'obiter' using the arcane science of precedent grinding, which is the staple of common-law legal logic. In some cases, the judge say, 'well, so, like I said, the proper thing to do here would be blah. So ordered,' or at least that's what it looks like to a more editorially disciplined continental lawyer. Needless to say, different vocabulary will be used. Also, say, in Poland, we don't care whether a judge taking part in the proceedings is the chief judge of his court or not, there is no 'CJ' on opinions, we just don't care. I can imagine dropping the 'CJ' in translating common-law judgments into Polish. But should I add 'CJ' after the name of the president of a Polish court who happens to sign a judgment I need to translate into English? That'd be kinda absurd.
It makes no point localising a French judgment to look like an American judgement. In fact, like I said a while ago, a bunch of non-common-law legal systems also function in English and do so using English-native lawyers and judges. Look here, for instance. For a long time, English law also had ecclesiastic law and admiralty law, which had a separate continental-style system with different legal education and a separate bar (the Doctors).
Before then, the English system functioned largely in French, while being quite a fair bit different from whatever system continental France had in place by the end of the middle ages and the peak of the renaissance era. You can't really say it was non-native. It was basically a different set of terminology.
Likewise, the same concepts might even be referred to under different names across the various branches of the law under the same system.
Example: apart from the usual transfer and assignment, which are common-law terms, English does know the word 'cession', though it's more like a term referring to Roman law. When a continental contract, say, French or German, uses an equivalent word in that source language, I would say 'cession' is actually correct to use here in English. More so, actually, than 'transfer' or 'assignment', although ease-of-use by your clients will generally make you want to adopt common-law terminology.
Another example: England doesn't have normal labour courts, it has labour tribunals. On the other hand, Poland has labour courts, which are normal courts but with some procedural facilitations to reduce the usual formalism of the litigation system. Both on the point of language and on the point of law, neither can an English labour tribunal become a court when you translate into Polish, nor should a Polish labour court be transformed into a tribunal when you go PL-EN. The only reason for that would be a sort of localisation approach aiming at familiarity at all costs.
In fact, not even translating the same way as if the document had been written in the target language can be used as a justification here. Not only do Polish courts not conduct proceedings or issue rulings in English and vice versa, they first of all do not normally use English or Polish law respectively.
You can 'fake' the language as a translator if you want to. But you can't fake the law. As an exercise, perhaps, yeah, but not in your normal work.
The only proper context for that would be in novels. Literary fiction seems to be the dominant paradigm for translation technique discussions right now, which is wrong outside the realm of literary fiction.
In fact, even in fiction, I doubt anybody reading Grisham in a foreign language actually wants to be led to believe that American courts use e.g. Romanian law and Romanian court lingo formed over centuries of the unique judicial tradition of that country.
Let's leave the law aside for a moment. Let's take religion now. A rabbi is not a curate or pastor or curate or vicar, right? Nor is a high-up imam an archbishop. In fact, a 'archpriest' does exist in the Roman Catholic Church but is actually not an episcopal function but below it (it's basically the priest in charge of a major temple). Quite the opposite of the Aaronic high-priesthood in ancient judaism, which was the top of the hierarchy. In any case, a bar mitzvah is neither a baptism (which does exist in judaism, by the way, though it's not a standard initiation) nor a confirmation. Obviously, the Dalai Lama is not the Pope, either. The Chief Rabbi of an entire branch of Judaism who has no superior is not a Sovereign Pontiff because he's not really a sovereign, but in any case certainly not a pontiff (unless he's also a kohen by birth, but that's a separate concept).
And obviously the mayor of Paris or Berlin is no lord. Just like the mayor of NYC is not quite a Lord Mayor, even within the English-language area. Obama is not 'the Sovereign', 'the Sovereign' is 'the People'. Both an earl and a count have a countess for wife, except 'count' while a perfectly normal English word does not refer to English or other Commonwealth nobles of that rank (except Maltese, Canadian etc. of non-English origin). On the other hand, when dealing with foreign aristocrats of that rank, you use the word 'count', you don't make them 'earls'. You don't really make German margraves into marquesses, either.
It really is the same with legal concepts, especially if they are actually know to and written about by comparative legal scholars. You have to keep them distinct. You can't replace them with arrangements more familiar to the target populace.
| | |
|
|
|
neilmac
Spanien
Local time: 21:46
Spanska till Engelska
+ ...
| A spruce goose | Nov 23, 2013 |
Mirella Biagi wrote:
Is it still incorrect if we consider the fact that the sentence continues?
The agent declares to have understood that...
The agent declared having understood that...
Regardless of whether they are grammatically correct or not, both of these sentences are just awfully CLUNKY. If you post the whole sentence (i.e. including what it is the agent has understood etc) we might be able to suggest some more comfortable options.
Clunky -> adj. clunk·i·er, clunk·i·est. Clumsy in form or manner; awkward.
| | | | Phil Hand
Kina
Local time: 04:46
Kinesiska till Engelska
| Where concepts end and words begin | Nov 24, 2013 |
Yes, I accept that.
In general, the correct English word should be used for the legal concept being invoked, and the correct English word may be uncommon or Latin or otherwise odd.
But it is not unknown for inexperienced translators to abuse this principle and use "false friend" translations, e.g. declare, when the legal concept being invoked is actually representation or warrants or whatever.
I think of odd-looking words in terms of the Sagan quote: "Ext... See more Yes, I accept that.
In general, the correct English word should be used for the legal concept being invoked, and the correct English word may be uncommon or Latin or otherwise odd.
But it is not unknown for inexperienced translators to abuse this principle and use "false friend" translations, e.g. declare, when the legal concept being invoked is actually representation or warrants or whatever.
I think of odd-looking words in terms of the Sagan quote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If you're going to use language that seems extraordinary, you have to really know what you're doing and do your research to make sure you're not obfuscating the meaning. Just doing a word-for-word on the difficult bits is no substitute.
Just for fun:
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
Also, say, in Poland, we don't care whether a judge taking part in the proceedings is the chief judge of his court or not, there is no 'CJ' on opinions, we just don't care. I can imagine dropping the 'CJ' in translating common-law judgments into Polish. But should I add 'CJ' after the name of the president of a Polish court who happens to sign a judgment I need to translate into English? That'd be kinda absurd.
Could be absurd, I'll take your word for it. But I do run across similar situations in my pair where the way a Chinese text expresses a concept is structurally and grammatically completely different to the way an equivalent English text would. I can give an example: topic-fronting allows a topic to be stuck on the front of a Chinese sentence, where it can act as a change of topic in exactly the same way as a sub-heading would in English. Turning those topic clauses into sub-headings is sometimes a good way of dealing with them.
For your Polish justices, sure, if the concept is not in the Polish text, you shouldn't insert it into the English text. But sometimes the position of the author can be conveyed in other subtle ways - linguistic forms, specific signing conventions, whatever. If it is in fact clear to the Polish reader that the judge signing that opinion is a chief justice, then I would argue that that *could be* grounds for using the "CJ" English convention, if that is the most efficient way to convey the concept in English.
For example, I was doing some engineering contracts Chinese-English for a direct client. The Chinese contract made no mention of "milestones" or any similar term, but did have similar concepts embedded in it. The client found the translation much easier to read when I added the term; to the Chinese party who produced the contract, that kind of terminology was alien, but the concept was perfectly clear. In the jargon of theory, I maintained dynamic equivalence by using the most natural English term to convey the concepts. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Václav Pinkava
Storbritannien
Local time: 20:46
Tjeckiska till Engelska
+ ...
| Well, I declare! | Nov 25, 2013 |
As I suggested before, I think that in the given legal context the verb "to declare" behaves as a reflexive verb i.e. "The agent declares (himself) to have understood that (something-or-other) ..."
We might compare and contrast with other esoteric uses of to declare:-
"A lone backbench MP declared for the motion." (politics, reflexive usage)
"The Aussies declared, just before tea" (cricket, nonreflexive)
Otherwise, I regret to have misunderstood...<... See more As I suggested before, I think that in the given legal context the verb "to declare" behaves as a reflexive verb i.e. "The agent declares (himself) to have understood that (something-or-other) ..."
We might compare and contrast with other esoteric uses of to declare:-
"A lone backbench MP declared for the motion." (politics, reflexive usage)
"The Aussies declared, just before tea" (cricket, nonreflexive)
Otherwise, I regret to have misunderstood...
As for the democratically-statistical argument, how many hits on Google might there be for "I regret to have misunderstood" ?
Basically, the only find is from an 1896 letter to Nature http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v53/n1378/abs/053488a0.html
The variant "regrets having misunderstood" gets seven hits.
Is there anything wrong with it?
Drop the s and "regret having misunderstood" gets a whole lot more popular.
Now try googling "declare to have understood"
Q.E.D. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Sidor om ämnet: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Second opinion needed on grammar | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
