| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8] > | Second opinion needed on grammar Thread poster: Mirella Biagi
|
|---|
Kay Denney 
France
Local time: 01:13
French to English
| I'm not round the bend I'm answering the question intelligently | Nov 22, 2013 |
Tatty wrote:
But what I don't do is change the main verb to "affirm" or "state" because that way I wouldn't be answering the question put.
Sure that wasn't the question, but people don't always ask the right question.
We were given two choices but as far as I'm concerned neither were at all natural. If you think outside the box for two seconds you can come up with a satisfactorily natural solution, as we did by suggesting a change of verb or leaving it out entirely.
So no I'm not round the bend. Making judgemental statements like that doesn't help the OP nor does it shed any light on the point of the discussion. I'm surprised the moderators let that pass.
| | | | | Very important factors in "research" | Nov 22, 2013 |
Michael Wetzel wrote:
Results for "declares to have understood" + language: English + country: US: 8 hits
Results for "declares to have understood" + language: English + country: UK: 12 hits
Results for "declares to have understood": 61,400 hits are listed at the top of the page, but if you click on the last page at the bottom, you'll see that there are actually only 39 hits
Actually, I already "ran the statistics" in my post on the 2nd page using the phrase (which if correct would be likely to occur, for example, in a contract):
"seller declares to have".
I find it is very interesting that for this exact sequence of words, the total number of hits in all of Google was only 23 - and today for some reason it is down to 20!
Even more interesting, the phrase "seller declares to have understood" does not get a single hit.
Michael's statistics and my examples above show us that our settings and methodologies are very important when performing this type of "research".
If we want to use searches such as this as the basis for any kind of judgment regarding "real usage", then we have to narrow down the search as much as possible to reflect "real usage" - that means ensuring to the greatest extent possible that we
1) locate target-language reference documents/sources
1a) written by (presumed) native speakers of the target language and
1b) ideally written by persons who are also experts in the field
2) use quotation marks around the phrase searched for and
3) also add relevant key words/phrases to the search, inside quotation marks where appropriate, together with
3a) appropriate search symbols such as * between words and + or - to indicate what must be present or what cannot be present
Additionally, Michael's observation about the changing number of Google hits is very significant and, I think, has gone unnoticed by many people. I noticed this change some time in the last 2-3 years or so, and it can come as quite a shock.
The lesson: Always go to several subsequent Google pages, even if you are only "checking the numbers". By the time you get to page 3 or page 5 or page 10 or page 20, it is now almost a certainty that the little number indicating the number of hits will change. That's also a good time to go to the sites/sources referenced and have a good look at just what your search has turned up and who wrote it/where it's from.
- - -
"seller declares to have received" - 6 hits
"buyer declares to have received" - 3 hits
"seller declares to have obtained" - 2 hits
"buyer declares to have obtained" - 0 hits
Edited edition for the Brits:
"vendor declares to have" - 16 hits
"vendor declares to have received" - 1 hit
"vendor declares to have obtained" - 0 hits
[Edited at 2013-11-22 15:16 GMT]
| | | |
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.
And unless you've actually been hired or at least allowed to do that.
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, not of what would be there, were s/he signing it in the UK.
In some cases it doesn't even matter what the client wants, as in, at some point the client's gotta go to a real law firm.
If you want to do 'transcreation' in this case (write an equally valid contract, but for the target language and legal system), that's OK, but I wouldn't touch that with a barge-pole if I wasn't thoroughly educated in that field.
Mission impossible in some cases. Sure, you can mine the first contract for data and then design a new one in the target system from scratch, sort of as if you wrote down in detail what you want your C++ code to do and then wrote a new algorithm in Assembler. However, not only the syntax is different, but also there are some things you can do here but not there etc. Various jurisdictions have different risk appetites when it comes to the balance of the parties, estoppels, unconscionable clauses etc.
Plus, you just name the law it's supposed to be in, and that's it. One of my first translations was a contract in English governed by Polish law and enforceable only before Swiss courts IIRC.
Michael Wetzel wrote:
Using the target language and target conventions is not transcreation.
Yup. But semantics can be a little tricky. For example, using correct grammar (which, 'declares to have understood,' is not) is different from merely using the verb 'to declare', which nobody would use in the same manner in a modern native context, and yet I understand why a lawyer or translator would keep it. The rules which assign particular significance to certain words depend on the law, not the language. I mentioned this to defend the use of exotic performative verbs in translations, even though I actually go for the more 'native' version myself. Which is sometimes a problem when you have a Pole and a German guy whose only language in common is English, whose laws are far more similar than their languages, and who are both like, 'Dude, what the heck is "represent" supposed to mean?'
I also understand Kirsten and Lukasz's very important point here that foreign concepts need to be kept recognizably foreign (instead of deceptively familiar) in translations, but I don't see how this issue is relevant regarding the issue of phrasing here. This is about foreign grammar and not a foreign concept. (And again, I emphasize that I am not a legal translator and, for all I know, maybe the grammar isn't foreign at all, but typical among native-level speakers of English Legalese.)
Nothing in the legal world makes 'declares to have' good grammar, and the issue of foreignness doesn't even apply here. However, keeping the word 'declare' here to stay in touch with the voluntatis declaratio concept is okay.
Now, sometimes there really exists bad grammar or syntax which is common among legal drafter and which you can't fix without significantly rearranging the structure of a paragraph or section or doubling the word count, in which case I leave it be. The law needs precision and is conservative on points of language, but it doesn't need to keep prescriptive grammarians 100% happy. Even grammatical correctness is subject to the rule of proportionality.
For example, in English different verbs use different prepositions when collocating with a noun. In Polish, German or Latin a different noun case is used. Legal drafters, who will normally put even the hardcorest teachers of grammar to shame, will often use a form of shorthand here to avoid excessive length at the cost of mangling the collocations. I sometimes straighten that out, but only if it happens once or twice throughout the document. Otherwise it's style, and I ain't gonna be fixin' nobody's idiolect.
Václav Pinkava wrote:
It left me curious as to why I personally do not have a semantic problem with "XY declares to have understood".
Václav, it would be wrong even in Latin. You just need two objects there (supposing that the perfect infinitive counts as one). With some pain you can declare yourself to have understood the contents of something you're supposed to sign, but you can't just declare to have understood it. It collocates like 'says', not like 'claims': 'says himself to have understood' but not 'says to have understood', where 'claims to have understood' would be correct but not 'claims himself to have understood'.
What I've been talking about for a while:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusative_and_infinitive
Latin tends not to use the word "that" to introduce indirect statements. Rather, an accusative subject is used with an infinitive to develop the appropriate meaning. For example, translating the aforementioned example into Latin:
Iūlia dīcit sē bonam discipulam esse.
literally: 'Julia says herself to be a good student.'
Sē here is an accusative reflexive pronoun referring back to the subject of the main verb i.e. Iūlia ; esse is the infinitive "to be."
Basically, you need that: 'accusative reflexive pronoun referring to the subject of the main verb,' with 'declare'.
Tom in London wrote: Václav Pinkava wrote:
"Between you and I......" No - that will always be wrong.
I wouldn't be so sure... After you guys have abrogated the second person singular and address infants in the plural. We Poles have adopted swój (suus in Latin or son in French) for the first and the second person.
IMHO, 'between you and I,' isn't really different from, 'it's me,' anyway, which has become standard English by now.
[Edited at 2013-11-22 14:29 GMT]
[Edited at 2013-11-22 14:29 GMT]
| | | | Tatty
Local time: 01:13
Spanish to English
+ ...
| seller and vendor | Nov 22, 2013 |
Would these terms actually appear in a deed? No, this is terminology from a contract of sale.
It also shouldn't be forgotten that lawyers and notaries have very separate roles in the civil law system. Therefore a deed on the continent isn't just a contract with a bit tagged on to it here and there as it is under English law. A deed effectively narrates a story. A lot of translators choose to use the term "the appearor" for instance, which wouldn't be used in an English deed. (Perso... See more Would these terms actually appear in a deed? No, this is terminology from a contract of sale.
It also shouldn't be forgotten that lawyers and notaries have very separate roles in the civil law system. Therefore a deed on the continent isn't just a contract with a bit tagged on to it here and there as it is under English law. A deed effectively narrates a story. A lot of translators choose to use the term "the appearor" for instance, which wouldn't be used in an English deed. (Personally, I use maker - but it is a question of choice). And deeds are translated constantly by businesses for export purposes.
[Editado a las 2013-11-22 15:17 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| No, I did not agree! | Nov 22, 2013 |
Andy Watkinson wrote: Giles Watson wrote:
So far, in favour of the "declares to have understood" option we have:
Sergei
Paulinho
finnword
Aruna
Daina
Václav
Kirsten
Tomás
and against are:
Bina
Spencer
Victoria
sheila
Janet
Christine
Phil
Giles
Petro2
Oliver
Neilmac
Michele
In the first group, only Kirsten, Aruna and Václav translate into English while the second group comprises only native English speakers. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
[Edited at 2013-11-20 20:50 GMT] Please include me in the second group.
I said that I agree with Janet, i.e., I believe the first version was incorrect. Don't put me in the first category! And, by the way, I am a native speaker of English and translate into English!
My point to Phil was simply about the use of "declare."
[Edited at 2013-11-22 15:22 GMT]
| | | | | Original phrase contained the word "Agent" | Nov 22, 2013 |
Tatty wrote:
Would these terms actually appear in a deed? No, this is terminology from a contract of sale.
Well, yes, I did say that the phrase I used would be indicative of contract language. Personally, I'm not bothered about "deed vs. contract", however the original phrase brought up by the OP contained the word "Agent" (which I have seen in many contracts).
"Agent declares to have understood" - 1 hit, on this thread
I'm curious about just what kind of "deed" you are thinking of. When I think of the word "deed", what comes to mind off the top of my head is a mortgage deed or a deed of trust. (I don't often use the word "deed" in my legal translations from German into English, although I know some translators do)
"mortgagee declares to have understood" - 0 hits
"mortgagor declares to have understood" - 0 hits
"trustee declares to have understood" - 0 hits
"borrower declares to have understood" - 0 hits
"lender declares to have understood" - 0 hits
"assignor declares to have understood" - 0 hits
"assignee declares to have understood" - 0 hits
"grantor declares to have understood" - 0 hits
[Edited at 2013-11-22 17:28 GMT]
| | | | | Then please get your facts straight | Nov 22, 2013 |
Giles Watson wrote: Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote: Giles Watson wrote:
In the first group, only Kirsten and Aruna translate into English while the second group comprises only native English speakers. I leave you to draw your own conclusions. I'm against too, but I think you overestimate the importance of being a native speaker. The post was a statement of fact, Łukasz. My opinions on the relative importance of being a native speaker of the target language and/or technically proficient in the subject matter of the translation we can leave for some other time.
| | | | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand wrote:
So, on this particular construction: English contracts don't generally include these declarative verbs; in some languages, contracts do.
Would (either of) you say it's an error to translate:
(literal) "X declares that he/she accepts"
to
"X accepts"?
Always an error?
(Personally, I vacillate on this - I've used both formulations in the past. I'd like to know what specialist legal translators think.)
I have actually also used "represents" or "represents and warrants" in this context as Janet mentioned. As for the above, I wouldn't consider those translations incorrect, but it would depend for me what the German (if we're talking about my source lang.) actually says. My point was just that foreign-sounding translations in legal docs aren't necessarily always a bad thing if you're conveying a foreign concept (I agree, not necessarily the case in this specific example).
Rudolf a few pages back actually had a good point about the he/she - if the agent is a legal entity, "it" might very well be appropriate.
| | | | Tatty
Local time: 01:13
Spanish to English
+ ...
| A power of attorney | Nov 22, 2013 |
A document on the continent produced by a notary public, in this case it would be a power of attorney.
The verb to warrant is used in relation to a warranty. This also has a settled meaning in English law.
| | | | Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 01:13
Italian to English
In memoriam | @Andy, Daina and other aggrieved parties | Nov 22, 2013 |
Sadly, it's too late to alter the list on my original posting.
Let me reassure you that my point was not to award native or non-native speaker badges but simply to note that the contributors who rejected the form "declares to have understood" all are - or claim to be, if you prefer - native speakers of English.
Obviously, this doesn't rule out the possibility that some native speakers might find the phrase acceptable, or that some non-native speakers might avoid it in t... See more Sadly, it's too late to alter the list on my original posting.
Let me reassure you that my point was not to award native or non-native speaker badges but simply to note that the contributors who rejected the form "declares to have understood" all are - or claim to be, if you prefer - native speakers of English.
Obviously, this doesn't rule out the possibility that some native speakers might find the phrase acceptable, or that some non-native speakers might avoid it in this or that context.
My "research" into people's linguistic backgrounds was necessarily limited - otherwise I wouldn't have got much work done last Wednesday! - and I apologise for any offence inadvertently given, but I think the point still stands: "declares to have understood" is widely viewed by native speakers as unidiomatic English.
If native English-speaking lawyers or anyone else want to use "declares to have understood" instead of "understands" that's fine by me. If nothing else, it'll bump up their target word count
[Edited at 2013-11-22 17:52 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Variant difference/word choice | Nov 22, 2013 |
Tatty wrote:
A document on the continent produced by a notary public, in this case it would be a power of attorney.
Perhaps this signifies some difference between "continental" (UK = continental?) English and U.S. English, but I can find no evidence to suggest that documentation granting power of attorney would be called a "deed" in the U.S..
I know that many translators in my language pair choose to use the word "deed" to refer to any document "notarized"/"certified" by a notary public in Germany*, but because of my background - using U.S. legalese and knowing that the word "deed" refers to very specific types of instruments - I am one of those who do not.
Then again, there are many terms that seem to be "accepted" by a majority of translators in my pair (or at least, in a majority of translations I have found online) that I never use, specifically because they either have no independent** meaning in English, or because the meaning in English would be interpreted very differently by a native speaker from the meaning of the word in the source language.
- - -
* I'm guessing because this is what several dictionaries provide as the translation of "Urkunde"
**independent = a meaning that is clear and correct to a native speaker or practitioner without explanation
| | |
|
|
|
| You missed my point again | Nov 22, 2013 |
Giles Watson wrote: Obviously, this doesn't rule out the possibility that some native speakers might find the phrase acceptable, or that some non-native speakers might avoid it in this or that context. My "research" into people's linguistic backgrounds was necessarily limited - otherwise I wouldn't have got much work done last Wednesday! - and I apologise for any offence inadvertently given, but I think the point still stands: "declares to have understood" is widely viewed by native speakers as unidiomatic English. If native English-speaking lawyers or anyone else want to use "declares to have understood" instead of "understands" that's fine by me. If nothing else, it'll bump up their target word count [Edited at 2013-11-22 17:52 GMT]
I do think "declares to have understood" is unidiomatic English and agreed with Janet in my very first post. Perhaps you should correct your list - edit button?
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:13
Hebrew to English
Daina Jauntirans wrote:
Perhaps you should correct your list - edit button?
The edit button is disabled after 24 hours. If you try to edit a post after 24 hours you get this:
[Edited at 2013-11-22 22:36 GMT]
| | | |
[Edited at 2013-11-22 22:51 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [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 | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | 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
