| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8] > | Second opinion needed on grammar Thread poster: Mirella Biagi
|
|---|
| Precisely - and lots of natives happily say it!! | Nov 21, 2013 |
Tom in London wrote: Václav Pinkava wrote:
"Between you and I......" No - that will always be wrong.
Don't tell me only ex-pats do it... I've heard plenty at home.
While the likes of me would NEVER say the equivalent in Danish, even when it sounds snobbish and over-correct to our audience - I simply can't bring myself to say it. So it reveals I am not a true native (of Danish).
(Mind, I personally would never say that in English either, but like Eliza Doolittle, foreigners are often over-correct.)
And for her, RP was more or less a foreign language.
Back to the point, no, I can't accept 'declares to have', sorry.
And I am liberated enough to accept that 'man has embraced woman since time immemorial.'
If you can't write declares/confirms/states that s/he - or preferably just he - has understood, then re-word it as:
The agent declares: "I have understood ..."
Or whatever.
| | | | Tatty 
Local time: 01:31
Spanish to English
+ ...
| All round the bend | Nov 21, 2013 |
I think that you are all round the bend.
This sentence would be translated differently depending on the exact nature of the document.
What is a "standard legal document", a contract, a deed, an official form? Without knowing the answer to this, the question cannot be answered.
In contract law, statements and representations are terms of art, ie they have settled definitions. Clearly, I won't be explaining them here.
The agent has stated/repre... See more I think that you are all round the bend.
This sentence would be translated differently depending on the exact nature of the document.
What is a "standard legal document", a contract, a deed, an official form? Without knowing the answer to this, the question cannot be answered.
In contract law, statements and representations are terms of art, ie they have settled definitions. Clearly, I won't be explaining them here.
The agent has stated/represented/ has made representations to the effect that he (or it in the case of an entity if not represented by a person) ... This would be used at the start of a contract. You can use "he" is strictly legal documents.
If its a form aimed at Joe public, then you should not use "he" as it is sexist. You get to chose between "he or she" and "they".
If it is a deed then "declare" is the right choice. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "the agent declares to have understood", which is why I think that you are all round the bend. Have you really been able to remain non-committal about the agent's identity throughout the remainder of the document? If not, then it would be better to use "the agent declares that he has".
He declares having understood the clauses - this is wrong IMO. To me this means, that he has understood the clauses and then he has made a declaration about something or other. But it would not mean that he is declaring that he has understood the clauses - which is the intended meaning.
Your translation was correct, don't let them tell you otherwise, no matter how the tallies work out. The proofreader has simply preferred to use the other option. Had the proofreader changed your choice of verb and the document was a contract, it would show that the proofreader knows more about legal translation than you. But that isn't the case. The proofreader has made a simple stylistic choice. You can also say "the Agent declares or the Agent has declared", again a stylistic choice. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | When in doubt I experiment with other verbs/tenses | Nov 21, 2013 |
He says to have understood. (seems wrong to me)
He declares to go shopping. (seems wrong to me)
He declares to be tired. (seems wrong to me)
He says he has been shopping. (ok)
He declares he goes shopping. (ok)
He declares he is tired. (ok)
I asked her and she declared. (wrong)
I asked her and she declared that... (ok)
I asked her and she declared 'something' (object ) (ok)
I asked them and they said. (wrong)
I aske... See more He says to have understood. (seems wrong to me)
He declares to go shopping. (seems wrong to me)
He declares to be tired. (seems wrong to me)
He says he has been shopping. (ok)
He declares he goes shopping. (ok)
He declares he is tired. (ok)
I asked her and she declared. (wrong)
I asked her and she declared that... (ok)
I asked her and she declared 'something' (object ) (ok)
I asked them and they said. (wrong)
I asked them and they said that... (ok)
I asked them and they said (something) (ok)
I asked them and they said they were going to... (ok) ▲ Collapse
| | | | Oliver Walter
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:31
German to English
+ ...
| I was answering the question | Nov 22, 2013 |
Tatty wrote:
I think that you are all round the bend.
No, I ain't. I was answering what I understood to be the question, namely which one (or neither or both) of those candidates is gramatically correct.
I was not offering to judge whether "declare" is the correct verb.
Your translation was correct, don't let them tell you otherwise, no matter how the tallies work out.
No: "declares to have understood" is understandable but grammatically incorrect English.
(No comments about "ain't" please!)
Oliver
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 07:31
Chinese to English
Václav Pinkava wrote:
"Between you and I, its bafflingly reliable, as a test."
Very accurate!
I disagree with this:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with "the agent declares to have understood"
Tatty - one thing English speakers have to do is be tolerant of variation. If you think this formulation is fine, then OK. I've learned something new. For me, "declare" cannot be followed by an infinitive. You really have to accept that for me and many other English speakers, this is a rule.
* I declare to like sausages.
* I declare to have eaten the sausages.
* She declares to be married.
* She declares to have understood...
...
All ill-formed, in my idiolect - and clearly those of many others.
But in return, if you honestly think that at least one of the sentences above is well-formed, then I will accept that that rule doesn't hold for all English speakers.
In contract law, statements and representations are terms of art, ie they have settled definitions.
This is true, and they also have standard forms. In an English contract, the form of a representation is NOT:
Party A declares/represents/states that the washing machine is in good repair.
Here's a book on legal drafting, which suggests one way of doing representations:
"Representations should be preceded by a statement that the party or parties in question represent as follows:..."
http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=n7-jxMskU9MC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=representations%20in%20a%20contract%20drafting&source=bl&ots=JsdTVqw-Jc&sig=_PnjX0KLlzK3-EGzDXke1SHes6I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DMGOUtqbBuKAiQef0YCIDQ&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=representations%20in%20a%20contract%20drafting&f=false
Here's another format:
"(b) Representations. No products previously sold, delivered or leased nor any services performed by the Company are subject to any guarantee, warranty or other indemnity, other than those sold, delivered, leased or performed in accordance with the standard terms and conditions of sale or lease of the Company."
http://www.contractstandards.com/contract-structure/representations-and-warranties
| | | | Tatty
Local time: 01:31
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Recipient of the action | Nov 22, 2013 |
I declare to like the sausages - a verb of state - cannot be said
I declare to be married - a state - cannot be said
I declare to have eaten the sausages - grammatically correct but the verb is used out of context.
The agent declares to have understood... - a self-contained action, and a correct sentence.
Remember that "declare" isn't a very common verb in English and doesn't easily fit into many contexts, but it is used in deeds. In contracts, "state" or "represen... See more I declare to like the sausages - a verb of state - cannot be said
I declare to be married - a state - cannot be said
I declare to have eaten the sausages - grammatically correct but the verb is used out of context.
The agent declares to have understood... - a self-contained action, and a correct sentence.
Remember that "declare" isn't a very common verb in English and doesn't easily fit into many contexts, but it is used in deeds. In contracts, "state" or "represent" should be used as applicable.
[Editado a las 2013-11-22 09:41 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Disagree (just for the record) | Nov 22, 2013 |
Tatty wrote: The agent declares to have understood... - a self-contained action, and a correct sentence.
One more time just for the record - I disagree. "Declare" has the same function as the verbs "state" and "affirm", and using it with the perfect infinitive is not correct.
| | | | | Grammar vs. usage | Nov 22, 2013 |
Here is another possibly relevant source on the grammar issue (http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/english-as-a-second-language/gerunds).
There are normal constructions closely resembling "declare to have," but I have to agree with Janet and many others here. This is not appropriate with "declare."
However, I think that this is reall... See more Here is another possibly relevant source on the grammar issue (http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/english-as-a-second-language/gerunds).
There are normal constructions closely resembling "declare to have," but I have to agree with Janet and many others here. This is not appropriate with "declare."
However, I think that this is really an issue of usage and not of grammar. The fact that this construction is wrong in English (en-GB, en-US, etc.) and doesn't show up anywhere - except possibly in legal documents - does not mean that it is wrong in en-LG (i. e., English-Legalese).
Because there are similar normal constructions and because this particular construction might be particularly useful in writing legal documents, I could certainly imagine that it shows up there.
This is a question for parallel texts (i. e., similar, UNTRANSLATED texts written in the TARGET language and legal context). The original poster ought to look through a variety examples and make an evaluation based on what she finds there.
I would also have divided the answers according to legitimate legal specialists and non-specialists instead of natives vs. non-natives. That is really the key here ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Kirsten Bodart
United Kingdom
Local time: 01:31
Dutch to English
+ ...
| Leaving 'declare to' aside for a while | Nov 22, 2013 |
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.
In most cases it even specifically indicates that the contract in question is only governed by the law of the language it was written in originally (any court will then take the MT version as the valid one) or (if applicable) that only the version of the contract in its untranslated form (in language A) is valid and that any other versions are only there by way of illustration/clarification or what have you.
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. A simple thing like gentlemen's agreements stands up in common law where they are difficult to uphold in a Napoleonic system where everything has to be proven or is considered not to exist. 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.
| | | | | It's Globish | Nov 22, 2013 |
Michael Wetzel is absolutely right.
A good rule in many languages, in line with Sheila's KISS, is: 'if the natives don't like it, it's wrong' - with due allowance for dialect.
If it is not entirely logical, call it usage. You can't argue with people's gut feelings about their language, reasonable or unreasonable - language is not always logical, and there is no more to discuss.
The trouble with English is that there never has been complete consensus or an offici... See more Michael Wetzel is absolutely right.
A good rule in many languages, in line with Sheila's KISS, is: 'if the natives don't like it, it's wrong' - with due allowance for dialect.
If it is not entirely logical, call it usage. You can't argue with people's gut feelings about their language, reasonable or unreasonable - language is not always logical, and there is no more to discuss.
The trouble with English is that there never has been complete consensus or an official 'Academie' to decide what is more or less acceptable.
It is now spread in various forms round the globe, and no matter what you say, you will find someone who uses the expression, and can legitimately claim to be a native speaker of English in one form or another.
It took me a long time to accept that many of the texts we se are NOT the language of Chaucer, Milton and Shakespeare (or for that matter Emerson, Longfellow and Wendell Holmes, with apologies to our cousins in other Anglophone countries...).
It is the language of modern communication, and we can object to devices like split infinitives - or accept them more or less, but at times clarity takes precendence over the elegance of the phrasing, and we have to live with an expression that many natives dislike.
_______________________________
Personally, I would still go for the convention that 'he' includes 'she' when applicable, but in some societies or situations that may not work.
In documents about spouses, for instance, I do go to some length to write he or she where it makes a difference, and avoid the issue or write s/he where it could be either. Especially now that gender neutrality really is important politically...
And yes, I think I would still alter the expression 'declares to have understood' if it turned up in anything I was asked to proofread.
Because most of my clients are either English or Danish native speakers, and have a good command of English, I go for the safe option when there is one.
_______________________________
Nevertheless, I think we do have to accept a certain amount of Globish, and resign ourselves to the idea that the purists don't like it, but half the world can't do without it. It is not going to go away! ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Globish = Interference | Nov 22, 2013 |
Christine Andersen wrote: Nevertheless, I think we do have to accept a certain amount of Globish
You can accept "Globish" if you want, but I myself will do everything I can not to perpetuate it!
| | | |
My stance is that I do not use it myself, but it is inevitable.
I would prefer people to use Interlingua or Esperanto or something like that instead, but have not learned them myself... so I can't expect others to!
So we are saddled with Globish, like it or not (and generally I don't).
| | |
|
|
|
| transcreation? | Nov 22, 2013 |
Using the target language and target conventions is not transcreation.
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 understand Kirsten and Lukasz's very important point here that foreign concepts need to be kept recognizably foreign (instead of deceptively famili... See more Using the target language and target conventions is not transcreation.
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 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.) ▲ Collapse
| | | | Tatty
Local time: 01:31
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Answering the question put | Nov 22, 2013 |
If I wish to check the construction used, I can run it through Google:
declares to have understood - 61,400
Then if I wish to cross check the structure I can change the participle:
declares to have received - 518,000
declares to have seen - 222,000
declares to have obtained - 76,000
Obviously there are more hits for the other construction: he declares that he has understood, received etc.
But what I don't do is change t... See more If I wish to check the construction used, I can run it through Google:
declares to have understood - 61,400
Then if I wish to cross check the structure I can change the participle:
declares to have received - 518,000
declares to have seen - 222,000
declares to have obtained - 76,000
Obviously there are more hits for the other construction: he declares that he has understood, received etc.
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.
Moreover, I agree with the opinion that you should translate a contract as opposed to having a whirl at redrafting it in English. You should use English terminology and phraseology though. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Google results | Nov 22, 2013 |
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
In addition, these all seem to be T&Cs, where it would certainly be wrong to use a problematic construction (in contra... See more 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
In addition, these all seem to be T&Cs, where it would certainly be wrong to use a problematic construction (in contrast to the situation described in many contract translations). ▲ Collapse
| | | | | 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 | 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! » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
