Though no translation is perfect, there are ways to make yours better than others that are out there. One obvious way is to do your homework and use all the right terms. This will take you a long way in your career as a legal translator. However, unless you thoroughly proofread your work, you are prone to sending less-than-polished work to the client. If the client notices and complains about the mistakes, you are going to have to correct them and apologize and hope they continue to regard you as their favorite translator.
Here are some proofreading steps that work for me:
Any time you decide to use the plural in the TL text when it is singular in the SL text, make a note of it. You can use the highlighter in Word or make a note if you are using a CAT tool, or you can use a sticky notes program like NoteZilla. You should do this because you always run the risk of reading "El cliente tiene que conocer nuestros productos" and then if you decide it sounds better in the plural in English because it's not a specific customer but rather any client who walks in the shop, you run the risk of typing "Customers has to get to know our products". You could slip up and forget that you had decided to use customers in the plural and then translate the Spanish verb in the singular.
Also look for instances of "su" and "sus". As some legal sentences are somewhat long and winding in nature, you might be busy tidying them up and sorting them out and forget if the subject is male, female or an it. Companies are "its", but the people representing them are either a he or a she.
When doing a find and replace, remember that if you are translating from Spanish into English, you cannot assume that you are replacing a mere word or phrase. The word or phrase that was there before the replacement was firmly rooted there much like a plant or tree. If you uproot a term, you must make sure that the context is not disturbed when you replace it with another. An example would be replacing "contract" with agreement. Since you would say "a contract" and "an agreement", if you perform a cursory find and replace, then you will see "a agreement". Someone could quibble about a sentence like that and rightfully so! Likewise, if you change a noun from the singular to the plural or vice versa, you must change the verbs that follow it in all applicable instances. Also, if you are translating from Spanish to English, and the plural is irregular, as in party/parties and you want to replace all instances of "spouse and/or spouses" with "party and/or parties", you have to watch out, because if you type "party" in the replace field, you are going to end up with "partys".
I see proofreading as a sort of insurance. Many times, I spot only a few errors and sometimes none at all. However, the mere fact that I have carefully gone over my work reassures me and lends me extra confidence so I can go on with my day. Now I am going to proofread this post!
Monday, April 26, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Certified translations/Traducciones juradas
Sometimes translators are required to certify their translations, especially legal ones that may also be notarized. In some countries (Argentina comes to mind), there is a special protocol for certifying translations, and many translators have an official government "sworn" translator number.
In other countries, like the United States, all a translator needs an ATA number, or, as has been the case for me on occasion, a simple signed statement indicating that the translator knows both Spanish and English and that he or she rendered a translation that was faithful to the original. If you work for agencies, many times they take care of the certification process and the translator doesn't have to furnish any certification him or herself.
Please refer to the image above for the legal wording. You might want to check with other sources too, as this is one variant, and is in no way definitive.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
res judicata
If you listen to this phrase with a Spanish ear, you might think it is some sort of "judged cow". In fact this is the term used in English legal parlance, and it simply Latin for "the thing has been decided". In other words, the judgment for a case is final and cannot be raised again.
The Spanish equivalent is cosa juzgada (surprisingly un-Latin). I have come across the term several times in divorce proceedings, especially Mexican ones. Here is what the 'Lectric Law Library has to say about it:
"The principle that a final judgment of a competent court is conclusive upon the parties in any subsequent litigation involving the same cause of action.
The general rule is that a plaintiff who has prosecuted one action against a defendant and obtained a valid final judgment is barred by res judicata from prosecuting another action against the same defendant where (a) the claim in the second action is one which is based on the same factual transaction that was at issue in the first; (b) the plaintiff seeks a remedy additional or alternative to the one sought earlier; and (c) the claim is of such a nature as could have been joined in the first action. Underlying this standard is the need to strike a delicate balance between the interests of the defendant and of the courts in bringing litigation to a close and the interest of the plaintiff in the vindication of a just claim.
The Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. S 1738, requires that federal courts "give a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered. " Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984). Oregon courts adhere to standard principles of claim and issue preclusion. See Rennie v. Freeway Transp., 294 Or. 319 (1982).
The difference between the two concepts has been succinctly described by Justice Potter Stewart: The federal courts have traditionally adhered to the related doctrines of res judicata [claim preclusion] and collateral estoppel [issue preclusion]. Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. Under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law ncessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case. As this Court and other courts have often recognized, res judicata and collateral estoppel relieve parties of the costs and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. at 94. The collateral estoppel bar is inapplicable when the claimant did not have a "full and fair opportunity to litigate" the issue decided by the state court. Id. at 101. Thus, a claimant can file a federal suit to challenge the adequacy of state procedures.
RECOGNIZED EXCEPTIONS
First, consent or tacit agreement is clear justification for splitting a claim. Restatement (Second) of Judgments S 26(1)(a), and comment a (1982). Because a primary purpose of claim preclusion is to protect defendants from being harassed by repetitive actions based on the same claim, the rule need not be enforced where the State and County have implicitly consented to the splitting of claim under state and federal laws. See Rennie, 294 Or. at 329 n. 9 (citing 18 Charles A. Wright, Arthur C. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure S 4415 at 124-125; and Annot., 40 A.L.R.3d 108 (1971)).
Second, it may appear in the course of an action that the plaintiff is splitting a claim, but that there are special reasons that justify his doing so, and accordingly that the judgment in the action ought not to have the usual consequences of extinguishing the entire claim; rather the plaintiff should be left with an opportunity to litigate in a second action that part of the claim which he justifiably omitted from the first action. Restatement (Second) of Judgments S 26(1)(b).
The so called England reservation is available to litigants that are in state court "involuntarily" as a result of Pullman absention by the federal court. See England v. Louisiana State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411 (1964); see also Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S.496 (1941). England reservation applies when a litigant files a suit in federal court and the federal court stays proceedings to allow the state courts to consider state law questions. In such a situation, the litigant can inform the state court that she reserves federal issues for federal court. Id. at 421. By doing so, the litigant avoids the bar of res judicata upon return to federal court.
Res judicata bars a party from bringing a claim if a court of competent jurisdiction has rendered final judgment on the merits in a previous action involving the same parties and claims. In re Intl Nutronics, Inc., 28 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 577 (1994).
Once a bankruptcy plan is confirmed, it is binding on all parties and all questions that could have been raised pertaining to the plan are entitled to res judicata effect. See 11 U.S.C. section 1141(a).
The decision of a legal or equitable issue, by a court of competent jurisdiction.
It is a general principle that such decision is binding and conclusive upon all other courts of concurrent power. This principle pervades not only our own, but all other systems of jurisprudence, and has become a rule of universal law, founded on the soundest policy. If, therefore, Paul sue Peter to recover the amount due to him upon a bond and on the trial the plaintiff fails to prove the due execution of the bond by Peter, in consequence of which a verdict is rendered for the defendant, and judgment is entered thereupon, this judgment, till reversed on error, is conclusive upon the parties, and Paul cannot recover in a subsequent suit, although he may then be able to prove the due execution of the bond by Peter, and that the money is due to him.
The Constitution of the United States and the amendments to it declare, that no fact, once tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexaminable in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.
But in order to make a matter res judicata there must be a concurrence of the four conditions following, namely: 1. Identity in the thing sued for. 2. Identity of the cause of action; if, for example, I have claimed a right of way over Blackacre, and a final judgment has been rendered against me, and afterwards I purchase Blackacre, this first decision shall not be a bar to my recovery, when I sue as owner of the land, and not for an easement over it, which I claimed as a right appurtenant to My land Whiteacre. 3. Identity of persons and of parties to the action; this rule is a necessary consequence of the rule of natural justice: ne inauditus condemnetur. 4. Identity of the quality in the persons for or against whom the claim is made; for example, an action by Peter to recover a horse, and a final judgment against him, is no bar to an action by Peter, administrator of Paul, to recover the same horse."
The Spanish equivalent is cosa juzgada (surprisingly un-Latin). I have come across the term several times in divorce proceedings, especially Mexican ones. Here is what the 'Lectric Law Library has to say about it:
"The principle that a final judgment of a competent court is conclusive upon the parties in any subsequent litigation involving the same cause of action.
The general rule is that a plaintiff who has prosecuted one action against a defendant and obtained a valid final judgment is barred by res judicata from prosecuting another action against the same defendant where (a) the claim in the second action is one which is based on the same factual transaction that was at issue in the first; (b) the plaintiff seeks a remedy additional or alternative to the one sought earlier; and (c) the claim is of such a nature as could have been joined in the first action. Underlying this standard is the need to strike a delicate balance between the interests of the defendant and of the courts in bringing litigation to a close and the interest of the plaintiff in the vindication of a just claim.
The Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. S 1738, requires that federal courts "give a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered. " Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984). Oregon courts adhere to standard principles of claim and issue preclusion. See Rennie v. Freeway Transp., 294 Or. 319 (1982).
The difference between the two concepts has been succinctly described by Justice Potter Stewart: The federal courts have traditionally adhered to the related doctrines of res judicata [claim preclusion] and collateral estoppel [issue preclusion]. Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. Under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law ncessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case. As this Court and other courts have often recognized, res judicata and collateral estoppel relieve parties of the costs and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. at 94. The collateral estoppel bar is inapplicable when the claimant did not have a "full and fair opportunity to litigate" the issue decided by the state court. Id. at 101. Thus, a claimant can file a federal suit to challenge the adequacy of state procedures.
RECOGNIZED EXCEPTIONS
First, consent or tacit agreement is clear justification for splitting a claim. Restatement (Second) of Judgments S 26(1)(a), and comment a (1982). Because a primary purpose of claim preclusion is to protect defendants from being harassed by repetitive actions based on the same claim, the rule need not be enforced where the State and County have implicitly consented to the splitting of claim under state and federal laws. See Rennie, 294 Or. at 329 n. 9 (citing 18 Charles A. Wright, Arthur C. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure S 4415 at 124-125; and Annot., 40 A.L.R.3d 108 (1971)).
Second, it may appear in the course of an action that the plaintiff is splitting a claim, but that there are special reasons that justify his doing so, and accordingly that the judgment in the action ought not to have the usual consequences of extinguishing the entire claim; rather the plaintiff should be left with an opportunity to litigate in a second action that part of the claim which he justifiably omitted from the first action. Restatement (Second) of Judgments S 26(1)(b).
The so called England reservation is available to litigants that are in state court "involuntarily" as a result of Pullman absention by the federal court. See England v. Louisiana State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411 (1964); see also Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S.496 (1941). England reservation applies when a litigant files a suit in federal court and the federal court stays proceedings to allow the state courts to consider state law questions. In such a situation, the litigant can inform the state court that she reserves federal issues for federal court. Id. at 421. By doing so, the litigant avoids the bar of res judicata upon return to federal court.
Res judicata bars a party from bringing a claim if a court of competent jurisdiction has rendered final judgment on the merits in a previous action involving the same parties and claims. In re Intl Nutronics, Inc., 28 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 577 (1994).
Once a bankruptcy plan is confirmed, it is binding on all parties and all questions that could have been raised pertaining to the plan are entitled to res judicata effect. See 11 U.S.C. section 1141(a).
The decision of a legal or equitable issue, by a court of competent jurisdiction.
It is a general principle that such decision is binding and conclusive upon all other courts of concurrent power. This principle pervades not only our own, but all other systems of jurisprudence, and has become a rule of universal law, founded on the soundest policy. If, therefore, Paul sue Peter to recover the amount due to him upon a bond and on the trial the plaintiff fails to prove the due execution of the bond by Peter, in consequence of which a verdict is rendered for the defendant, and judgment is entered thereupon, this judgment, till reversed on error, is conclusive upon the parties, and Paul cannot recover in a subsequent suit, although he may then be able to prove the due execution of the bond by Peter, and that the money is due to him.
The Constitution of the United States and the amendments to it declare, that no fact, once tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexaminable in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.
But in order to make a matter res judicata there must be a concurrence of the four conditions following, namely: 1. Identity in the thing sued for. 2. Identity of the cause of action; if, for example, I have claimed a right of way over Blackacre, and a final judgment has been rendered against me, and afterwards I purchase Blackacre, this first decision shall not be a bar to my recovery, when I sue as owner of the land, and not for an easement over it, which I claimed as a right appurtenant to My land Whiteacre. 3. Identity of persons and of parties to the action; this rule is a necessary consequence of the rule of natural justice: ne inauditus condemnetur. 4. Identity of the quality in the persons for or against whom the claim is made; for example, an action by Peter to recover a horse, and a final judgment against him, is no bar to an action by Peter, administrator of Paul, to recover the same horse."
Thursday, April 01, 2010
In defense of Babylon
In an earlier post, I had already written about the merits of Babylon. After reading some disparaging forum posts on translator sites, I feel the need to defend it.
A handful of translators have complained about licensing problems in which they have been unable to license their copies of Babylon after reinstalling the software. They also say that they have had difficulty communicating with Babylon's support department. This may be true in some cases, but I have never had a problem myself. I have installed and reinstalled Babylon a few times without a hitch.
Other translators find the use of Babylon to be unprofessional. They have the impression that Babylon is an unprofessional jumble of words that anonymous users have compiled willy-nilly with no regard to their actual meanings. I must say that there is a "crowdsourcing" factor to Babylon, but it is entirely up to the user what dictionaries he/she wishes to download and install. What I do know is that for the price of a small translation job that would take a professional translator a morning to do, you can purchase Babylon with an electronic version of a respectable professionally-compiled dictionary such as the Vox Spanish-English English-Spanish dictionary with an accurate, albeit incomplete collection of legal terminology. (Although suffice it to say that no one dictionary is complete in its own right). As for the community-compiled glossaries, I can vouch for the Universidad de Granada Spanish-English-Spanish dictionary. It contains good translations of terms and phrases that I have not managed to find elsewhere.
I would be remiss if I did not mention how handy it is to highlight a word or phrase and then bring up Babylon with the definition with a simple hotkey. Or what about conversions? I use this feature at the end of every month when I am preparing invoices.
As a closing remark, I would just like to say that the dictionary or glossary user is the ultimate judge. As a dictionary cannot yield the correct translation on its own, but rather point you in the right direction, you must always rely on your knowledge, experience and intuition as a professional translator to ensure that the job is done properly.
A handful of translators have complained about licensing problems in which they have been unable to license their copies of Babylon after reinstalling the software. They also say that they have had difficulty communicating with Babylon's support department. This may be true in some cases, but I have never had a problem myself. I have installed and reinstalled Babylon a few times without a hitch.
Other translators find the use of Babylon to be unprofessional. They have the impression that Babylon is an unprofessional jumble of words that anonymous users have compiled willy-nilly with no regard to their actual meanings. I must say that there is a "crowdsourcing" factor to Babylon, but it is entirely up to the user what dictionaries he/she wishes to download and install. What I do know is that for the price of a small translation job that would take a professional translator a morning to do, you can purchase Babylon with an electronic version of a respectable professionally-compiled dictionary such as the Vox Spanish-English English-Spanish dictionary with an accurate, albeit incomplete collection of legal terminology. (Although suffice it to say that no one dictionary is complete in its own right). As for the community-compiled glossaries, I can vouch for the Universidad de Granada Spanish-English-Spanish dictionary. It contains good translations of terms and phrases that I have not managed to find elsewhere.
I would be remiss if I did not mention how handy it is to highlight a word or phrase and then bring up Babylon with the definition with a simple hotkey. Or what about conversions? I use this feature at the end of every month when I am preparing invoices.
As a closing remark, I would just like to say that the dictionary or glossary user is the ultimate judge. As a dictionary cannot yield the correct translation on its own, but rather point you in the right direction, you must always rely on your knowledge, experience and intuition as a professional translator to ensure that the job is done properly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)