| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | Rented and leased Thread poster: Paul VALET (X)
|
|---|
Angus Stewart 
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:13
French to English
+ ...
| Classification | Jun 25, 2012 |
Paul VALET wrote:
The point was to know if it would be possible to gather some specific connected legal objects under one and only name. That seemed at first sight possible, since they are connected. It’s just like classifying various things and giving a class name for a specific identified class. The only problem should be to agree on what constitute that specific class and on its name.
So, I think Angus answered that it is possible to do that classification in the instance concerned, even if a classification implies a simplification. And it is apparently to avoid any dispute arising from that kind of classification/simplification that lawyers prefer sticking to listing the various types of legal objects concerned in their legal texts.
But you would probably agree that that kind of classification/simplification is inevitable, like in a law textbook, a statement of income or a job description.
Just to pick up on your point about classification, as the point I was originally making was about redundancy and repetition rather than classification per se. Where our legal system attaches a different meaning between two apparently similar terms (for instance my previous example of "money" and "cash"), we cannot simply omit them from a document, without it leading to some rather serious legal consequences (I hope I've made that point clear in my previous posts). The situation is different in the instance of "leased" and "rented", because in the given context the meaning of one term is assumed within the other, such that one of the terms becomes redundant.
However, we can achieve a similar result to what you envisage by another means and that is by using law's self defining capacity. For instance, if for the purposes of a given document we only want to have to mention one of the terms, rather than listing all the terms on each occasion it occurs, then we can simply include a definition stating that for the purpose of that document one term includes all the others in the given category.
Taking this one stage further we can even do this by incorporating a reference to another document that contains the definition/classification, or even whole clauses. This approach enables the main document to be streamlined, cutting out a considerable amount of excess words and making it easier for the lay person to read by focusing upon the substance of their obligation, without in anyway undermining the legal effect.
This may not necessarily make the translator's take any easier if he is then asked to translate the document being referred to, but does have the advantage that such requests are likely to occur less frequently and only when the client has a genuine to understand the text in that level of detail, as opposed to just getting to grips with what his rights and obligations in general terms.
[Edited at 2012-06-25 14:51 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-06-25 14:58 GMT]
| | | | Angus Stewart
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:13
French to English
+ ...
| Globalisation | Jun 25, 2012 |
Paul VALET wrote:
Angus Stewart wrote:
That is true up to a point, but the example you chose came from property law which is one of the areas there is less interference EU law, largely because the nature of land means that it tends not to have cross-border implications.
Global companies have to consolidate data coming from various countries with their various laws. They just cannot give a series of annual reports in different languages and respecting only various local laws. An harmonization is necessary to consolidate and to manage them.
So they have to consider various aspects such as nature/destination of expenses or economy or tax. They just need international/corporate classifications with the adequate words and concepts.
That is often the problem in translation and management. You cannot always say "we are so specific" that we cannot compare or consolidate. You have to compare and consolidate according to concepts that don't cover every details of each national law. [Modifié le 2012-06-25 14:39 GMT]
I'm not saying that there is not pressure in that regard from certain quarters (I can think of one instance recently of an international company that found itself in trouble because it tried to act as though English law and Scottish law were already one and the same), or that there won't be some harmonization in this area of the law in the future. I'm simply saying that the harmonization process hasn't really taken hold in this area yet, because the need for harmonization is less pressing than in other areas, where the benefits to cross border business are more tangible and immediate.
Consequently, property law is one the areas in which the national laws of the member states remain at their most distinctive.
Edited: to clarify, my comments were referring to your example of "leased and rented" rather than your example of "administrative expenses".
[Edited at 2012-06-25 15:09 GMT]
| | | | Paul VALET (X)
France
Local time: 17:13
TOPIC STARTER | The eternal problem of the context... | Jun 25, 2012 |
Angus Stewart wrote:
I'm not saying that there is not pressure in that regard from certain quarters (...).
Consequently, property law is one the areas in which the national laws of the member states remain at their most distinctive.
Sometimes, I just can't know in full the context ot the text I have to translate for headquarters. It may be a translation into English from a Swedish or Danish text for French speaking interests. In those circumstances, the English text may be an "international" interpretation in English of a non-British/American legal situation, wwithout any reference to a national law... In those cases, I cannot pay too much importance to the details of the common/other law that would be relevant if the text issuer and the situation were from a common-law country. I have to interpret myself...
Poor me!
[Modifié le 2012-06-25 15:19 GMT]
| | | | Angus Stewart
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:13
French to English
+ ...
| The eternal problem of the context... | Jun 25, 2012 |
Paul VALET wrote:
Sometimes, I just can't know in full the context ot the text I have to translate for headquarters. It may be a translation into English from a Swedish or Danish text for French speaking interests. In those circumstances, the English text may be an "international" interpretation in English of a non-British/American legal situation, wwithout any reference to a national law...
You are right in saying that you cannot be expected to know the details of the Swedish or Danish legal systems, because that is not your area of expertise and (at least to an extent) you have to rely upon the expertise of the person who translated the text from Swedish or Danish to make any salient points clear, since you don't have access to the original text. However, what you are describing here is a through translation, which is a completely different issue and is a discussion for another day.
To make a more general point, there are as many variants of legal English as their are different legal systems, all with different drafting conventions and concepts etc. so if you are trying to cover all of them, then your task really is a difficult one (plus we have EU law and its distinctive language on top). As you say, you cannot be expected to understand everything that a native legal practitioner of that system would understand and have to interpret. That entails making decisions as to what is and is not important for your reader to understand in the context.
I often have to make similar decisions, but translating in the opposite direction, which can occasionally give me the different problem of having to spell out things that are implicit in the source text, because my target readers are used to a different level of detail. Again, this requires balanced judgements to be made based on the context, as to what it is important for the target reader to understand.
In any event, I would like to thank you for starting this thread, as it has been one of the most interesting and insightful discussions I have had in a long time.
[Edited at 2012-06-25 15:38 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Paul VALET (X)
France
Local time: 17:13
TOPIC STARTER | A varied job indeed | Jun 25, 2012 |
It is sometimes very demanding but documented. I remember having translated an article on "coypright around the world" of that nature...
Angus Stewart wrote:
In any event, I would like to thank you for starting this thread, as it has been one of the most interesting and insightful discussions I have had in a long time.
[Edited at 2012-06-25 15:38 GMT]
I much enjoyed your important contribution too, as well as your noticeable respect for others' points of view.
| | | | Paul VALET (X)
France
Local time: 17:13
TOPIC STARTER | I often use an accompanying translator's note | Jun 26, 2012 |
Angus Stewart wrote:
However, we can achieve a similar result to what you envisage by another means and that is by using law's self defining capacity. For instance, if for the purposes of a given document we only want to have to mention one of the terms, rather than listing all the terms on each occasion it occurs, then we can simply include a definition stating that for the purpose of that document one term includes all the others in the given category.
That is right. In translation, I personally often make comments for that purpose, in an accompanying "translator's note".
Angus Stewart wrote:
Edited: to clarify, my comments were referring to your example of "leased and rented" rather than your example of "administrative expenses".
It may sometimes come to the same thing. For example, in financial documents, "operating leases" fall into administrative expenses. There, I don't see the difference between "rented" and "leased", apart maybe from tenancy agreements.
[Modifié le 2012-06-26 12:12 GMT]
| | | | Paul VALET (X)
France
Local time: 17:13
TOPIC STARTER
[Modifié le 2012-06-26 14:50 GMT]
| | | | Paul VALET (X)
France
Local time: 17:13
TOPIC STARTER
I apologize for having been myself of extremes telling that a post of yours was “irrelevant to the subject”.
I just thought we were beyond this point at that stage of the discussion. However, I can precise several points.
Giles Watson wrote: French translations of "leasing", such as "location avec option d'achat", are only a very approximate rendering of time-limited purchase, common law's third option to the purchase or rent/hire/letting of a good.
Here I think you made a mistake. Purchasing is quite different from renting or leasing, for as long as you rent or lease a property you just can use it, but it doesn’t belong to you.
The “location avec option d’achat” is a “finance lease”. The main difference, in financial statements, maybe between “operating lease” and “finance lease”, for a “finance lease” may come in balance sheet whilst an “operating lease” comes in P&L.
Giles Watson wrote: A lease gives time-limited legal title to a good (ie, the lessee can sell the lease on) but rented goods remain the property of the original owner. Subsuming both notions into the single verb "louer" risks leaving out information.
I agree with Angus on that point (see above). Properly speaking both of these notions concern “des locations”, so “louer” is a correct verb in French for both of them.
The implications of these 2 notions are however different. When you rent a property, you usually don’t intend to buy it, contrary to what you often intend to do with a finance lease.
That is the reason why it could be useful to precise that “leases” maybe of different natures.
Financially speaking, the implications maybe different for companies, in France, according to 2 criteria:
- if individual accounts or consolidated accounts are concerned,
- if IFRS standards are concerned or not.
I need hardly say that, with an isolated phrase such as “leased and rented”, without any substantial context, I could write comments that would largely exceed the limits of its translation if I wanted to examine all the possible cases. So, a very short comment should be appropriate.
| | |
|
|
|
Angus Stewart
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:13
French to English
+ ...
| A rose by any other name... | Jun 26, 2012 |
Paul VALET wrote:
Angus Stewart wrote:
Edited: to clarify, my comments were referring to your example of "leased and rented" rather than your example of "administrative expenses".
For example, in financial documents, "operating leases" fall into administrative expenses. There, I don't see the difference between "rented" and "leased", apart maybe from tenancy agreements.
To be honest, I don't see a significant difference between the significance of these terms in general myself, as opposed to the situations in which people use them in contemporary contexts. Having said that, I come from a jurisdiction where there have been numerous abortive attempts to re-categorise leases by using different names to describe the arrangements between the parties and the courts have always looked to the characteristics of the arrangement rather than the name used to determine the outcome (most of the litigation that I am aware of has concerned the use of the term "licence", but whilst not directly in point with "rented" I think it establishes the general principle). However, this is not say that there is not a distinction in specific contexts, as we discussed previously.
More generally, to return to your point about classification, reflecting upon our discussion yesterday I think that we may have had slightly different things in mind. My comments were with reference to explaining why lawyers in the common law system have to draft things in particular ways and at times have to include what exhaustive lists of words rather than just referring to a general category, which may appear easier. Hopefully, I have helped to provide you with an insight into that process.
I think that what you had in mind was the second stage in the process, i.e. once you have understood the source text in its own terms, using a process of characterization as an aid in the translation process. That is quite a legitimate translation tool and one that I often use myself. Indeed at that stage, you may even decide that the distinctions that are relevant in the source culture context are not so important to your readers, if they are used to dealing general broader categories that are understood to include those specific terms (I more often have the reverse problem).
However, it all depends upon what is relevant in the specific context. For instance if you are translating a document that is the subject of a dispute that is about to be litigated and that litigation turns on the nuances between the different terms, then you have no option, but to reproduce all the shades of meaning, because it then becomes absolutely vital from the client's perspective that he has a full understanding of why this is important in the source culture context. In contrast, if you are at one stage removed from the lease itself, i.e. dealing with a financial report that merely comments upon the lease, then your considerations will be different again. In that context, I can see how Giles comment regarding possible tax treatment may become a consideration.
In some senses you are in a position similar to that which we discussed yesterday with regards to through translation, only on this occasion the document you don't have access to is the lease, rather than a source text in third language.
I don't think there is a great deal of difference between us in substance on the topic of "leased and rented". My earlier point was more about the broader property law context to which leases belong, as this can be quite specific to a given culture, for instance in Scotland we have only recently emerged from feudalism. For example, if you were to translate some Scottish title deeds, you may very well come across some very archaic terminology that had no readily identifiable equivalent in another contemporary legal system. Hence, I was trying to explain why in this area of the law it is particularly important to understand the peculiarly domestic setting, with its legal culture and drafting conventions.
All in all this has turned out to be an exceptionally interesting discussion that has many dimensions.
[Edited at 2012-06-26 14:22 GMT]
| | | | Angus Stewart
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:13
French to English
+ ...
| Squaring the equation | Jun 26, 2012 |
Paul VALET wrote:
@ Giles
I apologize for having been myself of extremes telling that a post of yours was “irrelevant to the subject”.
I just thought we were beyond this point at that stage of the discussion. However, I can precise several points.
...
I need hardly say that, with an isolated phrase such as “leased and rented”, without any substantial context, I could write comments that would largely exceed the limits of its translation if I wanted to examine all the possible cases. So, a very short comment should be appropriate.
I agree that Giles' post was not irrelevant. I'm not particularly keen on getting into a separate discussion upon the the individual meanings of "leased" and "rented", as I feel that is another discussion for which Kudoz would be the appropriate form. However, if Giles considers that the distinction is significant, then it is something that is legitimate to discuss provided that he can square the equation by explaining how this distinction alters our understanding of the meaning when "leased and rented" appear together as a single translation unit.
Edited:
On reflection, I wonder whether the term "leased and rented" where it appears in the context of a financial statement might be intended to denote more than one property/transaction? If so, that might afford a basis for the equation to be squared.
Re-reading Giles' description, I wonder if what he actually intended was to draw the basis of the tenant's ability to assign his interest with "leased" denoting the ability to assign and "rented" denoting the absence of this possibility. It would be a feasible basis upon which to make a distinction, albeit complicated by the fact that many "leases" in fact contain restrictions on the tenant's ability to assign his interest.
[Edited at 2012-06-26 20:27 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Rented and leased | 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 » |
| | 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! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
