Thursday, 6 July 2017

Keep It Simple in Translation












I think this is an excellent example of topic for debate, but I do have a choice, a line I think we should follow: Keep it simple when it is simple in both T & I and simplify if it is possible to do so when it is I. 


The expression our fellow, Rosemary Polato, came up with is, with no doubts, super correct and super elegant. Just read http://thelawdictionary.org/transit-in-rem-judicatam/ 



The original expression did not contain any Latin, however: It was written in plain Portuguese. Lots of people have defended the end of the use of the Latin Language. I think that might be the choice of the majority. It seems to me that the languages we use in human kind are incredibly complex. So much so, I am proposing the simplification of the entire structure, universalization. See: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302590438_Universal_Grammar



I think that we always worry about Accuracy in Translation. I have been putting my head to work in that direction and got to Translation Techniques and the term Cultural Translation with a lot of effort. 


The efforts are always in the direction of keeping the tune of the original text, and we did not have writing that was as elegant as that in the original text, so that, also from that point of view, the choice is not the best, even though it would be absolutely correct. 


Transito, in English, means traffic or transit most of the time. Em Julgado means nothing in reality. We get the meaning from hearing the expression. Em means In. Julgado means Judged. In Judged, literal translation, means the same as Em Julgado, that is, nothing. Perhaps they got to that expression from refining applications, if you understand me. It is like this: Someone said Esta Bem? That means Is That OK? They started repeating that. Lots of people. They finally got lazy and said Ta Bem? instead. Now people learned the new expression, which replaced the other, short for the other, and Ta Bem? would now be used in place of Esta Bem for short. With time and continuous plus frequent use, they finally simplified it to maximum, to its current shape, Ta? In this way, if a foreigner learns the Portuguese language, they don't see much sense in having ta, but upon being taught the usage, they understand the sense and apply with no difficulties. The same happens with our generation, which did not create Transito Em Julgado. That means the suit has already gone through every instance that is possible, so that the decision is now considered final by the courts. Any expression that escapes this sense by much would be wrong translation. 


See the explanation in Portuguese (http://www.direitonet.com.br/dicionario/exibir/976/Transito-em-julgado-Novo-CPC-Lei-no-13105-15):
Diz-se que a demanda transitou em julgado quando a sentença tornou-se definitiva, não podendo mais ser modificada, seja por ter transcorrido o prazo para a interposição de eventuais recursos, seja por não caber mais recurso sobre ela.


They probably mean that it went with the tag Judged from beginning to end of the list of courts and applicable processes, so maybe even possible appeals, so that it has passed, just like a car in the traffic, from beginning to end, as Judged. 


Another PROz fellow went with matter adjudged. See (http://www.proz.com/kudoz/portuguese_to_english/law_general/907639-senten%C3%A7a_transitada_em_julgado.html):







With legal issues, we have to be extra careful though. See what the experts say about matter adjudged (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P6C.HTM):






From four items that form the definition of adjudged matter in the legal metier, we get to satisfy one or at most two in this case. What creates concern are the items in the middle of the list, 


 no appeal was made against the judgement within the canonical time-limit;

 the trial has been abated or renounced in the appeal grade;


It is possible, unfortunately, in Brazil, that appeals have been made inside of the limit, and the process kept on progressing inside of the legal scale. At least in Brazil I am sure this expression is used in a loser sense when it comes to those outside of the legal metier. 


Now we can check the proper use of the term by perhaps trying another source of legal terms in Brazil, since the previous one was already a specialized source. Let's do that.


From http://www.tjdft.jus.br/acesso-rapido/informacoes/vocabulario-juridico/entendendo-o-judiciario/transito-em-julgado, a tribunal's website, of the Federal District and territories, we get:




Once more, we do not have the satisfaction of all items. We could still try one more source. Let's do that.


http://alessandrastrazzi.adv.br/processo/transito-em-julgado-o-que-significa-isso/ confirms what we said so far, so unfortunately it does not look like we can replace one expression with the other. It could be that Brazilians had poor capabilities of expressing the definition of this expression and, in reality, it meant all that, but I myself have not heard of these four conditions ever. The expert, Alessandra, still mentions cases in which one can reopen the case.


http://www.coad.com.br/home/noticias-detalhe/53751/momento-em-que-ocorre-o-transito-em-julgado-no-processo-penal talks about expiration of the last deadline for appeals that is applicable before the process can become something that could be associated with Transito Em Julgado. It actually seems to me that a process in Brazil can become final in terms of decision on first instance if the magistrates so wishes, like certain conditions satisfied or something. All that I meant here is that we do not need two processes at all, but the definition in the English language seems to demand at least two (first item). In this case, it would be impossible to defend that both expressions mean the same. 


When we look at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adjudged, we understand that the sense 1.3 of the first dictionary from TheFreeDictionary would have been the closest to what they legally meant in Australia in terms of this expression. It is easy to see that lexicon-wise the equivalency exists. The problem is realistically the legal metier. If we translate a technical document, however, we do have to obey what they decided, and that is the reason for some places to have their own glossaries and make sure interpreters can access those. 


We notice that the sense 1.1 of the lexicon we have used in the paragraph above this one has nothing to do with the main idea, that of the final decision, so that I myself would advise my fellows not to use adjudged matter as a replacement for the expression in translation. When the text is technical we really need the exact idea conveyed. In this case, we can increase the amount of words if necessary to pass the same idea, so that we may end up even with footnotes, as said many times by me, but we should not lose the original meaning or run the risk of losing it as we translate from one language to another. 


In noticing that there is no other possible choice, we are obliged to sign under the choice of Rosemary, Latin or not, and, this time, contrary to what we could expect, there is no Quodlibet (no spread, I am trying to joke, to connect this to what we see in Logic, Ex Falso). 


Now, there is a way in which we could sustain the use of adjudged matter in this situation: If what had been meant in the English language were or instead of and, so that if any of those items had been satisfied, any of them, we could have adjudged. 


In this case, we'd better check possible equivalency between the Latin expression and adjudged matter. Let's do that.



Oh, well, I found better now. See (https://www.louisianapersonalinjurylawyerblog.com/2016/12/3340.html):





Now things became a little worse, since Res Judicatam, which seems to be the correct Latin version of Em Julgado, seems to be the same as adjudged matter. These are American lawyers. 



It is a case in which our powers as translators seem to be realistically small. If I were to decide things based on my current knowledge, supposing all I know is what I see here, I would appeal to footnotes and perhaps write Considered Judged or Finalized Matter. I still found Matter of Record as an equivalent expression for Rem Judicatam online. It all sounds wrong, if you ask me. Matter of Record should be anything that passes through a court. Adjudged Matter should be anything that has been judged by any court. Em Julgado, however, is something that is final somehow. So is Res Judicatam. 


To be sincere with you, I decided to stretch and Res Judicatio is Latin but not Res Judicatam according to http://latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/judicatio It is also possible Judicatum, but not Judicata according to http://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?lemma=IUDICATUM100 



For today, and for being sure that I previously used Res Judicata trusting another PROz fellow in terms of the Latin language, I will stick to the Ozzie rules: Keep it basic. I think they write and say Finalized Matter down here, regardless, like they may be Legal Aid lawyers, judges or clients. That is how Brazil takes it, I reckon. So, Finalized Matter is my choice from here onward. I don't like Latin, I cannot become an expert in this language, it seems to me that it is not always that experts choose things in the best way as possible, referring here to the lawyers, and people who write the websites for the courts, and the meaning may be conveyed in an accurate manner via footnotes. 





No comments:

Post a Comment