Affidavit Issue

[Warren Smith]

I just finished a series of translations of some pretty awful emails to be put into evidence for a legal action. One email in particular was quite cryptic, using many abbreviations and lots of company-internal jargon which I could not figure out. The grammar was also incorrect, and in some sentences, I could not, through context, figure out who the implied subject was, etc. Basically, there was not enough fabric to figure out what was going on, with any degree of confidence. For example, in one sentence, one phrase might have meant "I heard, at a class reunion, from a guy who works for the government that…," or "At the coordination meeting, they heard from me that…" (or any of a host of other possible meanings), without enough context to tell which is more likely. (I would post the sentence so you can see what I am talking about, but it is too sensitive for a public venue, I am afraid.)

 

While typically in such cases I like to try to preserve ambiguity in my translations (as the working principle is that it is worse to have a precise translation that excludes the correct meaning than to have a vague translation that includes the correct meaning), but I could not do that here (beyond saying "someone (maybe me) heard from somebody (maybe me) at some meeting that…").

 

So as a translator I take my best shot and move on; no amount of staring at the sentence or doing Internet research would have gotten me to a better answer.

 

But now they want a signed affidavit. The text of the affidavit they sent me includes: "I do solemnly and sincerely declare that the following is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, a true and accurate translation of the document listed below in a form that best reflects the intention and meaning of the original text."

 

While I have signed many such affidavits in the past, of course, clearly I can't sign such a statement in this case, so I need to push back.  Can anybody suggest good verbiage for this affidavit, without the client (who is unaware of the inherent impossibility of producing a high-confidence translation in a vacuum) questioning the competence of the translator?

 

Thanks.

 

Warren

 

[Terry Gallagher]

Warren,

What you are asking for is legal advice, and I think you should ask a lawyer, not a random bunch of translators. Explain the situation just as you have explained it to us, going into more detail about Japanese grammar for the benefit of a lawyer who probably has little understanding of the subject. And yes, I think it would be worth spending a couple hundred of the dollars you made on the project to protect yourself.

Terry Gallagher

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Matthew Schlecht]

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Warren Smith <drwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

I just finished a series of translations of some pretty awful emails to be put into evidence for a legal action.

<...>

So as a translator I take my best shot and move on; no amount of staring at the sentence or doing Internet research would have gotten me to a better answer.

     Been there, never want to do that again!

     I'd been working on a huge set of manufacturing records, where I am in my element.

     At the last minute, the client contacted me with "just a few short documents" in addition, and I foolishly said yes.

     Spent more time puzzling over those dozen or so sentences than for a dozen pages of the main content.  The only thing worse is if they are handwritten notes.

     As you point out, emails, tweets, and other similar content have only ~10% of the meaning reflected in the actual text, while ~90% of the meaning requires a thorough knowledge of the undocumented circumstantial context.

 

But now they want a signed affidavit. The text of the affidavit they sent me includes: "I do solemnly and sincerely declare that the following is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, a true and accurate translation of the document listed below in a form that best reflects the intention and meaning of the original text."

     Yeowch!  Worst nightmare!

     You do need to qualify it, though, or else you will be the paddleball that the lawyers knock around the court.

     Maybe something along the lines of:

Email documents are generally quite abbreviated, with much of the meaning understood through context that is not available to the translator. The translation provided reflects the least exclusive reading of the fragmentary test as is, of which the clearest understanding might only be available to the original author and recipient of the communication.

     Gleaning meaning from fractured cuneiform tablets might be an easier task!

Matthew Schlecht, PhD
Word Alchemy Translation
Newark, DE, USA
wordalchemytranslation.com

[Mark Spahn]

A translation-accuracy affidavit that ends "a true and accurate translation of the document listed below in a form that best reflects the intention and meaning of the original text" could be 曖昧ified by appending the phrase ", insofar as they [the intention and meaning] can be determined."

And/or add to the affidavit an explanatory note like the one Matthew Schlecht suggests.  The problem of vague meaning has been around for millenia, as attested to by the ancient proverb

http://sumerianshakespeare.com/mediac/450_0/media/84003b00c8069a6affff8045ffffe41e.jpg

-- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

[Warren Smith]

Brilliant! I think Mark's suggestion is perfect, and seems to solve the problem quite well.

For reference, I tried to explain the issue to my client as follows: 

Can't state with confidence that it is true an accurate. Can state that it is unbiased, professionally rendered, the product of due diligence and the care and caution of seasoned professional... but can't say that my final rendering is accurate.

 

For example, if you had to restate the following sentence, without using a form of the word "rendering" (because you are actually translating this sentence), how would you do it?

"I approved the final rendition."

 

If the context is translation or writing, you could say "I approved the final wording."

If the context is the movies, you could say "I approved the final cut."

If you are not sure if it is writing or movies, you could say something more ambiguous that applies to both: "I approved the final version."

If the context is fighting terrorism, you could say "I approved the final action to capture the fugitive covertly, and sneak him to another country for questioning."

If the context is cooking, you could say "I approved the meat after the fat had been cooked out of it..."

 

If you don't know the context, however, and had to choose one at random, you cannot swear that your translation is accurate (despite being carefully considered and unbiased). Does this make sense?

 

I am going to be facing a hostile attorney on Jan 31 in another case over just such an issue, where someone doesn't like a word I chose, despite all due diligence in the selection. In that case I will be able to argue that my selection of the word was very deliberate, after considerable thought, and indeed quite accurate. With your case, however, if I were to swear to "accuracy" I could be pilloried...

[Herman]

On 19/01/18 08:39, Warren Smith wrote:
> I just finished a series of translations of some pretty awful emails to
> be put into evidence for a legal action. One email in particular was
> quite cryptic, using many abbreviations and lots of company-internal
> jargon which I could not figure out. The grammar was also incorrect, and
> in some sentences, I could not, through context, figure out who the
> implied subject was, etc. Basically, there was not enough fabric to
> figure out what was going on, with any degree of confidence. For

> example, in one sentence, one phrase might have meant "I _heard, at a
> class reunion, from a guy who works for the government that…,_" or "_At
> the coordination meeting, they heard from me that…_" (or any of a host

> of other possible meanings), without enough context to tell which is
> more likely. (I would post the sentence so you can see what I am talking
> about, but it is too sensitive for a public venue, I am afraid.)
>
> While typically in such cases I like to try to preserve ambiguity in my
> translations (as the working principle is that it is worse to have a
> precise translation that excludes the correct meaning than to have a
> vague translation that includes the correct meaning), but I could not do
> that here (beyond saying "someone (maybe me) heard from somebody (maybe
> me) at some meeting that…").

It is unclear why you could not do that: an expression such as "It was
stated at the meeting that..." would be wholly appropriate in a
situation where the source is ambiguous as to who said this to whom.

Herman Kahn

[Mark Spahn]

On 1/19/2018 12:36 PM, Warren Smith wrote:

Brilliant! I think Mark's suggestion is perfect, and seems to solve the problem quite well.

For reference, I tried to explain the issue to my client as follows: 

Can't state with confidence that it is true an accurate. Can state that it is unbiased, professionally rendered, the product of due diligence and the care and caution of seasoned professional... but can't say that my final rendering is accurate.

 

For example, if you had to restate the following sentence, without using a form of the word "rendering" (because you are actually translating this sentence), how would you do it?

"I approved the final rendition."  ...

Warren,  As an example of "one word, multiple meanings", you chose the word "rendition".  But your discussion of "rendition" overlooked the meaning that seems most obvious to me:  the way in which a song is sung.  Here's one rendition of the song "I Like Chinese" (another example of ambiguity: Chineseとは、中国語か、中国人か):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DqvweTYTI0

But it was not until I saw this other, overproduced rendition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMqHL7kCtc
that I realized that "their tiny little trees" refers to 盆栽.

-- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) 

P.S.  I like Sumerians, they're better than Rotarians, as good as Rastafarians.

[Richard VanHouten]

On 1/19/2018 1:31 PM, Mark Spahn wrote:
> Warren, As an example of "one word, multiple meanings", you chose the
> word "rendition". But your discussion of "rendition" overlooked the
> meaning that seems most obvious to me: the way in which a song is
> sung. Here's one rendition of the song "I Like Chinese" (another
> example of ambiguity: Chineseとは、中国語か、中国人か):
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DqvweTYTI0
>

Not to mention 中国料理.

Richard VanHouten

[Fred Uleman]

Isn't "to the best of my knowledge and belief" the key here?

- -- --- ---- ----- ---- --- -- -
Fred Uleman

[Mark Spahn]

--

Yes, of course, but here the best of the translator's knowledge and belief is unable to resolve irreducible ambiguities for which he lacks enough background information.  Hence it seems wise to let the reader know that the translation is a best-guess effort that even a conscientious translator cannot fully clear up. -- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

[Herman]

Since any claim of accuracy one may make would by definition be made at
most "to the best of one's knowledge and belief", and any meaning one
may determine a text to have would by definition be determined only
"insofar as it can be determined", to say that a translation is accurate
"to the best of my knowledge and belief" and that it reflects the
meaning of the original "insofar as it can be determined" is no more
than to employ obfuscation with a view to advancing the notion that
whatever errors or inaccuracies there may be in the translation are the
text's fault and not the translator's.

Which is not to say that one should not take recourse to such
obfuscation, although I think the best approach in principle would be to
refuse the job to begin with.

Herman Kahn

[igc]

I’ve done my share (or maybe less than my share, but still quite a few) of these intra-company emails, presumably parts of discoveries, and I’m pretty sure I won’t volunteer to do another one, even though that means losing some income.

The headache and aggravation they cost me just isn’t worth it. I guess I’m just getting too old for this BS. The next job offer I get along these lines, I think I’ll respond to by asking whether the legal eagles involved understand all the problems involved in translating these things, which I will enumerate more or less as follows:

(1) the nature of the Japanese language itself, in which subjects (and in fact just about any part of a complete sentence) are routinely omitted, no distinctions are made between singular and plural, etc., etc.;

(2) people who have worked for years in the same company evolve a private language which no one outside their little circle can decipher in any case;

(3) even if you the translator can pretty confidently translate an email as “Hey Yoshi, let’s meet next Thursday about that thing (例の件, or some such),” you can’t know what the heck that thing was, and knowing that is often key to understanding the whole email exchange; and

(4) legal eagles are extremely stingy about what parts of the whole discovery treasure trove of documents they will let the translator see, anyway, so you will never be able to really understand what the Sam Hill the stuff you’re given to work on means. Among other problems.

It’s quite possible that legal eagles who have experience with Japanese company emails and other internal documents in discoveries understand these problems, and will have no objection to your doing your best. But if I get an affidavit to sign that says that I have done a tip-top translation job, I will be very reluctant to sign it anyway. So perhaps it’s a good idea to ask before taking the job whether you will be asked to sign an affidavit, and if so, what it’s going to say.

Lawyers are only to be trusted as far as you can get your own lawyer to throw them, says I.

Jon Johanning // jjoha...@igc.org