More on continuous/discrete=exclusive/inclusive for 以下 or 以前

[christopher blakeslee]

This may not be of interest, judging from the lack of likes to my previous post (wait a second, that's Facebook where you get instant gratification from the mutual admiration society), but anyway, just came across a unique example of the continuous/discrete=exclusive/inclusive mapping  when dealing with 以下 or actually in this case 以前. This time it is age:

拠出金の**%は退職に向けた****に配分され...55歳以前は引き出すことができない。

Of the total contribution, ***% is allocated to **** for retirement, and cannot be withdrawn until age 55. 

In this context, age should be seen as continuous, meaning you are only exactly 55 for a split second, after which you are 55 plus one second, 55 plus two seconds, etc. for purposes of deciding exclusive versus inclusive,  yet for practical purposes, and since we do not normally know the exact micro-second we were born (and at what point is the stopwatch started, when the head is visible, the chin pops out, the sex becomes evident?, not to mention breach babies...), so we speak about our ages in discrete terms, generally in one year increments (although interestingly IRA withdrawals in the US are allowed to commence at age 59 1/2). Yet reading the Japanese in the context of retirement savings, it is immediately intuitive that withdrawal is not prohibited while you are 55 and under, but rather until you are 55; that is, it is not really confusing in this context. 

My question, particularly to native J speakers: Would 55歳以後しかは引き出すことができない be a better way to say this in Japanese to avoid any confusion with exclusive/inclusive, or is that not an issue among native Js, just nonnatives? Would this be confusing to someone not familiar with finance? Or is the tendency to be confused more owing to lack of a strong math background, a noticeable weakness of many educated English natives (at least Americans) relative to educated Japanese and French, and probably many other nationals ?

TIA,

Chris Blakeslee

[Mark Spahn]

Christopher Blakeslee presents

an example of the continuous/discrete=exclusive/inclusive mapping  when dealing with 以下 or actually in this case 以前. This time it is age:

拠出金の**%は退職に向けた****に配分され...55歳以前は引き出すことができない。

Of the total contribution, ***% is allocated to **** for retirement, and cannot be withdrawn until age 55. 

In this context, age should be seen as continuous, meaning you are only exactly 55 for a split second, after which you are 55 plus one second, 55 plus two seconds, etc. for purposes of deciding exclusive versus inclusive

- - - - - - - -

 

Let's talk about continuous vs. discrete.  To my understanding, "age 55" names not a point in time (the instant when the day begins that is exactly 55 years after the day on which one was born), but rather a certain one-year-long period (from one's 55th birthday to just before one's 56th birthday); that is, one remains at age 55 for exactly one year.  Is this understanding idiosyncratic?  Let's clarify this with two questions:

(1) Is "age 55" a point in time, or a yearlong interval of time?

(2) Is 「５５歳」 a point in time, or a yearlong interval of time?

 

Taking the answer to both questions to be "a yearlong interval", I would translate

55歳以前は引き出すことができない as

"at or before age 55, no withdrawals may be made";

i.e., no withdrawals may be made until one's 56th birthday.

Is this a misunderstanding of what this Japanese sentence means?

-- Mark Spahn  (West Seneca, NY)

 

[Fred Uleman]

Skippping the 以, my preference would be 55歳までは引出し禁止.

And of course, if you cannot do it until you are 55, you can do it any time after that as well.

- -- --- ---- ----- ---- --- -- -
Fred Uleman @ well over 55

[Herman]

> (1) Is "age 55" a point in time, or a yearlong interval of time?
> (2) Is 「５５歳」 a point in time, or a yearlong interval of time?
> Taking the answer to both questions to be "a yearlong interval", I would
> translate
> 55歳以前は引き出すことができない as
> "at or before age 55, no withdrawals may be made";
> i.e., no withdrawals may be made until one's 56th birthday.
> Is this a misunderstanding of what this Japanese sentence means?

In terms of typical though not necessary universal usage, 55歳以前 would
be "before the point when you turn 55", while 55歳以後 would be "after
the point when you turn 55", and would thus include the period during
which you are 55.

Some more obvious example of this usage of 以前　would be 誕生以前, 成年
以前、発見以前、到着以前, etc.

Herman Kahn

[Steven P. Venti]

"Mark Spahn" <mark...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I would translate 55歳以前は引き出すことができない as "at or before age 55,
> no withdrawals may be made"; i.e., no withdrawals may be made until one's
> 56th birthday.

That is how both I and my NJS wife would understand this expression. Perhaps the
OP has some additional information about the actual meaning that led him to
interpret it differently, but IMHO 55歳以前 is the same as 56歳未満.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Venti
spv...@bhk-limited.com

Sittin' by the water, stare into the stream,
Tell me, honey, are there any catfish in your dreams?
--Danny O'Keefe
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Susan Murata]

I disagree. I think it should read:

No withdrawal may be made before turning age 55. 

So you cannot NOT withdraw on the day before your birthday, but you can withdraw on the day of your 55th birthday and any day thereafter. (And I am assuming withdrawals can only be made during banking hours.)

５５才以前　is BEFORE becoming/turning age 55, no? Once you are age 55 it is OK. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong!

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
Susan Murata
smu...@gmail.com

[Benjamin Barrett]

Although the OED and Wiktionary claim that "between" does not include the endpoints in English, it is actually not so clear. Here are three examples using "between" with age:

Here's an article that is inclusive: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/spotlight/Spot077GirlsDepression2012.pdf
Here's one that has "between the ages of 40 and 49 years"; surely this is inclusive: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22528917
Here's an act of Congress that includes the beginning point but not the endpoint: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/748/text

Benjamin Barrett
Seattle, WA

[christopher blakeslee]

> I would translate 55歳以前は引き出すことができない as "at or before age 55,
> no withdrawals may be made"; i.e., no withdrawals may be made until one's
> 56th birthday.

That is how both I and my NJS wife would understand this expression. Perhaps the
OP has some additional information about the actual meaning that led him to
interpret it differently, but IMHO 55歳以前 is the same as 56歳未満.

I can say with 100% certainty (having checked the official English language version of the relevant law in a Southeast Asian country) that withdrawals begin at age 55, not age 56. So the opinions expressed above are incorrect, and Herman and Susan are correct. Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough that I wasn't asking for opinions on whether my translation was correct, but rather opinions on whether the sentence and his use of 歳以前 was potentially confusing to educated NSJs, given that he meant "can't withdraw until age 55.". I don't think it is confusing,  for the reasons already enunciated, namely based on my understanding of the concept of turning a certain age as referring to a certain point in time rather than a year long period. You only turn 55 once, you are not in a state of turning 55 for 12 months. But once again, the all-important unwritten context plays a big role, and it may have been purely my familiarity with the material (and the paper is written for just such people, not a lay audience) that made it obvious. I can summarize the relevant knowledge easily: I've never read any materials on retirement funds in which the last age at which you can't withdraw is mentioned. Its always the age the you must reach before you can withdraw that is mentioned. Like a retirement age. If in a job where the retirement age is 65, the moment you turn 65, you can retire. Your age before you can retire, 64, is not a focal point. But even without this background knowledge, I think the meaning is clear, based on the mathematics (point in time versus period of time). I would like to hear other's opinions as to whether it is confusing for people (NSJ or NSE) without a facility with math, which probably comprises half the population and maybe even more of the population of translators, given our natural verbal orientation. And wonder if there is a difference between NSEs and NSJs in the level of confusion, given the same math skills.

Chris Blakeslee

[Susan Murata]

I for one do not have strong math skills, but I did not find the 以前 confusing--given the context.

I wasn't asking for opinions on whether my translation was correct, but rather opinions on whether the sentence and his use of 歳以前 was potentially confusing to educated NSJs, given that he meant "can't withdraw until age 55.". 

Chris Blakeslee

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
Susan Murata
smu...@gmail.com

[Mark Spahn]

> Here's an act of Congress that includes the beginning point but not the
> endpoint: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/748/text
> Benjamin Barrett
> Seattle, WA

No, not exactly.
Looking at this proposed etatist legislation itself, it says:
"SEC. 102. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.
(a) Obligation for Service.--It is the obligation of every citizen
of the United States, and every other person residing in the United
States [e.g., the foreign students], who is between the ages of 18 and 25 to
perform a period of national service ...
(c) Age Limits.--A person may be inducted under this title only if
the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of
25."

Part (a) talks about when this corvee labor must be performed: on or after
the day one turns 18, and before the day one turns 26 (according to my
understanding of "between").
Part (c) talks about when the draft notice may be issued to the affected
yoot (i.e., when the unfortunated yoot may be inducted as a corvee laborer):
on or after the day s/he turns 18, and before the day s/he turns 25. So the
draft notice can be issued when the draftee is age 22.5 and provide that the
corvee labor shall be performed during the six months before s/he turns 26.

Generally speaking, "between A and B" is ambiguous as to whether it includes
the endpoints A and B.

[Mark Spahn]

Susan Murata writes:

I for one do not have strong math skills, but I did not find the 以前 confusing--given the context.

- - - - -

I wasn't asking for opinions on whether my translation was correct, but rather opinions on whether the sentence and his use of 歳以前 was potentially confusing to educated NSJs, given that he meant "can't withdraw until age 55.". 

Chris Blakeslee

- - - - - - - - - -

This is not really a matter of math skills, but simply learning the conventions of what certain words, in both languages mean; e.g., do words like "between" and 以前 include or exclude the end point?

When we say "he is 55 (55歳)", I take this to mean not that today is the day during which falls the 55th anniversary of his birth, but that today is some day during the yearlong period on or after his 55th birthday and before his 56th birthday.

Possibly there are documents with titles like "Instructions for Legislation Drafters" that explain exactly what these various terms mean.  If anybody finds such information, please let us know.

[Jonathan Michaels]

On Monday, June 17, 2013 2:24:51 PM UTC+9, cpblakes wrote:

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough that I wasn't asking for opinions on whether my translation was correct, but rather opinions on whether the sentence and his use of 歳以前 was potentially confusing to educated NSJs, given that he meant "can't withdraw until age 55.".

Well, since you got from Steve a second-hand NJS opinion that goes the opposite direction from what you indicate that the intent of the Japanese sentence's author was, I think that counts as a "yes" to the question of whether the sentence is potentially confusing.

For what it's worth, although I'm not an NJS, I can definitely see the potential for confusion in the Japanese sentence.  Since I think it's generally understood that "to be age 55" or "55歳であること" is a state that lasts a year ("yes" to both (1) and (2) in Mark's first post), someone who is being fastidiously faithful to the rule that ～以前 means ～を以て前 and thus includes the threshold could argue that 55歳以前 goes up to the day before your 56th birthday, although others (my tentative guess: the majority of NJSs?) might see that as 理屈っぽい relative to the more idiomatic interpretation of 55歳以前 as 55歳まで.

Jonathan

----------

Jonathan Michaels

Mito, Japan

[Shinya Suzuki]

A bit of Googling revealed that xx歳以前 can mean either (A) "at or
before age xx" or (B) "before age xx". In contrast, yy歳以後（以降）
almost always means "at or after age yy".

Examples suggestive of A:

http://zasshi.news.yahoo.co.jp/article?a=20130226-00000018-pseven-bus_all
改正高年齢者雇用安定法は、60歳以降の社員の雇用を保護するものですが、
逆に59歳以前の社員は守られていない。

http://www.hokenweb.co.jp/jouhou-so2sny.htm
今次改定で、満60歳以降の保険料が半額になる従来商品の特徴を残しつつ、
満60歳以降の1入院の限度日数を2倍（120日。満59歳以前は60日）にした
「SUREスマートフィット」を新設。

http://yukyunoyakata.holy.jp/seikatu/taishoku-jikkan1.htm
５９歳以前２８％、６０歳３８％、６１歳以降３４％

Examples suggestive of B:

http://www.suntory.co.jp/news/2012/11582.html
従業員の60歳以降の就労ニーズに応えるべく65歳定年制の導入を決定しまし
た。 なお、60歳以前の処遇体系は変更せず、60歳以降は新たな人事制度を
導入します。

http://www.sr-answer.com/18.html
定年の引き上げや再雇用などの手法で、60歳以降の社員を引き続き雇用する
企業が増えてきています。労働条件を60歳以前のままとして雇用するケース
もありますが、

http://www.jil.go.jp/institute/reports/2010/documents/0120_02.pdf?
60歳以前の雇用管理が60歳以降の継続雇用に与える影響

As may be apparent from these examples, in most cases the presence
of the paired words 以前-以後/以降 may allow you to determine which
is applicable.

As for your particular example 55歳以前は引き出すことができない, if
the document includes 56歳以後/以降, then it's more likely that 55
歳以前 means "at or before age 55" (A type). On the other hand, if
it includes 55歳以後/以降, then it's more likely that 55歳以前
means "before age 55" (B type). It would be rather difficult to
determine in the absence of xx以後/以降 phrases.

IMHO, because of this fundamental ambiguity, the 歳以前-歳以後 pair
should be avoided in favor of the xx歳未満-xx歳以上 pair or the yy-1
歳以下-yy歳以上 pair.

In legal documents or the like, 以上・以下・以前・以後（以降）all
include reference points or periods (ie, consistent with A above).

8月23日以前：on or before August 23
8月23日以後：on or after August 23

http://mbp-okayama.com/kikuchi/column/2299/
以前の「以」は、基準時点を含む場合の用語です。
平成23年8月23日以前という場合は、8月23日を含めてそれより前の時間的広
がりをいいます。

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BB%A5%E5%89%8D
以前
法律用語において以前とは、一定日時より起算したその前の時間的間隔や時
間の連続を表す用語である。起算点となった日時を包括するという意があり、
起算点を含まない場合は「前」を使う(以後のように、以前と前が混同する
ことはない)。

以後
法律用語に於いて以後とは、一定日時から起算したそれより後の時間的間隔
や時間の連続を表す用語である。起算点を含むという意があり、起算点を含
まない場合は「後」を用いる。但し「この法律の施行後」など稀に以後と後
が同義的に用いられる場合がある。また、以降も同義的に用いられるが、こ
ちらはある時点以後定期的に制度として行われる物に用い、予算や恩給、選
挙などに用いる。

HTH

Shinya Suzuki

[Ayano Yamashita]

Duh...

新明解国語辞典（第4版）specifically writes,
　①（接尾語的に）…から前。「十月一日－（＝十月一日を含んで、それより前）」

So it isn't just in legal speak that 以前 is considered inclusive.

Sorry, I was wrong.

Maybe I should stop here to avoid yet another embarrassment, but the problem of using 以前 with 年齢 is that the second interpretation then seems to take precedence.
 ②それに関係のある・（その範囲内の）事柄として取り上げる前の段階に属することを表す。

Thus the ambiguity.

Ayano Yamashita

[Mika Jarmusz]

Chris,

I agree with your follow up supporting Susan and Herman's view, although you were 100% sure already for good reasons.

See it this way: （加入者が)55歳【になる】以前は引き出すことができない。

The problem is that 以前 and 以下 both share the same first letter, and we mislead ourselves by trying to make sense of it. But it's not confusing AT ALL to an ordinary NJS. Translators are not ordinary -- we think too hard!

未満 is handy, but has extra grammatical considerations:
55歳未満は引き出すことができない comes out sounding vaguely hostile, because the full form can be restored into:
55歳未満【のあんた】は引き出すことができない
So, when using 未満, I think it needs to be fully spelled out as:
55歳未満【の場合】は引き出すことができない
55歳未満【の人】は引き出すことができない
55歳未満【の方】は引き出すことはできません

It's hard to explain, but I hope this makes sense to other NJS.

✴ Mika Jarmusz

[Mika J.]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Mika Jarmusz <mik...@gmail.com> wrote:

But it's not confusing AT ALL to an ordinary NJS.

What I meant was that the path to proper parsing, as I showed you, would not be that hard for a NJS.   I wonder if other NJS sees it differently, that the expression is flawed and therefore SHOULD BE rewritten?  Steve, could you ask your wife again?

Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
        English to Japanese Translator
        http://inJapanese.us

[Steven P. Venti]

"Mika J." <mik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But it's not confusing AT ALL to an ordinary NJS.
>

> Steve, could you ask your wife again?

On two separate occasions, I showed her the sentence:
55歳以前は引き出すことができない。

Then I asked her: 55歳の誕生日の次の日に、引き出すことができるか。

Both times she responded: 引き出せないと思う。

Even Herman acknowledged that the usage he described was not necessarily
universal.

Shinya Suzuki's post shows quite conclusively that the expression in question
is ambiguous, and that in the absence of other information, there is no way to
ascertain with any degree of certainty the writer's intent.

Therefore, with regard to how an ordinary NJS would understand this expression
(which was, as I recall, the original question), I believe that the best
answer is that, without sufficiently clarifying context, some will understand
it one way and some will understand it the other way.

Or, as a very famous actor once proclaimed:
"Frankly, my dear, I could care less."

FWIW

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Venti
spv...@bhk-limited.com

Oh, you know all the words, and you sung all the notes,
But you never quite learned the song, she sang.
--Mike Heron
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Fred Uleman]

以前は◯◯だったが、今後はXXにしたい 。

Can we accept that this is acceptable Japanese?

And if we can, how do we reconcile the 以 and the 今's apparently referring to the same point in time but attributing different states to it?

If not by accepting that language demands a bit of common sense in addition to dictionary skills.

[Mika J.]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Steven P. Venti <spv...@bhk-limited.com> wrote:

Therefore, with regard to how an ordinary NJS would understand this expression
(which was, as I recall, the original question), I believe that the best
answer is that, without sufficiently clarifying context, some will understand
it one way and some will understand it the other way.

Dang, just when I thought I got it all figured out...without fully studying Suzuki-san's post, that was.  Thank you Steve.

>Can we accept that this is acceptable Japanese?

Yes.

>And if we can, how do we reconcile the 以 and the 今's apparently referring to the same point in time but attributing different states to it?

Yeah.  The meaning seems to be built into the sentence instead of the word, or the word can rely on the sentence more in Japanese than in English, for sorting out its potential ambiguity, if and  when necessary. 

[Steven P. Venti]

"Mika J." <mik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah. The meaning seems to be built into the sentence instead of the word,
> or the word can rely on the sentence more in Japanese than in English, for
> sorting out its potential ambiguity, if and when necessary.

Maybe this is beating a dead horse, but . . .

The whole point of my "I could care less" comment was that the obvious
meaning of certain idioms is sometimes at odds with grammar. Some will argue
that "I could care less" is incorrect because the intended meaning is clearly
"I could not care less," but it is virtually impossible for a native speaker
to fail to discern correctly the intended meaning in context, regardless of
which way it is said.

It seems to me that there is little to no ambiguity in an expression like
3時以前は引き出すことができない, because "3時" is never used to mean the hour
from 3 o'clock to 4 o'clock. For that meaning, you would have to say 3時台,
right?

I feel that whatever ambiguity there is in 55歳以前は引き出すことができない。
comes from the fact that idiomatically "55歳" most commonly refers to not to
the point in time when you turn 55, which would normally be 55歳の誕生日, but
rather to the year's time from your 55th birthday until your 56th birthday.

FWIW

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Venti
spv...@bhk-limited.com

Catfish ain't expensive, neither is it free,
Some folks crazy 'bout it, others have to leave it be.
--Danny O'Keefe
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Roland Hechtenberg]

On 2013/06/20 10:20, Steven P. Venti wrote:

> On two separate occasions, I showed her the sentence:
> 55歳以前は引き出すことができない。
>
> Then I asked her: 55歳の誕生日の次の日に、引き出すことができるか。
>
> Both times she responded: 引き出せないと思う。

My wife (NJS) is of the opinion that you can withdraw as soon as
you turn 55.
Her comment: Otherwise the sentence does not make sense.

Have fuyn,

Roland
--
Roland Hechtenberg
Technical translator
Japanese > English <> German
rol...@ictv.ne.jp

[Jens Wilkinson]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Steven P. Venti <spv...@bhk-limited.com> wrote:

Or, as a very famous actor once proclaimed:
"Frankly, my dear, I could care less."

I think I saw that movie, and my recollection is that he actually said that he "didn't give" something, which in itself is also strange because the thing he didn't give is not a noun but a verb. . . Or am I thinking of a different famous actor?

--
Jens Wilkinson

[Steven P. Venti]

Jens Wilkinson <jenswi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Or, as a very famous actor once proclaimed:
>> "Frankly, my dear, I could care less."
>>

> Or am I thinking of a different famous actor?

You are thinking of the same movie and actor that I was parodying, Jens. You
just failed to see the humor, which I suppose is my bad. <g>

See my response to Mika, that begins with "Maybe this is beating a dead horse,"
for an explanation of what I meant by that comment.

Cheers,

[Adam H]

It's been a long time since I saw Gone with the Wind, but I thought "a damn", which was what Clarke Gable didn't give, was a noun albeit an abstract noun.

Adam Harding

[Dr. M. S. Niranjan]

Well, tomorrow is another day. (whether you give a damn or two hoots)!

Dr. M. S. Niranjan

[J K Nagai]

On 6/19/2013 7:45 PM, Mika J. wrote:
> >And if we can, how do we reconcile the 以 and the 今's apparently
> referring to the same point in time but attributing different states
> to it?
>
> Yeah. The meaning seems to be built into the sentence instead of the
> word, or the word can rely on the sentence more in Japanese than in
> English, for sorting out its potential ambiguity, if and when necessary.
>
> Mika Jarmusz 清水美香

A user's guide at the back of a pocket 六法 warns the
reader that 以 includes the reference point suggesting
that many readers may misinterpret it.

I have seen at least on technical paper where the
author used it twice in both inclusive and exclusive
sense on one same phenomenon.

I suspect many average NJSs use 以前、以下 to mean
基準点未満 and 以後、以上 to include the 基準点。
.
I propose JAT to survey people on the street on this.

Joseph Kei Nagai