Patentese question
Bruce Talbot
After 20+ years of avoiding it, I've been making a foray into the patent
field by reviewing the work of some experienced and well-respected J-E
patent translators (who shall remain unnamed).
I've noticed that one of them invariably translates "複数の" as "multiple"
and another always writes "a plurality of". But is either necessary? Why
not simply write the corresponding noun in the plural form which English so
conveniently provides, such as "複数の部財" = "members"?
--Bruce Talbot
Marc Adler
> I've noticed that one of them invariably translates "複数の" as "multiple"
> and another always writes "a plurality of". But is either necessary? Why
> not simply write the corresponding noun in the plural form which English so
> conveniently provides, such as "複数の部財" = "members"?
Before taking on this job, you might consider spending some time on the
USPTO website reading patents in the relevant fields. Patentese is a
dialect of legalese with its own particular rules, which can take some
getting used to. <g>
(By the way, it's 部材, not 部財.)
HTH,
Marc Adler
Warren Smith
Echoing the style of some US patent attorneys with whom I have worked
closely, for many years I went with "a plurality of." Unfortunately, that
leads to problems with the case of the verb: Is it "a plurality of widgets
*is*" or "a plurality of widgets *are*"?
While the answer to this question is obvious (that is, "plurality" is a
singular noun), sometimes syntactical clues to parsing of English statements
come from case of the verbs that are used, and having a singular verb with a
seemingly plural noun often led to confusion, so I would "fudge" by using a
plural noun to refer to the plurality of widgets if I thought that it made
the sentence read more clearly.
A few months ago, I repented, and decided to avoid this problem altogether
by going with "multiple widgets."
I would argue, by the way, that it is imperative to go with an explicit
statement of case (that is, to use "plurality," "multiple," etc.), rather
than simply saying "widgets." The reason is that those that practice law at
the interface of Japan and the US are often sophisticated enough to
understand that Japanese has no plural (in most cases, at least), and that
any statement of case by the translator without explicitly stating "a
plurality" or "multiple" is no more than an inference by the translator
based on contextual clues, an inference that the attorney is equally
qualified to make.
(I am currently working on a very large patent infringement case where the
crux of the case is whether a certain prior art reference had one widget or
more than one widget in an example of embodiment. The arguments are going on
for pages and pages about subtle clues in the document, the drawings, etc.,
litigation history, and so forth to cause the attorneys to believe that
there was more than one of the widgets in the device. As a translator, that
puts me in an awkward position -- regardless of whether I say "widget," or
"widgets" or even "widget(s)," it still means that I, personally, am ruling
on the case. I have, of course, liberally sprinkled in translator's notes
advising the readers that the case is purely ambiguous in Japanese, and
selected arbitrarily in English, UNLESS the word "multiple" appears in the
translation.)
Warren
Benjamin Barrett
plurality of" is a very common expression, indeed.
Multiple is inferred to mean two or more and can be argued to indeed
mean that in lots of contexts, but in careful writing, a distinction is
often drawn. You can find a plethora (plurithora?) of words such as
"plurilingual" and "pluriethnic", which sometimes seem to be an attempt
to correct past usage of "multi-" when 2+ not 3+ is intended.
BB
Matthew Schlecht
> and another always writes "a plurality of". But is either necessary? Why
> not simply write the corresponding noun in the plural form which English
> so
> conveniently provides, such as "複数の部財" = "members"?
>
> --Bruce Talbot
In my experience, the preferred translation in the patent context is "a
plurality of".
I once posed the question of "multiple" vs. "plurality" on the
patent_translation list at Yahoo (which is predominantly if not exclusively
JA>EN patent translation), and my query met with stunning silence. No one
cared to express an opinion, or offer an explanation.
There must be some reason for this preference, such as "a plurality of"
being more inclusive or less restrictive (i.e. more advantageous for the
patent holder), but I simply accept the usage as is. The same general
reasoning could apply to why we don't simple write the plural of the noun,
as in "members" vs. "plurality of members". There is a trend that more
drawn out, general terminology is usually preferred, such as "oxidation
agent" vs. "oxidant". The additional smidgeon of ambiguity can mean a lot
when the patent wording is later interpreted.
Matthew Schlecht
Marc Adler
> There must be some reason for this preference, such as "a plurality of"
> being more inclusive or less restrictive (i.e. more advantageous for the
> patent holder), but I simply accept the usage as is. The same general
> reasoning could apply to why we don't simple write the plural of the noun,
> as in "members" vs. "plurality of members".
I've had clients who wanted "plurality of" in the claims, but "multiple"
(or just the plural) elsewhere, and the explanation given was that if a
patent goes to court, the jury will have an easier time understanding
"multiple" than "a plurality of."
Marc Adler
Bruce Talbot
> I would argue, by the way, that it is imperative to go with an explicit
> statement of case (that is, to use "plurality," "multiple," etc.), rather
> than simply saying "widgets." The reason is that those that practice law
> at
> the interface of Japan and the US are often sophisticated enough to
> understand that Japanese has no plural (in most cases, at least), and that
> any statement of case by the translator without explicitly stating "a
> plurality" or "multiple" is no more than an inference by the translator
> based on contextual clues, an inference that the attorney is equally
> qualified to make.
Hmm... Sorry if I'm a bit thick, but how does one translate, especially from
Japanese, without making inferences based on contextual clues? One makes
such an inference when rendering a case-ambiguous Japanese noun (such as "部材") unambiguously as a plural ("members"), whether or not one includes the
contextual clue of "複数の" in the translation. IOW, what's the point of
including what is superfluous in the English? How is the "multiple" in
"multiple members"anything but redundant? While "multiple members" is more
literal (and "a plurality of members"is even more literal since it has "of"
corresponding to "の"), how is it more explicit than "members"? If "まず第一に" appears in the Japanese, do you have to be equally redundant in the
English?
Eschewing superfluous disambiguation (now there's a mouthful to eschew!),
Bruce Talbot
Warren Smith
between translation styles.
If I am translating for litigation, I use a different decision rule than I
do when I am translating for filing.
When I am translating for litigation, I would absolutely say, "To start
with, first there is..." in the example you gave. It is not for me to
determine whether or not the filer was redundant. I am certainly not going
to attempt to make the document any better than that which was filed in
Japanese. My role as a translator, at least for litigation, is to report
what the document says, not to report what I wish it said. (When I am
translating for filing, on the other hand, my role is different, and I can
take some liberties which add value for the client.)
In this particular case there are at least a dozen lawyers (who happen to be
Japanese) for the plaintiff in Japan alone arguing over the contextual clues
as to whether or not there is more than one of the widgets in the prior art.
I will certainly not take it upon myself to think that my mastery of
Japanese is better than theirs (collectively). The question is how can we,
as translators, keep from making judgments that might have legal
ramifications beyond our expectations. If I had translated this patent
application from Japanese into English without knowing the nature of the
case, I might have inadvertently shrugged and gone with either singular or
plural, and made the American lawyers think that the patent clarified
something that it did not. This is why I try to follow a rule that prevents
this problem, such as, for example, always putting in the seemingly
redundant "multiple" when it appears in the Japanese, allowing the more
sophisticated client to disambiguate the translator's inferences regarding
case from the times wherein the case is stated explicitly. I also try to use
the singular case whenever possible, because if there happened to be five
widgets, then there is certainly at least one widget, and so generally the
singular case is more ambiguous, which prevents accidentally narrowing the
scope of the patent. Along this line, I know a major Japanese translation
house that has a rock-solid policy to only use the singular case unless
there is a 複数, even if contextually there are clearly more than one of the
objects.
I would argue, by the way, that the selection of "members" over "member"
after the word "multiple" is not a contextual inference at all, but rather a
syntactical inference, which is well within our purview as translators.
Warren
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Bruce Talbot
Warren Smith
have said it in jest, but you will learn that this is actually a critical
part of the job of the patent translator. We must do all we can to match the
level of ambiguity of the source document, and err on the ambiguous side
when matching the ambiguity precisely is not possible.
This is why the matter of case is so difficult....
Good luck in patent translation. In my mind, it is THE place to be in the
translation world. (But don't tell anybody I said that -- there are probably
a few (thousand) people in this forum who would take issue with such a
statement...)
Warren
Bruce Talbot
>
> Rereading your tag line, "Eschewing superfluous disambiguation," you may
> have said it in jest, but you will learn that this is actually a critical
> part of the job of the patent translator. We must do all we can to match
> the
> level of ambiguity of the source document, and err on the ambiguous side
> when matching the ambiguity precisely is not possible.
>
> This is why the matter of case is so difficult....
So difficult that no one will attempt to answer my questions about
*redundancy*? After all, "複数の部材" states case once, while "multiple
members" does it twice. To be equally case-ambiguous, I'd go with once.
Maybe there's something about your answer I don't get. Isn't this really
just a matter of convention (the lawyers want it as "mutliple", "plurality",
etc.)?
>
> Good luck in patent translation. In my mind, it is THE place to be in the
> translation world. (But don't tell anybody I said that -- there are
> probably
> a few (thousand) people in this forum who would take issue with such a
> statement...)
>
> Warren
In any case, thanks for taking the time to respond, and your secret is safe
with me <g>.
Bruce Talbot
Warren Smith
obfuscation! (Why use a 4-syllable word when an 6-syllable word will do just
as well, they seem to ask...)
Far be from me to be repetitive and redundant <grin>, but this is a time to
go native, rather than to try to influence their language. (Their odd argot
may have been developed just to try to keep the rest of us out...)
W
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Bruce Talbot
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 4:52 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Patentese question
Benjamin Barrett
I don't know about the law involved, but number is often employed to
match the grammar of the sentence not the number of the items in real
life. For example, in a sentence like, "People should make sure their
pet is safe", the word pet ambiguously means pet/pets depending on the
individual person. "The park is a great place to play" refers to parks
in general. "Beware of dog" can mean more than one dog (although
language on signs might involve different grammar). One possible reason
for this doubling up is to disambiguate the number altogether. BB
Friedemann Horn
> So difficult that no one will attempt to answer my questions about
> *redundancy*? After all, "複数の部材" states case once, while "multiple
> members" does it twice. To be equally case-ambiguous, I'd go with once.
Number, not case.
> Maybe there's something about your answer I don't get. Isn't this really
> just a matter of convention (the lawyers want it as "mutliple", "plurality",
> etc.)?
Mostly yes.
But there is also an element of emphasis here, which is to say that
"plurality of" puts more stress on the fact that there are indeed more
than one members.
Also, to make up a random example, "A plurality of guide members
are arranged along the paper transport path." sounds better to me
than "Guide members are arranged ..." Of course, referring to them
each and every time as "the plurality of guide members this" and
"the plurality of guide members that" will tend to get a bit tedious
and one might as well edit out "plurality of", but from a legal
standpoint, there is really nothing gained by doing so.
From a practical standpoint, there is also something to be said
for a close syntactical correspondence between original and
target. It makes the text easier to check and enables the checker
to go home earlier. While I understand your desire to make the
translation more concise, keep in mind that nobody will ever win
a Pulitzer for a patent translation anyway.
BTW, I also stand firmly in the "plurality of" camp, although I find
"multiple" acceptable.
Friedemann Horn
www.horn-uchida.jp
Marc Adler
> So difficult that no one will attempt to answer my questions about
> *redundancy*? After all, "複数の部材" states case once, while "multiple
> members" does it twice. To be equally case-ambiguous, I'd go with once.
People have been writing patents in English for hundreds of years, and
lots of conventions have developed over that time. Perhaps "a plurality
of" originally arose to disambiguate in cases where the plural doesn't
change ("a plurality of craft"), and the usage became generalized.
Another possibility is that "a plurality of" affords the drafter the
ability to treat that plurality as a single set by using the singular
form of the verb ("a plurality of members rotates...").
Either way, the conventions exist, and your translators are simply
following them. I do recommend you read some patents to get a feel for
the style before giving these poor guys bad marks for being redundant. <g>
Marc Adler
Mark Spahn
>
> Rereading your tag line, "Eschewing superfluous disambiguation," you may
> have said it in jest, but you will learn that this is actually a critical
> part of the job of the patent translator. We must do all we can to match
> the
> level of ambiguity of the source document, and err on the ambiguous side
> when matching the ambiguity precisely is not possible.
>
> This is why the matter of case is so difficult....
So difficult that no one will attempt to answer my questions about
*redundancy*? After all, "複数の部材" states case once, while "multiple
members" does it twice. To be equally case-ambiguous, I'd go with once.
Maybe there's something about your answer I don't get. Isn't this really
just a matter of convention (the lawyers want it as "mutliple", "plurality",
etc.)?
== UNQUOTE ==
Bruce Talbot
From: "Benjamin Barrett" <gog...@ix.netcom.com>
>
> I don't know about the law involved, but number is often employed to
> match the grammar of the sentence not the number of the items in real
> life. For example, in a sentence like, "People should make sure their
> pet is safe", the word pet ambiguously means pet/pets depending on the
> individual person. "The park is a great place to play" refers to parks
> in general. "Beware of dog" can mean more than one dog (although
> language on signs might involve different grammar). One possible reason
> for this doubling up is to disambiguate the number altogether. BB
>
I see what you mean, although all of your examples are ambiguous singular
ones. A phrase such as "these devices have members containing cooties"
would be an ambiguous plural example, where one cannot tell the number of
members per device". But the point about superfluous disambiguation still
makes sense, I think, and indeed it is more concise in this example to
disambiguate by saying "each device has members" or "each device has a
member".
-- Bruce Talbot
Warren Smith
is possible to have pluralities of widgets, or even a "plurality of
pluralities" of widgets, but you can't really have "multiple multple"
widgets.
W
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Marc Adler
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 5:47 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Patentese question
Warren Smith
as "10 memory cells, having electrodes, attached to data lines." I hate to
stretch to say that 10 memory cells EACH having AN electrode, which IS
connected to a data line, and sometimes the ambiguity in numbers in groups
containing groups makes me want to pull out whatever remaining hair I have.
W
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Bruce Talbot
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 5:53 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Patentese question
Matthew Schlecht
*redundancy*? After all, "複数の部材" states case once, while "multiple
members" does it twice. To be equally case-ambiguous, I'd go with once.
Maybe there's something about your answer I don't get. Isn't this really
just a matter of convention (the lawyers want it as "mutliple", "plurality",
etc.)?
Bruce Talbot
Warren Smith
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Matthew Schlecht
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 6:03 PM
Bruce Talbot
Matthew Schlecht
Interesting point, though "plurality of" and "multiple" seem to be there to
specify plurality rather than grouping.
I have no problem with following convention, but it seemed Warren was saying
this convention had a logical explanation, which is what I was trying to
nail down. Patents are indeed quite tedious (to me, anyway), so I doubt I
will ever actually translate them unless there are way too many bills to
pay. For now, it's interesting just to get paid to go over the work of some
decent patent translators.
Unless anyone can successfully argue otherwise, I will conclude that this
tedious and wordy business of double-specifying plurality is a convention in
patents: it's done that way because that's the way it's done.
And, of course, when you're being paid by the word, what is there to
complain about?<g>
--Bruce Talbot
Bruce Talbot
I think Warren has explained this rather well:
Some patent lawyers are sophisticated enough to know that
Japanese does not have a plural, so if a lawyer sees "spacers" in a
patent translation, he can infer that the translator has had to guess
at whether スペーサー is singular or plural, and that
it might mean just one spacer,
but if he sees "multiple spacers" or "a pluarality of spacers",
he knows that there must be two or more.
Good point, and again I'm not trying to suggest the convention should be
changed, just that it is unnecessarily verbose. A simpler solution to the
"guessing" issue would be to put such merely inferred plurals in brackets,
e.g., spacer[s], since it seems that other inferred content gets bracketed
similarly.
But permit me to scold both of you for referring to the grammatical
category "case" when you mean the grammatical category "number".
"Case" refers to the role of a word in a sentence.
If it is the subject, it is in the nominative case ("he").
If it is the object of a verb or preposition, it is in the
objective case ("saw him", "for me"). There is also a
possessive case (his, John's).
"Number" is the singular/plural distinction (e.g., octopus/octopodes).
*****
Thanks for the reminder. It wasn't a scolding, really (no exclamation
marks). You just got on our case.
--Bruce Talbot