kou and otsu in E2J translation

[Fred Uleman]

In another thread, Naoko Selland wrote that, to the best of her knowledge:
> 甲, 乙　aren't used in general for a contract translated
> from English to Japanese

Why not?

--
Fred Uleman

[Marc Adler]

Until you get an actual answer, here's a guess: when I used to
translate contracts, I would replace 甲乙 with some form of the actual
company names, eg., "Toyota Motor Corporation (hereafter, "TMC)" and
then just use "TMC" wherever there was 甲 in the text. Since that's the
way English-language contracts are written, maybe the E>J translators
simply follow suit, using the "hereafter" abbreviated forms in their
translations.

Just a half-penny guess, though.

--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com

[Naoko Selland]

Fred,

I wondered about the same thing.
Do recent contracts you receive for J->E translation still have 甲乙?
Here I am talking more about contracts among international companies
like merger agreements, non-competition agreements and others.

It looks obsolete for me, but Japanese legal proceedings may still
follow the old practice.

Naoko

On 12月22日, 午前6:31, "Marc Adler" <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Edward Lipsett /t]

on 08/12/24 10:24, Naoko Selland wrote:

> Do recent contracts you receive for J->E translation still have 甲乙?

Yes. Usually.

----------
Edward Lipsett, Intercom, Ltd.
translation€@intercomltd.com
Publishing: http://www.kurodahan.com
Translation & layout: http://www.intercomltd.com

[Alan Siegrist]

Naoko Selland writes:

> Do recent contracts you receive for J->E translation still have 甲乙?

Yes.

> Here I am talking more about contracts among international companies
> like merger agreements, non-competition agreements and others.

Yes here too.

Sometimes the agreements use English abbreviations instead of 甲乙, but it
depends. I have the impression that those agreements first drafted in
English use English abbreviations, but 甲乙 is used for agreements
originating in Japanese. They do get revised back and forth during
negotiations and these sorts of conventions sometimes change in revisions.

I think the reason why the 甲乙 practice continues is because such Japanese
agreements fall under the jurisdiction of the Japanese courts, which are
very much still the land of 甲乙.

Regards,

Alan Siegrist
Orinda, CA, USA

[Naoko Selland]

Hi Alan,

> > Do recent contracts you receive for J->E translation still have 甲乙?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Here I am talking more about contracts among international companies
> > like merger agreements, non-competition agreements and others.
>
> Yes here too.

Eric said the same thing. But, you know, I never believe my husband,
so I posted that question.
The legal document I'm translating is under the US jurisdiction, so
should feel OK about not using 甲乙.

Naoko Selland
Belmont, CA

[Alan Siegrist]

Hi Naoko,

> > > Do recent contracts you receive for J->E translation still have 甲乙?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > Here I am talking more about contracts among international companies
> > > like merger agreements, non-competition agreements and others.
> >
> > Yes here too.
>
> Eric said the same thing. But, you know, I never believe my husband,
> so I posted that question.

Tee-hee!

> The legal document I'm translating is under the US jurisdiction, so
> should feel OK about not using 甲乙.

Ah then, in that case, I think some sort of English abbreviation is better
than 甲乙.

[Fred Uleman]

My own suspicion (and I asked the question so others could speculate before I did) is that the non-use of 甲乙 in E2J translated contracts is a hold-over from the days when it was assumed that it was okay (if not downright desirable) for translations to be a bit un-understandable. After all, they're translations, right? And it's more important to reproduce all of the words than it is to convey meaning, right? (Welcome to the chokuyaku school of translation.) After all, all of this interaction with foreign cultures is obviously esoteric, and we can't make it too easy for ordiinary people to understand. Have to protect the franchise, you know.

So even though there is a very clear, very understood, format in Japanese that uses 甲乙, the translators opted to reproduce the form of the original rather than concentrate on conveying the meaning. It is a bit like translating "little brother" as 小さい兄弟 rather than 弟. Easy, but hardly satisfactory.

--
Fred Uleman

[Joji Matsuo]

I did two contracts this week.

One originated in Japan and used 甲乙, which is expected.

The other originated in Switzerland and was translated into Japanese by
someone at the agent, who did a very good job by the way.
It called the parties 買い手 売り手.
When I received this job, I found it rather straightforward to change the
terms back to the Buyer and the Seller.

I've come across at least one other contract that was obviously translated
from another language into Japanese where the parties were not translated as
甲乙.

FWIW
Joji

[Naoko Selland]

Fred

↓ごめん、あんまり意味、わかんなかった・・・。

I thought the opposite about not using 甲乙.

I thought Japanese translation relieved Japanese legal world from non-
readability by introducing non甲乙 dimension.

Not using　甲乙 has noting to do with non-readability of translated
product.

Naoko

[Fred Uleman]

Naoko's point -- that not using 甲乙 makes the Japanese contract more understandable -- is a valid one. Thanks.

However, if Japanese legal people are used to seeing 甲乙 in contracts, the presence of 甲乙 does not confuse them and the fact that the contract follows the familiar form may make it more understandable/credible.

Note: the above should be read as speculation on my part.

--
Fred Uleman

[Edward Lipsett /t]

on 08/12/24 11:55, Fred Uleman wrote:

> However, if Japanese legal people are used to seeing 甲乙 in contracts, the
> presence of 甲乙 does not confuse them and the fact that the contract follows
> the familiar form may make it more understandable/credible.

As is usually the case in translation, the question is who is the document
being translated FOR is paramount.

[Alan Siegrist]

Fred Uleman writes:

> Naoko's point -- that not using 甲乙 makes the Japanese contract more
> understandable -- is a valid one. Thanks.
>
> However, if Japanese legal people are used to seeing 甲乙 in contracts,
> the presence of 甲乙 does not confuse them and the fact that the contract
> follows the familiar form may make it more understandable/credible.

My two-bit theory about why 甲乙 is used in Japanese contracts is to make it
easier to create boilerplate agreements. If 甲乙 are consistently used
throughout, it is possible to make a completely new contract essentially by
altering only the first and last pages and duplicating the remainder. Back
in the pre-computer days, this probably saved quite a bit of effort.

Now, it is not so much of a problem with computers and search-and-replace,
but Japanese lawyers still have years and decades of boilerplate agreements
for many conceivable situations that would need to be updated if they went
away from 甲乙, so why bother?

[roy.b...@gmail.com]

Well, I've had plenty of material to translate that used 甲 or 乙, and I
can recall at a couple that used the special terminology for 3rd party
as well, although I must admit I forget which kanji that is off the
top of my head... (having checked it is 丙, but I have never seen the
higher order ones used outside of a reference book, 丁（てい）・戊（ぼ）・己（き）・庚（こ
う）・辛（しん）・壬（じん）・癸（き） )

"First party" and "second party" certainly still get some use in
English language contracts (as Alan says, particularly ones based on
standard boilerplate, I expect) so I'm not sure why the Japanese
equivalent should be particularly more confusing to anyone involved.

On Dec 24, 12:02 pm, "Alan Siegrist" <AlanFSiegr...@Comcast.net>
wrote:

[Ray Roman]

Translating from J2E, I often see 売主 and 買主 in purchase / sale agreements.

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Joji Matsuo <hon...@jmatsuo.com> wrote:

It called the parties 買い手 売り手.
When I received this job, I found it rather straightforward to change the
terms back to the Buyer and the Seller.

--
Ray Roman J.D.
Japanese to English legal translation
japane...@gmail.com