UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: amaraltheofficeboy on May 03, 2013, 09:45:14 PM
-
when did you become involved in the translations?
i saw a lot from Innes and other people a long time ago - but not from you?
-
True Ines has been doing translations for many years - so have others
'Anne the translator' - I have never come across
-
well AnneGuedes - the member here says she has translated things
-
when did you become involved in the translations?
i saw a lot from Innes and other people a long time ago - but not from you?
The first translation I made was Silvia Batista's statement, I think.
-
when did you become involved in the translations?
i saw a lot from Innes and other people a long time ago - but not from you?
The first translation I made was Silvia Batista's statement, I think.
was it an original translation or amendment to someone else's translation?
-
Any translation that has not been made by an accredited professional translation bureau is worthless.
-
Any translation that has not been made by an accredited professional translation bureau is worthless.
A bit sententious, don't you think, Rachel ? I certainly shall not to list here all the translations I did. I translated and rewrote during 4 years the Portuguese press review (to French) for the UE Commission. It's pretty difficult to get that kind of job.
-
you said all the things were translated professionally
No, I couldn't possibly say that. I said they were translated rigorously, they were checked many times. I can assure you that every time I found a misinterpretation and alerted the PJFiles site the translation corrected. I'm sure errors remain. I haven't read all the files, but the most important ones.
-
I translated and rewrote during 4 years
rewrote?
-
Prove what ? Prove you're not Ines first ;) !
do you have a problem with Ines or her translations?
I am watching this with great interest
-
I translated and rewrote during 4 years
rewrote?
Yes, when the original is badly written, you have to rewrite as well.
-
Prove what ? Prove you're not Ines first ;) !
do you have a problem with Ines or her translations?
No problem with no virtual creature. I read the files in Portuguese, not in English.
May I be brutally frank with you Anne?
I am polyglot
Though not a qualified translator or interpreter
But your command of the English language - although decent - is nowhere near good enough to translate anything
Apart from say an Ikea instruction booklet on how to assemble a bed
Ines & Astro knew their languages - both native and foreign
-
I translated and rewrote during 4 years
rewrote?
Yes, when the original is badly written, you have to rewrite as well.
wrong?
?
were translations wrong?
-
Just reading here.
I'm fairly sure that Anne and I are unlikely to agree about a number of things.
That said, I do believe that, if asked, Anne will try to translate something as accurately as possible.
ETA: And will double-check on facts.
-
Just reading here.
I'm fairly sure that Anne and I are unlikely to agree about a number of things.
That said, I do believe that, if asked, Anne will try to translate something as accurately as possible.
good for you
-
Prove what ? Prove you're not Ines first ;) !
do you have a problem with Ines or her translations?
No problem with no virtual creature. I read the files in Portuguese, not in English.
May I be brutally frank with you Anne?
I am polyglot
Though not a qualified translator or interpreter
But your command of the English language - although decent - is nowhere near good enough to translate anything
Apart from say an Ikea instruction booklet on how to assemble a bed
Ines & Astro knew their languages - both native and foreign
Ines, your knowledge of Portuguese, if I may, is worse than mine and worse than Astro's whose mother language is Portuguese. Surely Astro would have made the same corrections of your translations I did, had she had time to check them.
-
you said all the things were translated professionally
No, I couldn't possibly say that. I said they were translated rigorously, they were checked many times. I can assure you that every time I found a misinterpretation and alerted the PJFiles site the translation corrected. I'm sure errors remain. I haven't read all the files, but the most important ones.
But you did say that at 10.58 am on May 1st.
"The translated files everyone can read on the web were very professionally translated..."
Why are you now backtracking?
As for your ability to translate the files, I have a couple of questions. You claim to have translated for the EU, fair enough thats a pretty good standard to have achieved. But were you translating into English for the EU? If not, what relevance has that claim got to this thread. From your online biography I believe your expertise is in Portuguese and French, not English.
It is quite clear from your posts that you have a very reasonable grasp of English but I don't think it would be unfair of me to point out that your use of English idiom is not always accurate and there are other serious grammatical and syntactical errors which creep into your posts in English. How could you possibly think that the standard of English you have demonstrated here could be described as good enough to provide rigorous or professional translations into English?
It is disingenuous of you to suggest that your contribution to translations into English could be regarded as professional simply because you are able to translate between other languages.
-
Ich werde nicht weiter in die gleiche Kerbe schlagen
in other words
good night and good luck Anne
-
You are French yes Anne?
-
Prove what ? Prove you're not Ines first ;) !
do you have a problem with Ines or her translations?
No problem with no virtual creature. I read the files in Portuguese, not in English.
But that is not the point. It is the fact that you claim to have translated INTO English that is the problem. Do you have the requisite skills to do such a job. Your posts suggests that your standard of English, while good, is not of such a high standard that you would be able to interpret complex Portuguese originals into satisfactory idiomatic English.
-
Just reading here.
I'm fairly sure that Anne and I are unlikely to agree about a number of things.
That said, I do believe that, if asked, Anne will try to translate something as accurately as possible.
ETA: And will double-check on facts.
Trying to translate accurately and having the necessary standard of English to produce an accurate translation are very different things.
-
Just reading here.
I'm fairly sure that Anne and I are unlikely to agree about a number of things.
That said, I do believe that, if asked, Anne will try to translate something as accurately as possible.
ETA: And will double-check on facts.
Many thanks, Carana, so kind of you !
-
What right do you have to change a translation?
-
Just reading here.
I'm fairly sure that Anne and I are unlikely to agree about a number of things.
That said, I do believe that, if asked, Anne will try to translate something as accurately as possible.
ETA: And will double-check on facts.
Trying to translate accurately and having the necessary standard of English to produce an accurate translation are very different things.
I'm aware of that.
I'm not even sure what Anne is alleged to have translated except for a few blue bits as an alternative on Pamalam's site.
-
if fact lets get a bit more straight in this matter and ask the correct questions.
What right doe s anyone have to attempt translations ?
What gives someone aright to say that their translation is better than anyone else's ?
What liability do online translators have for errors?
-
Actually where and what is the problem ?
Someone, I don't remember who, Rachel ?, suggested the files on line were dubious because they hadn't been translated by professionals.
I tried to reassure you, saying that they had been translated with rigour and checked many times.
You don't believe me, you consider I'm not competent, you ask my credits but don't give them credit, then Ines appears as the school master or the queen of hearts and off with my head! Lol !
I offered helping in case of doubt in a translation, there was no malice in this, you don't want it, fine !
-
Actually where and what is the problem ?
Someone, I don't remember who, Rachel ?, suggested the files on line were dubious because they hadn't been translated by professionals.
I tried to reassure you, saying that they had been translated with rigour and checked many times.
You don't believe me, you consider I'm not competent, you ask my credits but don't give them credit, then Ines appears as the school master or the queen of hearts and off with my head! Lol !
I offered helping in case of doubt in a translation, there was no malice in this, you don't want it, fine !
.
you changed things that had been previously been translated
-
hardly scientific ... but that's my personal take:
Ines & Astro - translated accurately and truthfully
How what they translated was edited later on - an entirely different matter
But as for the source material/translation of same:
I have no problem whatsoever with Ines & Astro
never have, never will
-
Actually where and what is the problem ?
Someone, I don't remember who, Rachel ?, suggested the files on line were dubious because they hadn't been translated by professionals.
I tried to reassure you, saying that they had been translated with rigour and checked many times.
You don't believe me, you consider I'm not competent, you ask my credits but don't give them credit, then Ines appears as the school master or the queen of hearts and off with my head! Lol !
I offered helping in case of doubt in a translation, there was no malice in this, you don't want it, fine !
you protest too much Anne - let it rest
-
You drew it to attention when you commented on the GNR dog searches.
Suddenly there was a different translation
-
AnneGuedes: Quote
Suddenly I realise, off topic sorry, that Chinagirl said the translations of the files were biased and gave an example. I asked the reference... Unquote
I didn't say the translations were biased, but that they had been undertaken by amateurs with an agenda - "[ censored word]" in other words. As an example of a professional translation I posted an extract from the Final Report as it appeared in the judgment of Tugendhat J in the case of McCann v Bennett. You asked for the Portuguese original.
As I have no Portuguese, I have no idea where or how to find the original. However, as it is the conclusion to the Final Report which, I suggest, is the most widely discussed aspect of all the released files, and given your familiarity with these files as one of the translators, I am certain you will have no difficulty in locating it yourself. An English translation can be found here: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html
-
For reference I re-post here the relevant extract in Mr Justice Tugendhat's judgment:
the Report of the District Attorney dated 21 July 2008, a copy of which is exhibited to the third affidavit of Ms Martorell. That includes the following (in translation):
"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports…
None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
Para. 128 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/283.html
-
As a postscript, I would like to say I have no quibble with the translations made by people like Astro, Ines, et al, and am grateful for them. Without their efforts those of us with no knowledge of Portuguese would still be in ignorance of what was in those released files - and this applies to all of us in all the forums which have taken an interest in this case, regardless of whether pro or anti. Despite the occasional odd choice of vocabulary (the use of "intercalary" instead of interim report, for instance) and some grammar and syntactical awkwardness, those translations convey what was meant in the original.
However, it would have been out of the question for the McCanns or the English legal authorities to have relied on translations undertaken by unaccredited amateurs who were (and are) admittedly hostile to the McCanns. Suggestions by some posters here that it was a waste of money to have the files professionally translated are quite absurd.
-
For reference I re-post here the relevant extract in Mr Justice Tugendhat's judgment:
the Report of the District Attorney dated 21 July 2008, a copy of which is exhibited to the third affidavit of Ms Martorell. That includes the following (in translation):
"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports…
None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
Para. 128 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/283.html
Thank you for your answer, Chinagirl, and sorry I made a confusion. I thought you had posted Joana Morais had "missed out important parts of statements, because it didn't go against the McCanns". It wasn't you, it was DCI. The confusion happened because right after DCI's post you posted the professionally translated extract of the PGR's final document that was used in the trial against Mr Bennett, saying it illustrated the difference between professional and unprofessional translations.
I was unclear also when I asked for the "original". Actually to look for the extract in the Portuguese original (on paper, 58 pages), it would be easier if I had keywords of the unprofessional translation (I couldn't find it using keywords of the professional translation).
As you certainly compared the two translations, I was just asking if you had the unprofessional extract at hand. I'm really curious.
The rereading of a good if not professional translation is much quicker and then less expensive than a translation from the root, except for literature.
The understanding difficulties in the PJFiles aren't due to syntactic complexities. But even in simple sentences and even when languages are related like Romanic ones (French and Portuguese for instance), false friends exist.
Now yesterday someone wondered whether Mr McCann's first statement's translator made a confusion about the door used to enter in the G5A on the 3rd of May 2007.
This translator wasn't only professional, but sworn in.
So where doubt starts and ends ?
-
Certain words and phrases were left out of some of the translations, including those by Morais, Astro and Ines. I lost track of them all after a while.
The most shocking one for me was in The Final report. "whether the child is alive or dead, [OR] which is the most likely."
I find it extremely unlikely that anyone would accidently leave out "OR" because it changes the entire meaning of the sentence.
Sorry, I can't remember who did that.
-
Thank you, Eleanor - I was just thinking about that one!
8((()*/
-
Try to remember, please, because 1) it casts a doubt on translations every time the subject is sensitive and 2) because we're losing our time here if the documents aren't accurate (at least if there's an ambiguity, it should be said and analysed).
If somebody is interested in knowing if... I'll answer pmly. Take it or leave it !
-
Certain words and phrases were left out of some of the translations, including those by Morais, Astro and Ines. I lost track of them all after a while.
The most shocking one for me was in The Final report. "whether the child is alive or dead, [OR] which is the most likely."
I find it extremely unlikely that anyone would accidently leave out "OR" because it changes the entire meaning of the sentence.
Sorry, I can't remember who did that.
That was the prosecutor de Menezes, who reinforced that at the first hearing into the injunction on Amaral's book by expressing the view that it is 50-50 whether Madeleine is alive or dead ...
-
GA's lawyer insisted and the PGR interpreted his (tricky on a syntactic point of view) sentence this way, in other words in the most neutral the most "non opinion" possible way.
-
Anne, I think these are the original pages that CG is referring to. last two paragraphs on page 4644 and first two paragraphs on page 4645
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P17/17_VOLUME_XVIIa_Page_4644.jpg)
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P17/17_VOLUME_XVIIa_Page_4645.jpg)
The translation from the PJ files by Astro (there are several paragraphs before the final sentence qualifying regarding the lifting of the arguido status)
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
and the quote from Mr Justice from CG
"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports…
None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
Also, Anne, can you translate the last couple sentences in the first paragraph here. Does the PP say, regarding knowing whether she is alive or dead, that it seems more likely she is dead, or does he say, we dont know which is more likely? This is one of the disputed translation issues.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P17/17_VOLUME_XVIIa_Page_4647.jpg)
-
Certain words and phrases were left out of some of the translations, including those by Morais, Astro and Ines. I lost track of them all after a while.
The most shocking one for me was in The Final report. "whether the child is alive or dead, [OR] which is the most likely."
I find it extremely unlikely that anyone would accidently leave out "OR" because it changes the entire meaning of the sentence.
Sorry, I can't remember who did that.
That was this one, Eleanor.
I see Morais has put bits back on since, this was posted nearly 2 years ago.
http://.....2.forumotion.co.uk/t85-the-final-report
-
Certain words and phrases were left out of some of the translations, including those by Morais, Astro and Ines. I lost track of them all after a while.
The most shocking one for me was in The Final report. "whether the child is alive or dead, [OR] which is the most likely."
I find it extremely unlikely that anyone would accidently leave out "OR" because it changes the entire meaning of the sentence.
Sorry, I can't remember who did that.
That was the prosecutor de Menezes, who reinforced that at the first hearing into the injunction on Amaral's book by expressing the view that it is 50-50 whether Madeleine is alive or dead ...
Yes it was Menezes who said it, but he put in the "OR". I don't remember who left it out of the Translation. But it was pretty damned blatant for a cheap shot.
And there were endless Threads on nasty sites saying that he believed that Madeleine was dead.
What a twit he looked in Court when Isabel Duarte more or less forced him to say that it was 50/50.
-
Try to remember, please, because 1) it casts a doubt on translations every time the subject is sensitive and 2) because we're losing our time here if the documents aren't accurate (at least if there's an ambiguity, it should be said and analysed).
If somebody is interested in knowing if... I'll answer pmly. Take it or leave it !
There is nothing to talk about. I saw it happen. I read both Translations several times in case I had somehow misunderstood. And of course it casts doubts on The Translations. That is the whole point.
And hardly an ambiguity. It isn't even an accidental mistranslation.
What is "OR" in Portuguese? Thank you for your assistance in advance.
-
Try to remember, please, because 1) it casts a doubt on translations every time the subject is sensitive and 2) because we're losing our time here if the documents aren't accurate (at least if there's an ambiguity, it should be said and analysed).
If somebody is interested in knowing if... I'll answer pmly. Take it or leave it !
There is nothing to talk about. I saw it happen. I read both Translations several times in case I had somehow misunderstood. And of course it casts doubts on The Translations. That is the whole point.
And hardly an ambiguity. It isn't even an accidental mistranslation.
What is "OR" in Portuguese? Thank you for your assistance in advance.
Then they say, there was no agenda.
-
Try to remember, please, because 1) it casts a doubt on translations every time the subject is sensitive and 2) because we're losing our time here if the documents aren't accurate (at least if there's an ambiguity, it should be said and analysed).
If somebody is interested in knowing if... I'll answer pmly. Take it or leave it !
There is nothing to talk about. I saw it happen. I read both Translations several times in case I had somehow misunderstood. And of course it casts doubts on The Translations. That is the whole point.
And hardly an ambiguity. It isn't even an accidental mistranslation.
What is "OR" in Portuguese? Thank you for your assistance in advance.
Then they say, there was no agenda.
Of course there was an agenda. That "mistake" had no purpose in Law because the original was always there. It was done simply to add fuel to the fire of doubt against the McCanns. To somehow affect public opinion. This is what they did to Leonor Cipriano, once they had beaten her almost senseless.
So utterly stupid, but it seems to work in Portugal.
-
I may have commented on this on another thread and my experience in this relates to Spanish but the same certainly applies.
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal in Edinburgh withheld crucial documents in my own case for over a year which originated in Madrid. They claimed it was an oversight yet my Counsel asked for them on several occasions. Judges in the UK tend to believe and side with Crown Counsel - they never lie you see!
When my lawyer eventually received them the day before a crucial hearing the Sheriff in Edinburgh refused to accept them as they had not been translated. That aside, we eventually received a translation from the Crown some time later. Coincidentally, it just so happened that my lawyer sent a batch of documents to be translated and amongst them was this same document which when it came back had a completely different meaning and that was caused by a single word!
My experience with Spanish is that with the best will in the world it cannot be translated into English and retain the exact same meaning as the original. Consequently, legal documents are a complete minefield!
-
Any translation that has not been made by an accredited professional translation bureau is worthless.
A bit sententious, don't you think, Rachel ? I certainly shall not to list here all the translations I did. I translated and rewrote during 4 years the Portuguese press review (to French) for the UE Commission. It's pretty difficult to get that kind of job.
Anne, with the greatest of respect to you, I will echo what others have said. Your command of English is very good indeed, but unless translations from Portuguese to English have been done by a licensed professional bureau, then they are not reliable in my opinion. In my post I am in no way denigrating your language skills, just saying that professional Portuguese to English translations are the only ones that can be relied upon.
-
when Isabel Duarte more or less forced him to say that it was 50/50.
Isabel Duarte's presence may be, but the one who insisted to get an interpretation of his asyntactic sentence was GA's lawyer.
-
when Isabel Duarte more or less forced him to say that it was 50/50.
Isabel Duarte's presence may be, but the one who insisted to get an interpretation of his asyntactic sentence was GA's lawyer.
Isabel Duarte rocks! She's a real pocket-rocket!
-
when Isabel Duarte more or less forced him to say that it was 50/50.
Isabel Duarte's presence may be, but the one who insisted to get an interpretation of his asyntactic sentence was GA's lawyer.
Isabel Duarte rocks! She's a real pocket-rocket!
I'd like her beside me in the trenches....
Last word from me about translations
Unless someone has mastered another language other than his/her native language~
They should keep stumm (that's the proper spelling) about translations
QED: decades of 'puter technology and 'Google Translate' is still just pants
Translating properly is a craft - not a blooming hobby
-
when Isabel Duarte more or less forced him to say that it was 50/50.
Isabel Duarte's presence may be, but the one who insisted to get an interpretation of his asyntactic sentence was GA's lawyer.
Isabel Duarte rocks! She's a real pocket-rocket!
yes rocket pocket, who tried to suppress evidence in the book banning trial, pretty underhand to me, and her try was overturned
hardly the honest type
-
when Isabel Duarte more or less forced him to say that it was 50/50.
Isabel Duarte's presence may be, but the one who insisted to get an interpretation of his asyntactic sentence was GA's lawyer.
Isabel Duarte rocks! She's a real pocket-rocket!
I'd like her beside me in the trenches....
Last word from me about translations
Unless someone has mastered another language other than his/her native language~
They should keep stumm (that's the proper spelling) about translations
QED: decades of 'puter technology and 'Google Translate' is still just pants
Translating properly is a craft - not a blooming hobby
Exactly. The translations of amateurs, some of whom have an agenda, are not to be trusted.
-
when Isabel Duarte more or less forced him to say that it was 50/50.
Isabel Duarte's presence may be, but the one who insisted to get an interpretation of his asyntactic sentence was GA's lawyer.
Isabel Duarte rocks! She's a real pocket-rocket!
yes rocket pocket, who tried to suppress evidence in the book banning trial, pretty underhand to me, and her try was overturned
hardly the honest type
What evidence was suppressed in the libel case? Can you provide a cite, Redblossom?
-
when Isabel Duarte more or less forced him to say that it was 50/50.
Isabel Duarte's presence may be, but the one who insisted to get an interpretation of his asyntactic sentence was GA's lawyer.
Isabel Duarte rocks! She's a real pocket-rocket!
yes rocket pocket, who tried to suppress evidence in the book banning trial, pretty underhand to me, and her try was overturned
hardly the honest type
What evidence was suppressed in the libel case? Can you provide a cite, Redblossom?
Duarte tried to suppress the PJ files DVD being brought in as evidence, its all there in all the original tweets, the judge told her to behave And that it WOULD be allowed in as evidence, its all there for the lazy donkeys to search for, FACT
-
when Isabel Duarte more or less forced him to say that it was 50/50.
Isabel Duarte's presence may be, but the one who insisted to get an interpretation of his asyntactic sentence was GA's lawyer.
Isabel Duarte rocks! She's a real pocket-rocket!
yes rocket pocket, who tried to suppress evidence in the book banning trial, pretty underhand to me, and her try was overturned
hardly the honest type
What evidence was suppressed in the libel case? Can you provide a cite, Redblossom?
Duarte tried to suppress the PJ files DVD being brought in as evidence, its all there in all the original tweets, the judge told her to behave
show us the original tweets - sweets
-
when Isabel Duarte more or less forced him to say that it was 50/50.
Isabel Duarte's presence may be, but the one who insisted to get an interpretation of his asyntactic sentence was GA's lawyer.
Isabel Duarte rocks! She's a real pocket-rocket!
yes rocket pocket, who tried to suppress evidence in the book banning trial, pretty underhand to me, and her try was overturned
hardly the honest type
What evidence was suppressed in the libel case? Can you provide a cite, Redblossom?
Duarte tried to suppress the PJ files DVD being brought in as evidence, its all there in all the original tweets, the judge told her to behave
Where are these tweets, then? produce them.
-
So Rachel you didnt follow the trial at the time I PRESUME?
-
So Rachel you didnt follow the trial at the time I PRESUME?
Back up your claim about Ms Duarte with a cite please, otherwise your claim is worthless.
-
So Rachel you didnt follow the trial at the time I PRESUME?
Back up your claim about Ms Duarte with a cite please, otherwise your claim is worthless.
Oh be nice now, I only asked you if you had followed it at the time, was that a yes or no? because if you had you will have KNOWN she tried to suppress evidence, dont worry I will find the evidence for YOU because you OBVIOUSLY didnt follow it or had earphones on at the time x Not going to scour the internet PDQ for you right now though, just rest assured it is there and will appear here tomorrow
@)(++(*
-
Anne, I think these are the original pages that CG is referring to. last two paragraphs on page 4644 and first two paragraphs on page 4645
Reblossom, thank you very much for getting the 3 documents together ! I looked at them carefully and I must say that Astro's translation is the closest to the original. Astro did a great job.
Here it comes with in bold the elements that are missed or approximative in the "Mr Bennett trial" translation.
Concerning the other indicated (I'd translate "denounced") crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception (I'd translate "we have to consider") that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions (I'd translate "the conclusions of the expert assessments), namely (I'd translate "mainly") the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications (I'd translate "evidences") that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces marked (I'd translate "residues indicated") by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
-
no problem Anne
8((()*/
-
So Rachel you didnt follow the trial at the time I PRESUME?
Back up your claim about Ms Duarte with a cite please, otherwise your claim is worthless.
Oh be nice now, I only asked you if you had followed it at the time, was that a yes or no? because if you had you will have KNOWN she tried to suppress evidence, dont worry I will find the evidence for YOU because you OBVIOUSLY didnt follow it or had earphones on at the time x Not going to scour the internet PDQ for you right now though, just rest assured it is there and will appear here tomorrow
@)(++(*
lame
make an assertion now
prove it now - don't play for time in the hope we will have forgotten tomorrow @)(++(*
-
So Rachel you didnt follow the trial at the time I PRESUME?
Back up your claim about Ms Duarte with a cite please, otherwise your claim is worthless.
here are the tweets
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t341p10-mccann-libel-trial-via-twitter
11.07 and 11 01
Oh in case you think thats from a biased forum
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t2274p1-amaral-s-appeal-hearing-gets-under-way
See the image jondipaolo:
The McCanns' lawyer is arguing against allowing the police CD to be submitted to the court.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 11:11 jondipaolo
11:07
See the image jondipaolo:
Mr Amaral's lawyers want a CD containing police case files to be submitted as evidence because it would corroborate the claims in his book.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 11:07 jondipaolo
The CD which is evidence that Duarte was trying to supress, ! was allowed into court after all despite Ms Duartes protestations, hope that wraps THAT one up vis a vis just being a *claim* of MINE lol, i dont tend to make stuff up rachel for the fun of it
8((()*/
-
So Rachel you didnt follow the trial at the time I PRESUME?
Back up your claim about Ms Duarte with a cite please, otherwise your claim is worthless.
Oh be nice now, I only asked you if you had followed it at the time, was that a yes or no? because if you had you will have KNOWN she tried to suppress evidence, dont worry I will find the evidence for YOU because you OBVIOUSLY didnt follow it or had earphones on at the time x Not going to scour the internet PDQ for you right now though, just rest assured it is there and will appear here tomorrow
@)(++(*
lame
make an assertion now
prove it now - don't play for time in the hope we will have forgotten tomorrow @)(++(*
await apology :) nah forget it youre not worth it
-
Just reading here.
I'm fairly sure that Anne and I are unlikely to agree about a number of things.
That said, I do believe that, if asked, Anne will try to translate something as accurately as possible.
ETA: And will double-check on facts.
Trying to translate accurately and having the necessary standard of English to produce an accurate translation are very different things.
There's something right here and I do have to acknowledge it. For best result you're supposed to translate from a foreign language towards your mother language. Both Portuguese and English are respectively my fourth and third languages. But I studied Latin and that makes some difference.
Now I certainly would never try to translate into English a Portuguese poet or even a French one, though I translated Fernando Pessoa in French, my mother language, and even Italian Dante in French and in verses. But the files' contents aren't Literature and whereas Literature always needs some re-creation, the files need to be according to the letter. The professional translation of the extract proposed by Chinagirl as illustrating the difference between professional and unprofessional translation is not as accurate as Astro's.
I bet my head that a highly qualified translator will confirm this. My head !
-
when Isabel Duarte more or less forced him to say that it was 50/50.
Isabel Duarte's presence may be, but the one who insisted to get an interpretation of his asyntactic sentence was GA's lawyer.
Isabel Duarte rocks! She's a real pocket-rocket!
I'd like her beside me in the trenches....
Last word from me about translations
Unless someone has mastered another language other than his/her native language~
They should keep stumm (that's the proper spelling) about translations
QED: decades of 'puter technology and 'Google Translate' is still just pants
Translating properly is a craft - not a blooming hobby
Exactly. The translations of amateurs, some of whom have an agenda, are not to be trusted.
Rachel, translating is a rather complex mental activity. If it weren't robots like google translator wouldn't produce non sense (experiment a robot translation of the PGR's dispatch and you'll laugh). It's no hobby for amateurs.
-
Anne I think you have done well to answer the questions and thankyou for that.
-
redblossom
the day I click your 'links' is the day I give a Nigerian prince all of my bank details - so he can transfer millions into my bank account
close but - no cigar
-
redblossom
the day I click your 'links' is the day I give a Nigerian prince all of my bank details - so he can transfer millions into my bank account
close but - no cigar
They are not MY links, I dont have any personal links,, they are links to well known public forums, plus you didnt have to raise a finger as the text was quoted, which PROVED what I said was true, cheers big ears,cant even be a gentleman when youre wrong, your loss :)
8(>((
-
AnneGuedes: As I have no Portuguese I can't possibly comment on whether or not Astro's original translation of that particular section of the final report was closer to the Portuguese original than the professional translation which appears in the judgment. It was never my intention to dispute the validity of either translation; I merely sought to illustrate how much more polished and succinct (and better English) is the professional version which appears in the judgment than that which was rendered by the amateurs.
I have done an analysis of both versions - Astro's with your suggested alternatives, compared to the one I copied from Mr Justice Tudgendhat's judgment. If you'd like to see this let me know and I'll send it to you by PM, rather than clog up this thread with rather boring commentary. However, there are just three things in your version posted in reply no.59 on p.4 of this thread which immediately indicate to any good native English speaker that that translation has not been undertaken by a professional, viz:
The words "police" and "evidence" are always used in the singular - never "polices" or "evidences"
You suggest the word "mainly" should have been used instead of "namely" (referring to the two laboratories.) "Namely" - and the naming of the respective laboratories, indicates that ONLY those two were employed, whereas "mainly" would indicate that others (unspecified) were also used apart from the two named. What was the Portuguese word used, and is it open to ambiguity? The correct translation would have to be one or the other - namely or mainly - not either/or - and would depend on whether or not only those two labs were used.
The whole point of this exercise was to dispute your contention that the translations made by Astro and others were "professional." It has been amply demonstrated in this thread that they clearly were not. While they certainly served the purpose of informing those of us on the internet who are interested in this case, and while I have no doubt that every effort was made to render them as accurate as the translators were capable, they cannot take the place of translations made by accredited, impartial translators.
-
AnneGuedes: As I have no Portuguese I can't possibly comment on whether or not Astro's original translation of that particular section of the final report was closer to the Portuguese original than the professional translation which appears in the judgment. It was never my intention to dispute the validity of either translation; I merely sought to illustrate how much more polished and succinct (and better English) is the professional version which appears in the judgment than that which was rendered by the amateurs.
I have done an analysis of both versions - Astro's with your suggested alternatives, compared to the one I copied from Mr Justice Tudgendhat's judgment. If you'd like to see this let me know and I'll send it to you by PM, rather than clog up this thread with rather boring commentary. However, there are just three things in your version posted in reply no.59 on p.4 of this thread which immediately indicate to any good native English speaker that that translation has not been undertaken by a professional, viz:
The words "police" and "evidence" are always used in the singular - never "polices" or "evidences"
You suggest the word "mainly" should have been used instead of "namely" (referring to the two laboratories.) "Namely" - and the naming of the respective laboratories, indicates that ONLY those two were employed, whereas "mainly" would indicate that others (unspecified) were also used apart from the two named. What was the Portuguese word used, and is it open to ambiguity? The correct translation would have to be one or the other - namely or mainly - not either/or - and would depend on whether or not only those two labs were used.
The whole point of this exercise was to dispute your contention that the translations made by Astro and others were "professional." It has been amply demonstrated in this thread that they clearly were not. While they certainly served the purpose of informing those of us on the internet who are interested in this case, and while I have no doubt that every effort was made to render them as accurate as the translators were capable, they cannot take the place of translations made by accredited, impartial translators.
Excellent post, CG.
-
Pedantic point. Evidence does have a plural.
Contentious point: among the evidences that the McCanns may be guilty of a criminal offence are the facts that they had the means and the opportunity.
-
That the McCanns had means and opportunity is disputed, Debunker, but not in this thread.
And you have used a very clumsy sentence to illustrate your point. "There is evidence to suggest that ....." "Evidence of means and opportunity would indicate that ....."
I have found no evidence that "evidence" exists other than in the singular .....
-
That the McCanns had means and opportunity is disputed, Debunker, but not in this thread.
And you have used a very clumsy sentence to illustrate your point. "There is evidence to suggest that ....." "Evidence of means and opportunity would indicate that ....."
I have found no evidence that "evidence" exists other than in the singular .....
It is not disputed by anyone that the McCanns had Menas and Opportunity- those are FACTS. The question is whether these are evidences against the McCanns.
That aside:
ev·i·dence
noun /ˈevədəns/
evidences, plural
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
- the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination
Information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in court
- without evidence, they can't bring a charge
Signs; indications
- there was no obvious evidence of a break-in
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHFX_enGB517GB517&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#rlz=1C1CHFX_enGB517GB517&q=evidence&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=oFmHUZL9CoWe0QWzooCIDA&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=e89dc6d4fd6fee48&biw=1920&bih=955&ion=1
Just Google 'Evidences' and you will find it in many contexts.
-
Not interested in Google. I tend to rely on the OED, Fowler's MOdern English Usage, Howard's Good English Guide.
-
PS to last comment: Not to mention common, everyday usage ...!
-
Not interested in Google. I tend to rely on the OED, Fowler's MOdern English Usage, Howard's Good English Guide.
I tend to rely on the OED, Fowler's MOdern English Usage, Howard's Good English Guide.
You really know how to 'slum it', don't you CG ...
@)(++(*
-
Not interested in Google. I tend to rely on the OED, Fowler's MOdern English Usage, Howard's Good English Guide.
evidences 3rd person singular present, plural of ev·i·dence
Noun
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Verb
Be or show evidence of.
More info - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary
What we have here is a moot point. It seems that the tendency in American English is to see Evidence as an countable noun, but in Modern English usage it is gnerally seen as uncountable, although historic usage in England shows that it was previously a countable noun.
Given that the internet is busy conflating English and American usage, we are in a transition phase. Most of my reading is of standard American usage in journals and I tend to write standard American spelling and usage for that very reason (and the fact that I was educated there!)
-
Db may be correct, strictly speaking, but I have never seen the word 'evidences' used - only 'evidence' - for singular and plural. Using 'evidences' may not be incorrect but it's so unfamiliar and unused that it shows that the amateur translator is not as good as a professional - who I don't think would use that word nowadays.
IMO If you can't tell that something has been translated from another language into English - then that is the sign of a professional translator. That is the acid test.
Anne's English is excellent, but it's not difficult to work out that it is not her first language.
-
You are derailing this thread with trivia, Debunker - and so am I by responding to you!
-
Este actua como uma interface entre as partes interessadas e os serviços da Comissão, oferecendo, se necessário, mediação em questões processuais que afectem a protecção dos seus interesses neste processo, nomeadamente no que se refere a questões relativas a acesso ao dossiê, confidencialidade, prorrogação de prazos e tratamento dos pontos de vista apresentados por escrito e/ou oralmente.
He acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission services, offering, where necessary, mediation on procedural matters affecting the protection of their interests in this proceeding, in particular with regard to issues concerning access to the file, confidentiality, extension of time limits and the treatment of written and/or oral submission of views.
eur-lex.europa.eu
http://www.linguee.com/english-portuguese?query=nomeadamente
-
Certain words and phrases were left out of some of the translations, including those by Morais, Astro and Ines. I lost track of them all after a while.
The most shocking one for me was in The Final report. "whether the child is alive or dead, [OR] which is the most likely."
I find it extremely unlikely that anyone would accidently leave out "OR" because it changes the entire meaning of the sentence.
Sorry, I can't remember who did that.
From what Tug read out:
"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
There's no "or" in there.
-
You are derailing this thread with trivia, Debunker - and so am I by responding to you!
Then don't make erroneous statements. Evidences (noun, plural) has been part of English usage for centuries and remains so.
-
So Rachel you didnt follow the trial at the time I PRESUME?
Back up your claim about Ms Duarte with a cite please, otherwise your claim is worthless.
here are the tweets
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t341p10-mccann-libel-trial-via-twitter
11.07 and 11 01
Oh in case you think thats from a biased forum
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t2274p1-amaral-s-appeal-hearing-gets-under-way
See the image jondipaolo:
The McCanns' lawyer is arguing against allowing the police CD to be submitted to the court.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 11:11 jondipaolo
11:07
See the image jondipaolo:
Mr Amaral's lawyers want a CD containing police case files to be submitted as evidence because it would corroborate the claims in his book.
Tuesday January 12, 2010 11:07 jondipaolo
The CD which is evidence that Duarte was trying to supress, ! was allowed into court after all despite Ms Duartes protestations, hope that wraps THAT one up vis a vis just being a *claim* of MINE lol, i dont tend to make stuff up rachel for the fun of it
8((()*/
yes, fair enough Redblossom - I have read the tweets. Thanks for the link. Interesting reading!
-
Now yesterday someone wondered whether Mr McCann's first statement's translator made a confusion about the door used to enter in the G5A on the 3rd of May 2007.
This translator wasn't only professional, but sworn in.
So where doubt starts and ends ?
What makes you think that Natalia de Almeida was a professional interpreter, Anne?
I'm aware that they had to sign a document, presumably covering confidentiality and accuracy, but that doesn't mean that they were actual professionals, particularly in the chaos of the morning of 4 May.
Mistakes were made (cf the missing não in the translation of Grime's verbal report).
ETA And that didn't involve a live bilateral situation.
-
Now yesterday someone wondered whether Mr McCann's first statement's translator made a confusion about the door used to enter in the G5A on the 3rd of May 2007.
This translator wasn't only professional, but sworn in.
So where doubt starts and ends ?
What makes you think that Natalia de Almeida was a professional interpreter, Anne?
I'm aware that they had to sign a document, presumably covering confidentiality and accuracy, but that doesn't mean that they were actual professionals, particularly in the chaos of the morning of 4 May.
Mistakes were made (cf the missing não in the translation of Grime's verbal report).
ETA And that didn't involve a live bilateral situation.
Didn't Robert Murat act as an interpretor? I presume he would also have to sign a document, but he is not a professional interpretor.
-
Now yesterday someone wondered whether Mr McCann's first statement's translator made a confusion about the door used to enter in the G5A on the 3rd of May 2007.
This translator wasn't only professional, but sworn in.
So where doubt starts and ends ?
What makes you think that Natalia de Almeida was a professional interpreter, Anne?
I'm aware that they had to sign a document, presumably covering confidentiality and accuracy, but that doesn't mean that they were actual professionals, particularly in the chaos of the morning of 4 May.
Mistakes were made (cf the missing não in the translation of Grime's verbal report).
ETA And that didn't involve a live bilateral situation.
Didn't Robert Murat act as an interpretor? I presume he would also have to sign a document, but he is not a professional interpretor.
Robert Murat did translate a couple of statements, but he was an accredited translator.
-
Now yesterday someone wondered whether Mr McCann's first statement's translator made a confusion about the door used to enter in the G5A on the 3rd of May 2007.
This translator wasn't only professional, but sworn in.
So where doubt starts and ends ?
What makes you think that Natalia de Almeida was a professional interpreter, Anne?
I'm aware that they had to sign a document, presumably covering confidentiality and accuracy, but that doesn't mean that they were actual professionals, particularly in the chaos of the morning of 4 May.
Mistakes were made (cf the missing não in the translation of Grime's verbal report).
ETA And that didn't involve a live bilateral situation.
Didn't Robert Murat act as an interpretor? I presume he would also have to sign a document, but he is not a professional interpretor.
Robert Murat did translate a couple of statements, but he was an accredited translator.
Ahh I didn't know that Ferryman - thanks for that info.
-
Now yesterday someone wondered whether Mr McCann's first statement's translator made a confusion about the door used to enter in the G5A on the 3rd of May 2007.
This translator wasn't only professional, but sworn in.
So where doubt starts and ends ?
What makes you think that Natalia de Almeida was a professional interpreter, Anne?
I'm aware that they had to sign a document, presumably covering confidentiality and accuracy, but that doesn't mean that they were actual professionals, particularly in the chaos of the morning of 4 May.
Mistakes were made (cf the missing não in the translation of Grime's verbal report).
ETA And that didn't involve a live bilateral situation.
Didn't Robert Murat act as an interpretor? I presume he would also have to sign a document, but he is not a professional interpretor.
Robert Murat did translate a couple of statements, but he was an accredited translator.
Because he'd interpreted in the past for the UK police (apparently).
It doesn't make him a professional interpreter. That said, I haven't noticed any witness later saying that he'd made any mistakes.
Then again, it's not just the "interpreter" who could have misunderstood - the statements are not verbatim.
-
I suppose there are different forms of 'interpreter. Perhaps he did informal interpretation for initial non written formal statements- basic questioning of Brits with no Portuguese.
-
Especially for you, Debunker: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/evidences.html
@)(++(*
-
Certain words and phrases were left out of some of the translations, including those by Morais, Astro and Ines. I lost track of them all after a while.
The most shocking one for me was in The Final report. "whether the child is alive or dead, [OR] which is the most likely."
I find it extremely unlikely that anyone would accidently leave out "OR" because it changes the entire meaning of the sentence.
Sorry, I can't remember who did that.
From what Tug read out:
"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
There's no "or" in there.
Eleanor meant another extract of the dispatch I'll try to analyse later.
Better read Astro's translation if you are interested in knowing how the PGR expresses himself. "Killing" imo isn't the right word, the PGR uses the more neutral "homicide". I'm not saying the professional translation is biased, but many inaccurate details change the general feeling.
-
Especially for you, Debunker: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/evidences.html
@)(++(*
Yawn
From your own cite:
"The word "evidences," as a plural of the noun "evidence," is currently used secularly at least seven times in the latest edition of the Columbia Encyclopedia (Sixth Edition 2001), mostly in a legal context."
and many others confirm my contention that evidences as a plural noun has been used extensively from Shakespeare to the present day, in the US and in the UK.
Thank you for assisting me in proving you wrong!
-
I suppose there are different forms of 'interpreter. Perhaps he did informal interpretation for initial non written formal statements- basic questioning of Brits with no Portuguese.
But the point under discussion was not RM, but Natalia de Almeida. I've no doubt that she and the police officer did their best (and Gerry would have had very little sleep).
All I'm saying is that there was opportunity for confusion.
-
Certain words and phrases were left out of some of the translations, including those by Morais, Astro and Ines. I lost track of them all after a while.
The most shocking one for me was in The Final report. "whether the child is alive or dead, [OR] which is the most likely."
I find it extremely unlikely that anyone would accidently leave out "OR" because it changes the entire meaning of the sentence.
Sorry, I can't remember who did that.
From what Tug read out:
"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
There's no "or" in there.
Eleanor meant another extract of the dispatch I'll try to analyse later.
Better read Astro's translation if you are interested in knowing how the PGR expresses himself. "Killing" imo isn't the right word, the PGR uses the more neutral "homicide". I'm not saying the professional translation is biased, but many inaccurate details change the general feeling.
Yes, Eleanor does seem to be referring to a different passage. Apologies.
-
- Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P17/17_VOLUME_XVIIa_Page_4647.jpg
"…. nem enunciar sequer um prognóstico consistente* sobre o set destine e inclusiavamente - o mais* dramático - apurar se ainda está viva ou se está morta, como parece mais* provável. "
This would seem to be the passage. I still don't see an "or" in the original.
Edit: typos.
-
Db may be correct, strictly speaking, but I have never seen the word 'evidences' used - only 'evidence' - for singular and plural. Using 'evidences' may not be incorrect but it's so unfamiliar and unused that it shows that the amateur translator is not as good as a professional - who I don't think would use that word nowadays.
IMO If you can't tell that something has been translated from another language into English - then that is the sign of a professional translator. That is the acid test.
Anne's English is excellent, but it's not difficult to work out that it is not her first language.
Thank you, Benice ! I wish it were. English is my 3rd language, my second is German.
"Evidence" may be used as a countable noun or not. The difference is in the point of view. Whether you consider the "substance" of what is meant or a particular occurrence. Some words can be used both ways.
Is there evidence of this ? Há prova disso ? (uncountable in both languages)
They reviewed the available evidence (s?). Examinaram as provas disponíveis. (countable in both languages)
-
Db may be correct, strictly speaking, but I have never seen the word 'evidences' used - only 'evidence' - for singular and plural. Using 'evidences' may not be incorrect but it's so unfamiliar and unused that it shows that the amateur translator is not as good as a professional - who I don't think would use that word nowadays.
IMO If you can't tell that something has been translated from another language into English - then that is the sign of a professional translator. That is the acid test.
Anne's English is excellent, but it's not difficult to work out that it is not her first language.
Thank you, Benice ! I wish it were. English is my 3rd language, my second is German.
"Evidence" may be used as a countable noun or not. The difference is in the point of view. Whether you consider the "substance" of what is meant or a particular occurrence. Some words can be used both ways.
Is there evidence of this ? Há prova disso ? (uncountable in both languages)
They reviewed the available evidence (s?). Examinaram as provas disponíveis. (countable in both languages)
The bottom line with Evidences is that it is more common in modern US usage, than British and that it is more common in legal and scientific writing than everyday life.
There are so many nuances in English that are missing in French German, Spanish, Portuguese etc.. It is possible to tell a considerable amount about a writer by their use of words, grammar and idiom in a way that is less common in other languages.
-
Db may be correct, strictly speaking, but I have never seen the word 'evidences' used - only 'evidence' - for singular and plural. Using 'evidences' may not be incorrect but it's so unfamiliar and unused that it shows that the amateur translator is not as good as a professional - who I don't think would use that word nowadays.
IMO If you can't tell that something has been translated from another language into English - then that is the sign of a professional translator. That is the acid test.
Anne's English is excellent, but it's not difficult to work out that it is not her first language.
Thank you, Benice ! I wish it were. English is my 3rd language, my second is German.
"Evidence" may be used as a countable noun or not. The difference is in the point of view. Whether you consider the "substance" of what is meant or a particular occurrence. Some words can be used both ways.
Is there evidence of this ? Há prova disso ? (uncountable in both languages)
They reviewed the available evidence (s?). Examinaram as provas disponíveis. (countable in both languages)
Halfway house.
"Evidences" exists, but is rarely used. I had never come across it in the plural before yesterday.
-
Db may be correct, strictly speaking, but I have never seen the word 'evidences' used - only 'evidence' - for singular and plural. Using 'evidences' may not be incorrect but it's so unfamiliar and unused that it shows that the amateur translator is not as good as a professional - who I don't think would use that word nowadays.
IMO If you can't tell that something has been translated from another language into English - then that is the sign of a professional translator. That is the acid test.
Anne's English is excellent, but it's not difficult to work out that it is not her first language.
Thank you, Benice ! I wish it were. English is my 3rd language, my second is German.
"Evidence" may be used as a countable noun or not. The difference is in the point of view. Whether you consider the "substance" of what is meant or a particular occurrence. Some words can be used both ways.
Is there evidence of this ? Há prova disso ? (uncountable in both languages)
They reviewed the available evidence (s?). Examinaram as provas disponíveis. (countable in both languages)
The bottom line with Evidences is that it is more common in modern US usage, than British and that it is more common in legal and scientific writing than everyday life.
There are so many nuances in English that are missing in French German, Spanish, Portuguese etc.. It is possible to tell a considerable amount about a writer by their use of words, grammar and idiom in a way that is less common in other languages.
Nurse Debunker, though I reckon in you a certain sense of rigour (unfortunately sometimes masked by a lack of courtesy), I find this statement sententious and arbitrary. Ask grammarians !
And meditate : though the English vocabulary is larger than, for example, the French one, though Basic English has invaded the planet, why is French still the language of diplomacy ?
-
Db may be correct, strictly speaking, but I have never seen the word 'evidences' used - only 'evidence' - for singular and plural. Using 'evidences' may not be incorrect but it's so unfamiliar and unused that it shows that the amateur translator is not as good as a professional - who I don't think would use that word nowadays.
IMO If you can't tell that something has been translated from another language into English - then that is the sign of a professional translator. That is the acid test.
Anne's English is excellent, but it's not difficult to work out that it is not her first language.
Thank you, Benice ! I wish it were. English is my 3rd language, my second is German.
"Evidence" may be used as a countable noun or not. The difference is in the point of view. Whether you consider the "substance" of what is meant or a particular occurrence. Some words can be used both ways.
Is there evidence of this ? Há prova disso ? (uncountable in both languages)
They reviewed the available evidence (s?). Examinaram as provas disponíveis. (countable in both languages)
Halfway house.
"Evidences" exists, but is rarely used. I had never come across it in the plural before yesterday.
yes, it seems the word is used extensively as an uncountable noun. "Prova" isn't.
-
Db may be correct, strictly speaking, but I have never seen the word 'evidences' used - only 'evidence' - for singular and plural. Using 'evidences' may not be incorrect but it's so unfamiliar and unused that it shows that the amateur translator is not as good as a professional - who I don't think would use that word nowadays.
IMO If you can't tell that something has been translated from another language into English - then that is the sign of a professional translator. That is the acid test.
Anne's English is excellent, but it's not difficult to work out that it is not her first language.
Thank you, Benice ! I wish it were. English is my 3rd language, my second is German.
"Evidence" may be used as a countable noun or not. The difference is in the point of view. Whether you consider the "substance" of what is meant or a particular occurrence. Some words can be used both ways.
Is there evidence of this ? Há prova disso ? (uncountable in both languages)
They reviewed the available evidence (s?). Examinaram as provas disponíveis. (countable in both languages)
Halfway house.
"Evidences" exists, but is rarely used. I had never come across it in the plural before yesterday.
yes, it seems the word is used extensively as an uncountable noun. "Prova" isn't.
LOL Anne. But then we are back to the merrygoround of what "provas" actually means...
-
Db may be correct, strictly speaking, but I have never seen the word 'evidences' used - only 'evidence' - for singular and plural. Using 'evidences' may not be incorrect but it's so unfamiliar and unused that it shows that the amateur translator is not as good as a professional - who I don't think would use that word nowadays.
IMO If you can't tell that something has been translated from another language into English - then that is the sign of a professional translator. That is the acid test.
Anne's English is excellent, but it's not difficult to work out that it is not her first language.
Thank you, Benice ! I wish it were. English is my 3rd language, my second is German.
"Evidence" may be used as a countable noun or not. The difference is in the point of view. Whether you consider the "substance" of what is meant or a particular occurrence. Some words can be used both ways.
Is there evidence of this ? Há prova disso ? (uncountable in both languages)
They reviewed the available evidence (s?). Examinaram as provas disponíveis. (countable in both languages)
Halfway house.
"Evidences" exists, but is rarely used. I had never come across it in the plural before yesterday.
yes, it seems the word is used extensively as an uncountable noun. "Prova" isn't.
LOL Anne. But then we are back to the merrygoround of what "provas" actually means...
The semantic field of "prova" could be larger and include part of "evidence"'s semantic field. Sometimes "evidence" is translated by "elements of proof" (elementos de prova).
-
Db may be correct, strictly speaking, but I have never seen the word 'evidences' used - only 'evidence' - for singular and plural. Using 'evidences' may not be incorrect but it's so unfamiliar and unused that it shows that the amateur translator is not as good as a professional - who I don't think would use that word nowadays.
IMO If you can't tell that something has been translated from another language into English - then that is the sign of a professional translator. That is the acid test.
Anne's English is excellent, but it's not difficult to work out that it is not her first language.
Thank you, Benice ! I wish it were. English is my 3rd language, my second is German.
"Evidence" may be used as a countable noun or not. The difference is in the point of view. Whether you consider the "substance" of what is meant or a particular occurrence. Some words can be used both ways.
Is there evidence of this ? Há prova disso ? (uncountable in both languages)
They reviewed the available evidence (s?). Examinaram as provas disponíveis. (countable in both languages)
The bottom line with Evidences is that it is more common in modern US usage, than British and that it is more common in legal and scientific writing than everyday life.
There are so many nuances in English that are missing in French German, Spanish, Portuguese etc.. It is possible to tell a considerable amount about a writer by their use of words, grammar and idiom in a way that is less common in other languages.
Nurse Debunker, though I reckon in you a certain sense of rigour (unfortunately sometimes masked by a lack of courtesy), I find this statement sententious and arbitrary. Ask grammarians !
And meditate : though the English vocabulary is larger than, for example, the French one, though Basic English has invaded the planet, why is French still the language of diplomacy ?
History. Why is French otherwise dying? Because of the hegemony of English.
English is the worst of all languages to be an international one. It is complex, nuanced and difficult to speak or write naturally as a native speaker.
However its vast vocabulary and incredibly mixed and complex grammar make it very difficult to speak in a way that is seen as correct.
Being neither Romance nor Germanic we often have twice the number of words for a concept. as any other language.
The French have the subjunctive, the English speakers have similar difficulties in virtually every department.
Additionally, unlike the French, we have no Academy, so English changes, absorbs and mutates at an incredible rate, and now has so many non-UK non-US etc speakers that various dialects exist that are equally acceptable as Eglis- Pakistani English is separate from Indian English, separate dialects with their own grammars and semantics exist for the Philippines, Malaysia, Puerto Rico, West Africa, East Africa, South Africa and an English shared by Arabic speakers.
English grammar makes no clear sense and has complex rules, half of which are derived inappropriately fro Latin and enforced by pedants since Victorian times.
Additionally, because there is no overall authority, it is highly open to loan words from any other language and complete neologisms that flourish and then survive or die.
This Darwinian like progression and a lack of overall direction makes English probably one of the most complex languages available- a dreadful choice for an international language.
In no way am I saying that English is superior, merely that it is incredibly difficult to get right for the circumstances.
-
Db may be correct, strictly speaking, but I have never seen the word 'evidences' used - only 'evidence' - for singular and plural. Using 'evidences' may not be incorrect but it's so unfamiliar and unused that it shows that the amateur translator is not as good as a professional - who I don't think would use that word nowadays.
IMO If you can't tell that something has been translated from another language into English - then that is the sign of a professional translator. That is the acid test.
Anne's English is excellent, but it's not difficult to work out that it is not her first language.
Thank you, Benice ! I wish it were. English is my 3rd language, my second is German.
"Evidence" may be used as a countable noun or not. The difference is in the point of view. Whether you consider the "substance" of what is meant or a particular occurrence. Some words can be used both ways.
Is there evidence of this ? Há prova disso ? (uncountable in both languages)
They reviewed the available evidence (s?). Examinaram as provas disponíveis. (countable in both languages)
Halfway house.
"Evidences" exists, but is rarely used. I had never come across it in the plural before yesterday.
yes, it seems the word is used extensively as an uncountable noun. "Prova" isn't.
Extensively but by no means exclusively- there are incidences from Shakespeare to recent papers on Cosmology that use 'Evidences'.
-
Extensively but by no means exclusively- there are incidences from Shakespeare to recent papers on Cosmology that use 'Evidences'.
What relevance does that have in context concerning an interpretation of a legal term in a foreign jurisdiction in recent years?
NB: I sometimes agree with you. However, in this instance, I'm having a bit of trouble.
-
Extensively but by no means exclusively- there are incidences from Shakespeare to recent papers on Cosmology that use 'Evidences'.
What relevance does that have in context concerning an interpretation of a legal term in a foreign jurisdiction in recent years?
NB: I sometimes agree with you. However, in this instance, I'm having a bit of trouble.
Chinagirl made the incorrect statement:
"The words "police" and "evidence" are always used in the singular - never "polices" or "evidences""
It has taken three pages of discussion before she accepted that was incorrect regarding "evidences".
-
Extensively but by no means exclusively- there are incidences from Shakespeare to recent papers on Cosmology that use 'Evidences'.
What relevance does that have in context concerning an interpretation of a legal term in a foreign jurisdiction in recent years?
NB: I sometimes agree with you. However, in this instance, I'm having a bit of trouble.
Chinagirl made the incorrect statement:
"The words "police" and "evidence" are always used in the singular - never "polices" or "evidences""
It has taken three pages of discussion before she accepted that was incorrect regarding "evidences".
Are "polices" and "evidences" usual legal terms where you come from?
-
Extensively but by no means exclusively- there are incidences from Shakespeare to recent papers on Cosmology that use 'Evidences'.
What relevance does that have in context concerning an interpretation of a legal term in a foreign jurisdiction in recent years?
NB: I sometimes agree with you. However, in this instance, I'm having a bit of trouble.
Chinagirl made the incorrect statement:
"The words "police" and "evidence" are always used in the singular - never "polices" or "evidences""
It has taken three pages of discussion before she accepted that was incorrect regarding "evidences".
Are "polices" and "evidences" usual legal terms where you come from?
Evidences is used legally and scientifically. See above for references.
-
But not Polices. Unless used with an apostrophe. But that would not be very good grammar.
-
But not Polices. Unless used with an apostrophe. But that would not be very good grammar.
Correct. The argument was only about evidences which definitely exists (although people do seem keen here to ignore cites and keep their own errors alive.)
-
But not Polices. Unless used with an apostrophe. But that would not be very good grammar.
Correct. The argument was only about evidences which definitely exists (although people do seem keen here to ignore cites and keep their own errors alive.)
Where have you seen "evidences" in police statements* in English?
* Sorry, I should have added: or in legal summaries of this nature.
-
But not Polices. Unless used with an apostrophe. But that would not be very good grammar.
Correct. The argument was only about evidences which definitely exists (although people do seem keen here to ignore cites and keep their own errors alive.)
Where have you seen "evidences" in police statements* in English?
* Sorry, I should have added: or in legal summaries of this nature.
See my cites above
-
But not Polices. Unless used with an apostrophe. But that would not be very good grammar.
Correct. The argument was only about evidences which definitely exists (although people do seem keen here to ignore cites and keep their own errors alive.)
Where have you seen "evidences" in police statements* in English?
* Sorry, I should have added: or in legal summaries of this nature.
See my cites above
Any one in particular that is relevant to a police/legal context?
-
But not Polices. Unless used with an apostrophe. But that would not be very good grammar.
Correct. The argument was only about evidences which definitely exists (although people do seem keen here to ignore cites and keep their own errors alive.)
Where have you seen "evidences" in police statements* in English?
* Sorry, I should have added: or in legal summaries of this nature.
See my cites above
Any one in particular that is relevant to a police/legal context?
Many of them.
The argument was purely- "Is "evidences" a word in English. The answer is YES." End of matter.
-
But not Polices. Unless used with an apostrophe. But that would not be very good grammar.
Correct. The argument was only about evidences which definitely exists (although people do seem keen here to ignore cites and keep their own errors alive.)
Where have you seen "evidences" in police statements* in English?
* Sorry, I should have added: or in legal summaries of this nature.
See my cites above
Any one in particular that is relevant to a police/legal context?
Many of them.
The argument was purely- "Is "evidences" a word in English. The answer is YES." End of matter.
But in a police/legal context?
-
But not Polices. Unless used with an apostrophe. But that would not be very good grammar.
Correct. The argument was only about evidences which definitely exists (although people do seem keen here to ignore cites and keep their own errors alive.)
Where have you seen "evidences" in police statements* in English?
* Sorry, I should have added: or in legal summaries of this nature.
See my cites above
Any one in particular that is relevant to a police/legal context?
Many of them.
The argument was purely- "Is "evidences" a word in English. The answer is YES." End of matter.
But in a police/legal context?
That was not the original question. The original question has been settled.
The argument was purely- "Is "evidences" a plural noun in English. The answer is YES." End of matter.
-
But not Polices. Unless used with an apostrophe. But that would not be very good grammar.
Correct. The argument was only about evidences which definitely exists (although people do seem keen here to ignore cites and keep their own errors alive.)
Where have you seen "evidences" in police statements* in English?
* Sorry, I should have added: or in legal summaries of this nature.
See my cites above
Any one in particular that is relevant to a police/legal context?
Many of them.
The argument was purely- "Is "evidences" a word in English. The answer is YES." End of matter.
But in a police/legal context?
That was not the original question. The original question has been settled.
The argument was purely- "Is "evidences" a plural noun in English. The answer is YES." End of matter.
Is it correct to speak of a "plural noun" to mean the plural form of a noun ?
-
But not Polices. Unless used with an apostrophe. But that would not be very good grammar.
Correct. The argument was only about evidences which definitely exists (although people do seem keen here to ignore cites and keep their own errors alive.)
Where have you seen "evidences" in police statements* in English?
* Sorry, I should have added: or in legal summaries of this nature.
See my cites above
Any one in particular that is relevant to a police/legal context?
Many of them.
The argument was purely- "Is "evidences" a word in English. The answer is YES." End of matter.
But in a police/legal context?
That was not the original question. The original question has been settled.
The argument was purely- "Is "evidences" a plural noun in English. The answer is YES." End of matter.
Is it correct to speak of a "plural noun" to mean the plural form of a noun ?
Can you go and split someoneelse's hairs please
http://answers.ask.com/Reference/Dictionaries/what_is_a_plural_noun
-
But not Polices. Unless used with an apostrophe. But that would not be very good grammar.
Correct. The argument was only about evidences which definitely exists (although people do seem keen here to ignore cites and keep their own errors alive.)
Where have you seen "evidences" in police statements* in English?
* Sorry, I should have added: or in legal summaries of this nature.
See my cites above
Any one in particular that is relevant to a police/legal context?
Many of them.
The argument was purely- "Is "evidences" a word in English. The answer is YES." End of matter.
But in a police/legal context?
That was not the original question. The original question has been settled.
The argument was purely- "Is "evidences" a plural noun in English. The answer is YES." End of matter.
Is it correct to speak of a "plural noun" to mean the plural form of a noun ?
Can you go and split someoneelse's hairs please
http://answers.ask.com/Reference/Dictionaries/what_is_a_plural_noun
Rigour, rigour, Nurse Debunker ! Isn't it your motto ?
I was right : A handful of nouns appear to be plural in form but take a singular verb:
-
But not Polices. Unless used with an apostrophe. But that would not be very good grammar.
Correct. The argument was only about evidences which definitely exists (although people do seem keen here to ignore cites and keep their own errors alive.)
Where have you seen "evidences" in police statements* in English?
* Sorry, I should have added: or in legal summaries of this nature.
See my cites above
Any one in particular that is relevant to a police/legal context?
Many of them.
The argument was purely- "Is "evidences" a word in English. The answer is YES." End of matter.
But in a police/legal context?
That was not the original question. The original question has been settled.
The argument was purely- "Is "evidences" a plural noun in English. The answer is YES." End of matter.
Is it correct to speak of a "plural noun" to mean the plural form of a noun ?
Can you go and split someoneelse's hairs please
http://answers.ask.com/Reference/Dictionaries/what_is_a_plural_noun
Rigour, rigour, Nurse Debunker ! Isn't it your motto ?
I was right : A handful of nouns appear to be plural in form but take a singular verb:
Thus demonstrating my point. US and UK usage differ. Someone outside the anglosphere would not know that.
Example
US English: The Government was working
UK English The Government were working
I was merely pointing out that the concept 'plural noun' was attested.
Rather hoist by your own petard there, eh?
-
tedious
-
tedious
Agreed, but the original question has been settled now- 'evidences' is a word. Everything else people are doing is trying to pretend that it was a different question being debated.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun
-
why do people insist on keeping this going?
Excuse me but I started the thread - move on for God's sake.
-
why do people insist on keeping this going?
Excuse me but I started the thread - move on for God's sake.
Agreed.
Doing naughty things to flies doesn't really move the Schmilblick any further forward.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun
A Collective Noun and a Plural Noun are different animals.
-
Quote:
Chinagirl made the incorrect statement:
"The words "police" and "evidence" are always used in the singular - never "polices" or "evidences""
It has taken three pages of discussion before she accepted that was incorrect regarding "evidences".
Unquote
I did no such thing. Don't tell lies to suit your ego, Debunker.
-
In context, it is abundantly clear that CG's comments were confined to the police file of Madeleine's disappearance, not intend to be understood more widely.
I have done an analysis of both versions - Astro's with your suggested alternatives, compared to the one I copied from Mr Justice Tudgendhat's judgment. If you'd like to see this let me know and I'll send it to you by PM, rather than clog up this thread with rather boring commentary. However, there are just three things in your version posted in reply no.59 on p.4 of this thread which immediately indicate to any good native English speaker that that translation has not been undertaken by a professional, viz:
The words "police" and "evidence" are always used in the singular - never "polices" or "evidences"
Debunker insisted on making the generalised point that evidences is recognised more widely.
It is, but that had nothing to do with CG's original point.
Debunker was not wrong, just indulging a strawman argument.
-
Thank you, Ferryman. Actually, I think I raised a far more interesting point in my original post - about the use of "namely" or "mainly." I had hoped that AnneGuedes would have acknowleged this ....
-
Quote:
Chinagirl made the incorrect statement:
"The words "police" and "evidence" are always used in the singular - never "polices" or "evidences""
It has taken three pages of discussion before she accepted that was incorrect regarding "evidences".
Unquote
I did no such thing. Don't tell lies to suit your ego, Debunker.
You mean that despite all the links, cites and references, you still cannot accept that evidence has a plural form?
There a r e none so blind as those who will not see!
-
In context, it is abundantly clear that CG's comments were confined to the police file of Madeleine's disappearance, not intend to be understood more widely.
I have done an analysis of both versions - Astro's with your suggested alternatives, compared to the one I copied from Mr Justice Tudgendhat's judgment. If you'd like to see this let me know and I'll send it to you by PM, rather than clog up this thread with rather boring commentary. However, there are just three things in your version posted in reply no.59 on p.4 of this thread which immediately indicate to any good native English speaker that that translation has not been undertaken by a professional, viz:
The words "police" and "evidence" are always used in the singular - never "polices" or "evidences"
Debunker insisted on making the generalised point that evidences is recognised more widely.
It is, but that had nothing to do with CG's original point.
Debunker was not wrong, just indulging a strawman argument.
Why not pm me ?
The policeS could be a typo.
What is the third point ?
Though not "professional", Astro's translation is better, I've bet my head and I stick to it.
The nurse doesn't care... an oxymoron for me.
-
Not interested in Google. I tend to rely on the OED, Fowler's MOdern English Usage, Howard's Good English Guide.
evidences 3rd person singular present, plural of ev·i·dence
Noun
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Verb
Be or show evidence of.
More info - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary
What we have here is a moot point. It seems that the tendency in American English is to see Evidence as an countable noun, but in Modern English usage it is gnerally seen as uncountable, although historic usage in England shows that it was previously a countable noun.
Given that the internet is busy conflating English and American usage, we are in a transition phase. Most of my reading is of standard American usage in journals and I tend to write standard American spelling and usage for that very reason (and the fact that I was educated there!)
Strictly speaking 'evidences' may exist as a word in US English but it is almost extinct and has never been common.
Evidences
(http://i1296.photobucket.com/albums/ag1/gilet2013/evidences_zps9e3a3dd1.jpg)
Evidence
(http://i1296.photobucket.com/albums/ag1/gilet2013/evidence_zps016958fb.jpg)
And in current British English usage it is in my experience entirely absent.
There is no doubt in my mind that 'evidence' is almost always treated as uncountable.
http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/
Please scroll to the right to see full data.
-
Quote:
Chinagirl made the incorrect statement:
"The words "police" and "evidence" are always used in the singular - never "polices" or "evidences""
It has taken three pages of discussion before she accepted that was incorrect regarding "evidences".
Unquote
I did no such thing. Don't tell lies to suit your ego, Debunker.
You mean that despite all the links, cites and references, you still cannot accept that evidence has a plural form?
There a r e none so blind as those who will not see!
There are none so deaf as those who will not listen !
I adore observing you speak correctly now, nurse Debunker ! The plural form !
-
Not interested in Google. I tend to rely on the OED, Fowler's MOdern English Usage, Howard's Good English Guide.
evidences 3rd person singular present, plural of ev·i·dence
Noun
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Verb
Be or show evidence of.
More info - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary
What we have here is a moot point. It seems that the tendency in American English is to see Evidence as an countable noun, but in Modern English usage it is gnerally seen as uncountable, although historic usage in England shows that it was previously a countable noun.
Given that the internet is busy conflating English and American usage, we are in a transition phase. Most of my reading is of standard American usage in journals and I tend to write standard American spelling and usage for that very reason (and the fact that I was educated there!)
Strictly speaking 'evidences' may exist as a word in US English but it is almost extinct and has never been common.
Evidences
(http://i1296.photobucket.com/albums/ag1/gilet2013/evidences_zps9e3a3dd1.jpg)
Evidence
(http://i1296.photobucket.com/albums/ag1/gilet2013/evidences_zps9e3a3dd1.jpg)
And in current British English usage it is in my experience entirely absent.
There is no doubt in my mind that 'evidence' is almost always treated as uncountable.
http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/
Please scroll to the right to see full data.
Which confirms what I said. I never said it was common. Chinagirl said that it did not exist. It does. End of story.
-
In context, it is abundantly clear that CG's comments were confined to the police file of Madeleine's disappearance, not intend to be understood more widely.
I have done an analysis of both versions - Astro's with your suggested alternatives, compared to the one I copied from Mr Justice Tudgendhat's judgment. If you'd like to see this let me know and I'll send it to you by PM, rather than clog up this thread with rather boring commentary. However, there are just three things in your version posted in reply no.59 on p.4 of this thread which immediately indicate to any good native English speaker that that translation has not been undertaken by a professional, viz:
The words "police" and "evidence" are always used in the singular - never "polices" or "evidences"
Debunker insisted on making the generalised point that evidences is recognised more widely.
It is, but that had nothing to do with CG's original point.
Debunker was not wrong, just indulging a strawman argument.
Why not pm me ?
The policeS could be a typo.
What is the third point ?
Though not "professional", Astro's translation is better, I've bet my head and I stick to it.
The nurse doesn't care... an oxymoron for me.
It depends what you mean by better.
If the definition of a better translation is "more accurate to the original" then Astro's translation is clearly better.
If the definition of a better translation is "truthful to the original and easily accessible to the reader" then I would contend that the professional translation is the better.
But, my own opinion is that neither of the two translations offered (nor that offered by AnneGuedes) is really that good. I think a native English speaker whose understanding of Portuguese is at the highest level would be able to offer something in between the Astro/AnneGuedes version and the professional version which would be at least as accurate as the former and at least as accessible as the latter.
-
Well, in this kind of matter, the most accurate translation (Astro's) is the best, no doubt.
The "professional" one interprets, it shouldn't.
I'm afraid, Gilet, you have to make up your mind that nobody's perfect.
-
Well, in this kind of matter, the most accurate translation (Astro's) is the best, no doubt.
The "professional" one interprets, it shouldn't.
I'm afraid, Gilet, you have to make up your mind that nobody's perfect.
I have never expressed a belief that anyone is perfect. I simply do not like liars.
In this instance I doubt that either of the translators was intending to lie and I think your claim that the professional translation is an 'interpretation' is exaggerated.
In legal matters I agree that accuracy is essential but so is accessibility/intelligibility. Therefore I stand by my claim that someone could easily produce a much better translation which would satisfy both needs.
-
A lot, including Annes translations, missed out key phrases, bits of evidence . which happened to show the McCanns in good light. Instead they focused on the bad bits.
Mostly they focused on Amaral's part files, instead of the final files
-
A lot, including Annes translations, missed out key phrases, bits of evidence . which happened to show the McCanns in good light. Instead they focused on the bad bits.
Mostly they focused on Amaral's part files, instead of the final files
Please give examples of these translations you are referring to where there are key phrases missed, bits of evidence missed etc.
Or are they imagined?
Incidentally, the man's name is Amaral, (I presume you are referring to the case coordinator). Those who have a reasonable knowledge of the case are aware of that fact.
-
I know what the mans name is thank you.. Amaral is what he is
-
Both sides do it. Pros call him Amaral, [ censored word] make up silly names for the McCanns and their supporters.
-
I know what the mans name is thank you.. Amaral is what he is
Very interesting that although you took the time to reply and inform us that you do know the correct spelling pf the name of the PJ coordinator but prefer to use an adjective instead, the request I made for evidence of your claim about faulty translations was ignored.
Do we presume from your ignoring the request that you have no examples to offer and were just making up that claim?
-
Both sides do it. Pros call him Amaral, [ censored word] make up silly names for the McCanns and their supporters.
BIB, Not on this forum they don't ... not that I've ever seen
... cite ?
-
just returning to this thread to point out that a translator who has corrected other people's translations interprets "lady" as "creature" and argues that is correct.
-
Robert M, in this appeal, didn't obtain as much as he had asked in the first instance (he lost).
I am getting very worried about the accuracy of the translations.
-
Both sides do it. Pros call him Amaral, [ censored word] make up silly names for the McCanns and their supporters.
BIB, Not on this forum they don't ... not that I've ever seen
... cite ?
Correct but certain people will give examples of the most extreme behaviour elsewhere at present and historically,of *some sceptics* as representing *all of them*, there must be a word for that or two, it sure isnt fair balanced logical or real
that sounds like one of google translates poorer efforts
-
but it helps
-
being sober and writing gobbledook is far more serious
8((()*/
Snap back ignore
Not when you are on the receiving end!
-
So called sober people writing rubbish should be brought to book, end of and they have been if it gets on your craw its your problem but its a fact im afraid, tara
I suppose at least if you post pissed, one can assume that posts the following days are part of a hangover effect- explaining some of the BS on here.
-
Who is Tara that Redblossomkeeps referring to?
-
Who is Tara that Redblossomkeeps referring to?
?{)(** Its another word for, Bye.
-
Who is Tara that Redblossomkeeps referring to?
?{)(** Its another word for, Bye.
Scouse (or Liverpudlian) dialect ...
-
A lot, including Annes translations, missed out key phrases, bits of evidence . which happened to show the McCanns in good light. Instead they focused on the bad bits.
Mostly they focused on Amaral's part files, instead of the final files
Please give examples of these translations you are referring to where there are key phrases missed, bits of evidence missed etc.
Or are they imagined?
I really would be interested in seeing examples of these faulty translations. Do you actually have any?
-
A lot, including Annes translations, missed out key phrases, bits of evidence . which happened to show the McCanns in good light. Instead they focused on the bad bits.
Mostly they focused on Amaral's part files, instead of the final files
Please give examples of these translations you are referring to where there are key phrases missed, bits of evidence missed etc.
Or are they imagined?
I really would be interested in seeing examples of these faulty translations. Do you actually have any?
Either would I, for the sake of the debate. I tried to show Chinagirl, who didn't react, that the distinction between professional and unprofessional translations wasn't a pertinent one. As this is no literature, better stick to the original. Every time something sounds dubious it should be examined.
-
Here is an example of a mistranslation that no impartial professional translator would be likely to make.
It has long been a claim by Bennett and taken up by the [ censored word] that Clarence Mitchell's job in the government's media monitoring unit was to "control" what came out in the press. Apparently, the word "monitor" was translated into Portuguese as "controlar" and back into English as "control." There is, of course, a distinct difference between control and monitor which a good translator could be expected to know particularly because, in this case, the use of either word is critical to understanding what Mitchell's job was.
Nobody "controls" the media in the UK. Politicians and other prominent people may wish that they did, but the reality is otherwise. All political parties have units which "monitor" what is being said/written in the media, but no one "controls" the content.
Bennett, of course, should have known this, given how much time he has spent dabbling unsuccessfully in politics.
This particular point is covered here:
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077818/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2021
-
Here is an example of a mistranslation that no impartial professional translator would be likely to make.
It has long been a claim by Bennett and taken up by the [ censored word] that Clarence Mitchell's job in the government's media monitoring unit was to "control" what came out in the press. Apparently, the word "monitor" was translated into Portuguese as "controlar" and back into English as "control." There is, of course, a distinct difference between control and monitor which a good translator could be expected to know particularly because, in this case, the use of either word is critical to understanding what Mitchell's job was.
Nobody "controls" the media in the UK. Politicians and other prominent people may wish that they did, but the reality is otherwise. All political parties have units which "monitor" what is being said/written in the media, but no one "controls" the content.
Bennett, of course, should have known this, given how much time he has spent dabbling unsuccessfully in politics.
This particular point is covered here:
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077818/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2021
Where was "media monitoring" translated "media control", if I may ?
I've always translated "observatoire des médias".
-
Control is quite different from monitor.
Monitor merely means keep a watchful eye on, but without influencing.
Control has more sinister connotations of censorship and modifying/shaping what the media says.
CM never did that at all.
-
See the link I gave above. Here is an extract from that link:
Interview in Expresso Magazine
The following is an extract from an article which appeared in a Portuguese magazine on29th September, 2007. It was translated into English by Internet poster "Maya". There is no online primary source version of this article.
Quote:
In Portugal there has been a wrong image created about me. I was the Director of the Government's Media Monitoring Unit. Their work, about 40 people, and their function is to control what gets printed in the press. Every morning I had a meeting with the Prime Minister's spokesperson at 10 Downing Street and we discussed any developments. I didn't get to speak to Gordon Brown directly. Everything that I have been able to do for the McCanns has been through my computer and my mobile.
-
I am not sure you would be attributing the relevant meaning, then Anne. Mitcells job was to "monitor" what was being said in the media, and then feed back to the relevant Government ministers so that they could be aware and if necessary react.
Obervatoire would be defined as "groupe charge d'observer des faits politique, economiques, sociaux" which implies a passive viewing.
Controle would be more of an appropriate word in my view, with an active reviewing and commenting.
But not controliing in the English sense. Bennett was of course being disingenuous when he "confused" the two as a false friend.
-
I am not sure you would be attributing the relevant meaning, then Anne. Mitcells job was to "monitor" what was being said in the media, and then feed back to the relevant Government ministers so that they could be aware and if necessary react.
Obervatoire would be defined as "groupe charge d'observer des faits politique, economiques, sociaux" which implies a passive viewing.
Controle would be more of an appropriate word in my view, with an active reviewing and commenting.
But not controliing in the English sense. Bennett was of course being disingenuous when he "confused" the two as a false friend.
You could substitute "monitor" with "observe", not with "control".
An observatory doesn't manipulate data, but is it passive ? You know perfectly that the eye of the observer has an effect on the observed.
-
I am not sure you would be attributing the relevant meaning, then Anne. Mitcells job was to "monitor" what was being said in the media, and then feed back to the relevant Government ministers so that they could be aware and if necessary react.
Obervatoire would be defined as "groupe charge d'observer des faits politique, economiques, sociaux" which implies a passive viewing.
Controle would be more of an appropriate word in my view, with an active reviewing and commenting.
But not controliing in the English sense. Bennett was of course being disingenuous when he "confused" the two as a false friend.
You could substitute "monitor" with "observe", not with "control".
An observatory doesn't manipulate data, but is it passive ? You know perfectly that the eye of the observer has an effect on the observed.
IIRC there was Witness statement from a Portuguese waiter on here the other day - where he says that men left the table to 'control' their children. I think that's another example of the word 'control' being used when the word 'monitor would have been more appropriate.
-
IIRC there was Witness statement from a Portuguese waiter on here the other day - where he says that men left the table to 'control' their children. I think that's another example of the word 'control' being used when the word 'monitor would have been more appropriate.
Would you say that the men left the table to monitor their children ?
You monitor through some device (imo), you check on someone or some situation to verify everything is ok.
I couldn't translate "he left to check on his child" just saying "il est parti contrôler son enfant", because in fact he's not going to control his child but the situation his child is in. So I'd translate "il est parti voir si son enfant allait bien" (he left to see whether his child was doing well".
-
I am not sure you would be attributing the relevant meaning, then Anne. Mitcells job was to "monitor" what was being said in the media, and then feed back to the relevant Government ministers so that they could be aware and if necessary react.
Obervatoire would be defined as "groupe charge d'observer des faits politique, economiques, sociaux" which implies a passive viewing.
Controle would be more of an appropriate word in my view, with an active reviewing and commenting.
But not controliing in the English sense. Bennett was of course being disingenuous when he "confused" the two as a false friend.
Contrllar is obviously what is calle a 'false friend'- same structure in two languages, two meanings in each.
-
He didn't cry, he managed to control himself.
Ele não chorou, conseguiu controlar-se.
-
IIRC there was Witness statement from a Portuguese waiter on here the other day - where he says that men left the table to 'control' their children. I think that's another example of the word 'control' being used when the word 'monitor would have been more appropriate.
Would you say that the men left the table to monitor their children ?
You monitor through some device (imo), you check on someone or some situation to verify everything is ok.
I couldn't translate "he left to check on his child" just saying "il est parti contrôler son enfant", because in fact he's not going to control his child but the situation his child is in. So I'd translate "il est parti voir si son enfant allait bien" (he left to see whether his child was doing well".
Monitor is not the correct word strictly speaking Anne - but it doesn't carry the same inference as the word 'control' does in this particular context.
As it's obvious the witness was saying they went to 'check' on the children then why not use the word 'check' when translating into English - rather than 'control'- when that word has a completely different meaning? A professional translator would not have made that mistake IMO.
.
-
IIRC there was Witness statement from a Portuguese waiter on here the other day - where he says that men left the table to 'control' their children. I think that's another example of the word 'control' being used when the word 'monitor would have been more appropriate.
Would you say that the men left the table to monitor their children ?
You monitor through some device (imo), you check on someone or some situation to verify everything is ok.
I couldn't translate "he left to check on his child" just saying "il est parti contrôler son enfant", because in fact he's not going to control his child but the situation his child is in. So I'd translate "il est parti voir si son enfant allait bien" (he left to see whether his child was doing well".
Monitor is not the correct word strictly speaking Anne - but it doesn't carry the same inference as the word 'control' does in this particular context.
As it's obvious the witness was saying they went to 'check' on the children then why not use the word 'check' when translating into English - rather than 'control'- when that word has a completely different meaning? A professional translator would not have made that mistake IMO.
.
It's not a question of mistake, Benice, but of rigour. A translator, either earning money translating or doing it for whatever reason, if knowing the text has been translated from another language, will try, if some element sounds weird, to have a look on the original.
If you ask me to translate "ele foi controlar os filhos", I can't but see that it is a bad translation of "he left to check on his kids", because no Portuguese would say this, but "ele foi ver se os filhos estavam bem".
-
Anne, I have been looking through the MCann pj files, and I find the best translations, seem to come from Ines. Even though not perfect, her's don't seem to have the alterations others do. Just my opinion, of course. >@@(*&)
-
agreed
-
Anne, I have been looking through the MCann pj files, and I find the best translations, seem to come from Ines. Even though not perfect, her's don't seem to have the alterations others do. Just my opinion, of course. >@@(*&)
Ines' translations are pretty decent, may be not as good as Astro's, but Portuguese is Astro's mother language, not Ines' (I think). Ines did some mistakes, but who wouldn't ? She translated a huge number of files and must be thanked for this. The trouble with her is her queen of heart syndrome, you know the "off his/her head" one...
-
AnneGuedes
The trouble with her is her queen of heart syndrome, you know the "off his/her head" one...
?
-
Anne, I have been looking through the MCann pj files, and I find the best translations, seem to come from Ines. Even though not perfect, her's don't seem to have the alterations others do. Just my opinion, of course. >@@(*&)
Ines' translations are pretty decent, may be not as good as Astro's, but Portuguese is Astro's mother language, not Ines' (I think). Ines did some mistakes, but who wouldn't ? She translated a huge number of files and must be thanked for this. The trouble with her is her queen of heart syndrome, you know the "off his/her head" one...
I've long regarded Ines and Astro both as excellent translators, but Ines as marginally the better of the two ...
Very much neck-and-neck either way, though ...
-
I'm sure Ines reads this forum.
I wrote on some thread (don't remember why) I had been insulted once because I found Kate McCann a beautiful woman. It passed my mind that Ines could be ugly... Of course I was kidding. But the following day Ines was "sick of me" and killed me ! Lol. Was I right ?
-
to call someone ugly - of course you were wrong
-
to call someone ugly - of course you were wrong
I only know the queen has no sense of humour. I was obviously kidding. But I died !
Nevertheless Kate McCann is beautiful.
-
what a creature you are lol
-
what a creature you are lol
Am I a weird c.......e to find Kate McCann beautiful whereas some ladies and gentlemen don't ?
-
what a creature you are lol
Am I a weird c.......e to find Kate McCann beautiful whereas some ladies and gentlemen don't ?
just joking
-
what a creature you are lol
Am I a weird c.......e to find Kate McCann beautiful whereas some ladies and gentlemen don't ?
just joking
Idem