A question for AnneGuedes the translator

[Redblossom]

no problem Anne
 

[registrar]

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

[Redblossom]

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

 

[Redblossom]

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

[AnneGuedes]

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 !

[AnneGuedes]

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.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

Anne I think you have done well to answer the questions and thankyou for that.

[registrar]

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]

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 :)
 

[Chinagirl]

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.

[ferryman]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[Chinagirl]

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 .....

[debunker]

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.

[Chinagirl]

Not interested in Google.  I tend to rely on the OED, Fowler's MOdern English Usage, Howard's Good English Guide.