A question for AnneGuedes the translator

[Chinagirl]

PS to last comment:  Not to mention common, everyday usage ...!

[ferryman]

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 ...

 

[debunker]

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!)

[Benice]

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.

[Chinagirl]

You are derailing this thread with trivia, Debunker - and so am I by responding to you!

[Carana]

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

[Carana]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[Rachel Granada]

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

 

yes, fair enough Redblossom - I have read the tweets.  Thanks for the link.  Interesting reading! 

[Carana]

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.

[Benice]

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.

[ferryman]

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. 

[Benice]

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.   

[Carana]

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.

[debunker]

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.