согласование времен gen.

[lena_ya]

Добрый день,

Я редактирую перевод с русск яз на англ.:

Оригинал:Обратившееся лицо заявило о принятии и одобрении содержания акта, заявив об отсутствии необходимости полного прочтения данного акта.

Перевод:The person appearing then declared to have noted and approved the contents and did not want a full reading thereof.

В англ. переводе по моему после declared должно использоваться время PAst Perfect (согласование времен)?
The appearing person declared that he had accepted, had approved the content and had waived a full reading of the dead. Так вернее будет?или одного had достаточно перед accepted?

[Linch]

Это по-Вашему.
Посмотрите Jenny Dooley, Virginia Evans - Grammarway 4.

Тема - Infinitive; The Ing-form; Too - Enough participles.

[Aiduza]

это будет излишеством.
первый вариант вполне хорош.
"dead" - are you sure? The Walking Dead?

[Linch]

А так, конечно, обе формы возможны.

[Translucid Mushroom]

"reading of the dead" — отличная редактура, ага (:

[lena_ya]

Aiduza, почему вы считаете это излишеством?объясните пож-та

[Aiduza]

http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/5461/when-is-using-the-past-perfect-tense-not-necessary

[illy1]

А где дают редактировать английский русскоязычным? Любопытно.:)

[DeProfundis]

http://www.multitran.ru/c/m10.exe?a=4&MessNum=337339&l1=1&l2=2

Повторно для автора:
Английский - явно не перевод с русского. Это стандартные формулы нотариального акта.
Посмотрите последний абзац стр.12
http://www.esn-online.org/core/js/tinymce/plugins/moxiemanager/data/files/ESN_articles_of_association.pdf

[johnstephenson]

Perfect or past perfect?
* If you're translating into UK Eng it should be the past perfect if you want it to be unambiguous, especially if it's a written text. The perfect is sometimes used in spoken UK Eng, but strictly speaking it's incorrect.
* If you're translating into US Eng, the past perfect should also make it unambiguous. I don't know whether the perfect is acceptable or not in written US Eng, as I'm not a US Eng speaker.

'Had' once or before each verb?
That's just a matter of style. I would put 'The person appearing declared that he had accepted and approved the contentS of the deed'.

Unless 'appearing person' has a special meaning in legal English, you should use 'the person appearing', not 'the appearing person'.

[lena_ya]

Thanks johnstephenson. Are you a native UK Eng speaker?

А в начальном виде предложение совсем неправильное?я имею в виду использование declared to have accepted and approved (вместо that he had accepted and approved?)

[lena_ya]

Если использовать PAst Perfect после declared, как тогда поступить в этом случае при переводе с русск.

Обратившееся лицо также заявило, что последними изменениями к Уставу Компании были изменения, исполненные на основании акта от X мая две тысячи пятнадцатого года.
The person appearing also declared that the articles of association of the company were last amended by deed on the X day of June two thousand and fifteen,

decalred that... were last amended ( должно быть тогда had been last amended?)

[johnstephenson]

Question 1:
Yes, I'm a native UK English speaker (though not an expert on legal terminology).

If in 'заявило о принятии и одобрении ....' the принятие and одобрение are done by the person заявило-ing, then 'declared to have accepted' is wrong; you have to use a form such as:

'he declared that he had accepted'
(Keep the 'that' in if it's formal or written Eng; you can often leave it out if it's casual/spoken Eng. If you're not sure, keep it in).

Similarly,
* 'he announced to have seen ....' => 'he announced (that) he had seen ....'
* 'he confirmed to have signed ....' => 'he confirmed (that) he had signed ....'
etc.

[johnstephenson]

Question 2:
'The person appearing .... and fifteen': this looks fine to me. I'm assuming you've translated 'Устав Компании' and 'акт' correctly here, as legal terms aren't my forté.

'were last amended' and 'had been last amended' are both OK here -- although 'had last been amended' sounds better than 'had been last amended'.

Tenses aren't easy in English!

[lena_ya]

indeed, tenses are not so easy in English!:) Thank you very much for your explanation!

[lena_ya]

Johnstephenson, можно еще один вопрос как к native speaker?:) верно ли будет перевести "также" как either в след. примере:

Оригинал:Доли в уставном капитале Компании не обременены правом залога или бенефициарным правом узуфрукта, предоставляющим его обладателю или залогодержателю право голоса по данным долям, а также обладателям прав узуфрукта и залогодержателям не были присвоены права собрания по отношению к Компании

Перевод:The shares in the share capital of the Company are not encumbered with a right of pledge or a beneficial right of usufruct that confers upon the holder of the right of usufruct or the pledgee the voting rights on these shares. No meeting rights with respect to the Company have been assigned to these persons either.

[johnstephenson]

Yes, you can use 'either', but from a style point of view I would use 'nor' here:

'.... these shares, nor have any meeting rights with respect to the Company been assigned to these persons'.

This is simply because it's a formal written (legal) text, and you don't normally find 'either' at the ends of sentences in formal written texts, although it's common in casual/spoken English:

Casual:
* "I don't speak Italian. I don't speak Spanish either'
Formal:
* "I do not speak Italian, nor do I speak Spanish'.

In addition legal texts have their own rules covering use of set terms/phrases and punctuation (or omission of it), of course; again, I'm not an expert on this.

[asocialite]

Tenses aren't easy in English??

nah, the humankind has not gotten to the uneasy bit just yet ;)

“One of the major problems encountered in time travel is not that of becoming your own father or mother. There is no problem in becoming your own father or mother that a broad-minded and well-adjusted family can't cope with. There is no problem with changing the course of history—the course of history does not change because it all fits together like a jigsaw. All the important changes have happened before the things they were supposed to change and it all sorts itself out in the end.

The major problem is simply one of grammar, and the main work to consult in this matter is Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's Time Traveler's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations. It will tell you, for instance, how to describe something that was about to happen to you in the past before you avoided it by time-jumping forward two days in order to avoid it. The event will be descibed differently according to whether you are talking about it from the standpoint of your own natural time, from a time in the further future, or a time in the further past and is futher complicated by the possibility of conducting conversations while you are actually traveling from one time to another with the intention of becoming your own mother or father.

Most readers get as far as the Future Semiconditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional before giving up; and in fact in later aditions of the book all pages beyond this point have been left blank to save on printing costs.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy skips lightly over this tangle of academic abstraction, pausing only to note that the term "Future Perfect" has been abandoned since it was discovered not to be.”

[DeProfundis]

the shares are free of any charge...

[d_2016]

для Past Perfect нужен clause, а в вашем исходнике использовано дополнение, выраженное Perfect Infinitive

[lena_ya]

johnstephenson,

спасибо за объяснение johnstephenson! возвращаясь к предложению, по которому у меня был вопрос с either: если мы используем во второй части nor и время Present Perfect Passive, следует ли мне поставить глаголы в первой части тоже в Present Perfect Passive? То есть:No shares in the share capital of the Company have been encumbered with a right of pledge or a beneficial right of usufruct that confers upon the holder of the right of usufruct or the pledgee the voting rights on these shares? Confers оставлять также?

[MbJaws]

что еще за обратившееся лицо??? не бывает никаких appearing person. это должно быть или applicant, claimant etc. в зависимости от контекста.

[wow2]

а оборотни!

[johnstephenson]

lena_ya: It doesn't matter which tense you use, as long as a) it's an accurate translation of the Russian and b) the tenses you use in the English tie in with each other throughout.

Only you know exactly when the events referred to here took place as only you have accesd to the full Russian text. However, you originally had "The person appearing .... DECLARED .... and DID NOT want" rather than "HAS declared .... and DOES NOT want", so I'm assuming these events took place some time ago -- not in the very recent past.

[johnstephenson]

asocialite: Future semiconductor? I don't know as I'm not very good on electronics.... Discussing it makes me feel 'tense'! :-)

[johnstephenson]

MbJaws: Yes, 'обратившееся лицо' could translate as almost anything. It depends on who's doing the обратиться-ing and who they're обратиться-ing to. Again, only the asker knows the context.

[d_2016]

нету, нету в исходнике present perfect passive, различайте tense и infinitive

[Tamerlane]

johnstephenson,

we're all really happy to have you here, buddy. Your input is always highly appreciated. Keep up the good work!

[натрикс]

d_2016, никто вас не услышит, потому что что такое Perfect Infinitive здесь знаю я и еще полтора человека. но я вас слышу, я с вами... а остальным пофиг, они увлечены своей беседой.
корень зла даже не в этом, а в том, что пару лет назад люди спрашивали, как "у" переводится (у работников), а сегодня заматерели... переводы _на_английский они _редактируют_. голландцев поправляют. слепые ведут глухих и никогда не будет в этом порядка:(((

[Supa Traslata]

http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?a=4&MessNum=308287

[Pchelka911]

- Зайку отобрать, а Малыша - в угол!
- Но это непедагогично!