关于法律翻译的一个问题

Frank Lin wrote:

Capitalized Terms翻译时可以相应处理为：

1. 加粗/下划线/双引号词语；（前提是译文中词语均已做相应处理）

2. 英文版首字母大写的词语；（前提是译文中词语未做相应处理）

Phil Hand wrote:

于第xx条加以定义的专用词，应一律按第xx条中的定义理解

Frank Lin wrote:

Capitalized Terms翻译时可以相应处理为：

1. 加粗/下划线/双引号词语；（前提是译文中词语均已做相应处理）

2. 英文版首字母大写的词语；（前提是译文中词语未做相应处理）

jingmlittlejohn wrote:



謝謝你的建議！我最初想到的也是第一種方法，但還有其它的相關文稿的翻譯已經定稿，也出現了這些詞語，要是使用第一種方法的話太麻煩了。不過你的建議對我以後翻譯類似文稿很有幫助，謝謝！

ysun wrote:


法律文件十分严格。原文作者不厌其烦地采用 Capitalized Terms 并加以定义，就是为了赋予其特定含义。这种做法是基于长期的经验教训，甚至于惨痛的经验教训。因此，翻译人员也应不厌其烦。例如，“Person” 肯定是指特定的“Person”，而不是指任何 person。在相应的中译文上加上引号，能有多麻烦？已经定稿的文件中，即使这类专用词语重复出现了几十遍、上百遍，也可采用 find/replace 的方法很容易地加以改正。

当然，这只是我个人的拙见，仅供参考。

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphasis_(typography)

Underlining
Professional Western typesetting usually does not employ lines under letters for emphasis within running text, because it is considered too distracting. Underlining is, however, often used with typewriters, in handwriting and with some non-alphabetic scripts. It is also used for secondary emphasis, i.e. marks added by the reader and not the author.
...

Punctuation marks
In Chinese, emphasis in body text is supposed to be indicated by using an “emphasis mark” (着重號), which is a dot placed under each character to be emphasized. This is still taught in schools but in practice it is not usually done, probably due to the difficulty of doing this using most computer software. Consequently, methods used for emphasis in Western text are often used instead, even though they are considered inappropriate for Chinese (for example, the use of underlining or setting text in oblique type).
...

In Internet usage, asterisks are sometimes used for emphasis (as in “That was *really* bad”). This is seen on sites where input is restricted to plain text with no method to apply markup tags (e.g. < i> for italics, or < b> for boldface). In some cases, the engine behind the text area being parsed will render the text and the asterisks in bold automatically after the text is submitted.

wherestip wrote:

Since it is a legal document, everything has to be precise. One of the reasons legal documents employ legalese is exactly because they require precision.

IMO, to not specifically identify each intentionally capitalized term in some way at each of its occurrence in the document could very well alter the legal content.

ysun wrote:

此链接上的协议就是很好的一例：
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/934563/000119312515135614/d912274dex99h7.htm

此协议作者在 Definition 部分对许多 capitalized terms 都下了严格的定义。例如:
“Agreement” means the Service Agreement to which this Schedule 1 is attached and any appendices and schedules attached hereto, in each case as they may be amended from time to time.

在上下文中，大多数 agreement 的首字母都是大写的A。但也有一些 agreement 的首字母仍是小写。所以，在中译文中就应设法体现出两者之间的区别，例如加引号的“协议”和不加引号的“协议”。否则，读者就难以区分哪些是 Definition 部分予以定义的 “协议”，哪些只是一般意义上的“协议”。其他某些术语，如 services、customers 和 person等，也是这种情况。

ysun wrote:


在上下文中，大多数 agreement 的首字母都是大写的A。但也有一些 agreement 的首字母仍是小写。所以，在中译文中就应设法体现出两者之间的区别，例如加引号的“协议”和不加引号的“协议”。否则，读者就难以区分哪些是 Definition 部分予以定义的 “协议”，哪些只是一般意义上的“协议”。其他某些术语，如 services、customers 和 person等，也是这种情况。