|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 02:06 PM EDT |
In litigation, I believe the party producing the documents has no obligation to
translate them.
However if one party translated a document then the other party could have it
checked, if it were utilized.
I don't know the process used here but I assume that Samsung would have checked
out the accuracy of the translation and if inaccurate could have made an issue
of it. On the Other Hand, given the volume of discovery and the constraints on
time and deposition, they may not have felt is was worth it.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 06:54 AM EDT |
No, you can't assume that translations into the translator's native language
will be "more accurate". It many cases it would make more sense to
assume the reverse. Bad grammar and style in the translation is something the
reader can usually live with. However, if the translator has misunderstood the
original then the reader of the translation is in real trouble, even more so if
the translator has turned his/her misunderstanding into a fluent and
plausible-sounding translation. Therefore, the most important thing is to have a
translator who won't misunderstand the original, and that usually means a
well-educated native speaker of the source language. Then have a native speaker
of the target language to help with editing.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 01:40 PM EDT |
I've been a lawyer and a translator. When I was
interviewing someone and I was their lawyer, I'd usually use
an interpreter even if I spoke their language, because
conducting a witness interview is hard enough in one
language. You have to try to get all the facts, check the
chronology, come up with a theory of the case, anticipate
defenses, counterclaims, evidentiary and procedural
problems, etc etc. Then you have to give some advice in
simple language. (My clients were usually freshly arrived
in the US from a developing country where the language as
actually spoken is significantly different from the standard
version I learned in Europe. For an English-language
analogy, imagine interviewing a native Jamaican who never to
school - and explaining to him why multiple appeals are
typically necessary in an asylum case.)
The legal services office where I worked had a roster of
translators who were affordable (we shared notes with
various other non-profits in town). The translators were
generally pretty good in terms of quality, and we quickly
learned which ones were reliable in terms of getting things
done on a deadline.
I never saw a case where the other side insisted on an
independent translation. I had a document re-translated just
once that I can remember, and it wasn't because anyone had
intentionally skewed the translation, but just because the
translation was into painfully poor English. (It was a
crucial document for my case and I didn't want the judge to
be grumpy while reading it.) The main problem I saw was that
lawyers and judges just didn't understand the limitations
inherent in translation. A magistrate would accuse a
witness of changing their story due to a new translator's
slight differences in wording.
As a translator my biggest headache was translating formal
documents like divorce papers or police reports. Try to
research, say, police procedure in the Congo, then choose
whether the paper you've got in front of you is an
indictment or an arraignment.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
