Céline has an excellent post, Why I don’t like bidding systems, on the problem that translators seemed to be judged by how cheap they are. She suggests that lawyers aren’t treated in the same way (and this is true whether or not their prices are fixed – in Germany there is a fee scale, but lawyers can contract out of it). Of course, lawyers usually have a monopoly. Unlike quite a number of translators in Germany, I don’t believe translators should be “verkammert” [umlaut removed, ed.), and I think payment has to be left to the market.

Since I first read the post this morning, there have been a few comments. The first is by Christian Hansel of Babelport. I can see that those who run such websites have different interests from the translators who use them, but they seem to be successful. I can’t accept the suggestion that there is anything altruistic about them, since running such a site either brings in money through advertising or charges, or if not, it helps create a reputation and therefore goodwill, which has an economic value.

Trevor also comments.

The German abbreviations i.V., i.A. and ppa. often cause translators problems. There is no real English equivalent. But even if the terms can’t be translated without a footnote, and a footnote would be overkill, still, the translator may sometimes need to explain what the abbreviations mean, and in some rare cases this will be important.

Robin Stocks has a recent entry quoting a book on the subject.

I wanted this to be the solution to all my problems, but I’m not sure that it is. It’s the first time I’ve seen the use of two signatures at once discussed. I note i.V. is explained as in Vollmacht. It is usually given as in Vertretung, but the meaning of the two phrases is similar.

I have a feeling that no-one will be helped if I publish my latest notes on the subject, but here they are. Has anyone got examples, by the way? A few scans of ends of letters – real ones or from German books on commercial correspondence – would be very helpful.

Some abbreviations used by people in Germany signing letters
i.V. in Vertretung (as agent for)
i.A. im Auftrag (on the instructions of)
ppa. per procura (as a Prokurist)
(gezeichnet)

These abbreviations have legal meanings. They have no equivalent in international correspondence

Normally their legal meaning is not important in a translation
pp.
by
for

Someone suggested on a mailing list:
ppa. Power of attorney (ppa. = per Prokura the signatory is a Prokurist) [this is too weak though]
i.A. Power of representation
i.V. Authorized signatory

So i.A. could be (but never is!) written:
pp. [name] (authorized representative)

and i.V.
pp. [name] (authorized to sign)

I hope comments can be posted again now. It appears that words beginning with g, or even containing g, were banned.

Ich habe jetzt die Blacklist gelöscht und neu erstellt. Hoffentlich ist alles in Ordnung. Anscheinend war der Buchstabe g gesperrt.

If you want to comment and get a message preventing you from posting, please let me know by email – email is info@ plus my website address.

I’ve been deleting thousands of spam pings, and in the process I think I accidentally deleted some comments, and the URLs went into MT-Blacklist, which I use for blocking spam.

Wenn Ihr Kommentar nicht erlaubt wird, bitte lassen Sie mich es per E-Mail wissen (info@ plus URL).

Es kann sein, dass ich aus Versehen die Adressen meiner häufigsten Kommentatoren in die MT-Blacklist-Liste aufgenommen habe, die ich gegen Spam benutze.

The Law West of Ealing Broadway, by Bystander:

bq. The Magistrate’s Blog – Musings and Snippets from an English Magistrate (Justice of the Peace). This blog is anonymous, and Bystander’s views are his and his alone. Where his views differ from the letter of the law, he will enforce the letter of the law because that is what he has sworn to do. If you think that you can identify a particular case from one of the posts you are wrong. Enough facts are changed to preserve the truth of the tale but to disguise its exact source.

This looks very promising, and it has further links which I haven’t checked.

bq. Evidence is given on oath in court. Witnesses have the choice to affirm or to swear on the holy book of their choice. Court staff are trained to be sensitive in handling holy books, and unless the witness looks to be reasonably educated it is standard practice for the usher to ask him to repeat the oath, which is a sad but realistic reflection on the English education system that manages to give children a minimum of twelve years’ compulsory schooling that leaves a fifth of them unable to read competently, or even at all. Inevitably, some people finish off with the “So Help Me God” that they have seen on American TV programmes.

In Germany, witnesses are normally not sworn, because it is thought to weaken the oath if it’s overused. Sometimes they’re sworn afterwards, but usually the parties waive the right to have the witnesses sworn. At the beginning of a trial I’ve heard a Franconian judge say to the witnesses, ‘Ihr wisst fei, dass Ihr die Wahrheit sagen müsst?’ – To swear is schwören, to affirm is bekräftigen, but in my experience not all judges are aware of the variant without the Bible. Still, it may vary from place to place.

Note some interaction with a French legal blog.

Via Random Acts of Reality