A 2000 QBD case involved the question of double interpretation, that is, interpretation from English to Bosnian Romany by way of Serbo-Croat (if that’s still its name). Here is the complete summary from David Swarbrick’s superb site:

bq. Regina -v- West London Youth Court, Ex P J – QBD – 02 August 1999 – Criminal Practice
lip – When absolutely necessary, it was permissible for a court to allow and depend upon double translation for a defendant. A court offered either double translation or a translator who felt 80 per cent adequate in the language of the defendant. A translator must be impartial (never the appropriate adult), and qualified and fluent. The standards required at interview were also required at trial. There must be a natural understanding between the accused and his interpreter, and the next and the court.
[02 August 1999 – Times ]

The case itself is online at BAILII, the first portal to search for English law, but I found it easier to find by Google than at the BAILII site.

bq. 4. The possibility, therefore, arises of a process known as “double translation”: interpretation from one language into a second language, and then from the second language into a third language. The magistrate ruled that double interpretation can never be lawful. We are told other tribunals, from time to time, have ruled differently; views are divided. This question is, therefore, one of some general and growing importance and both sides invite the court to take this opportunity to provide guidance.
5. I recognise, of course, that such views we express will necessarily be obiter. Nevertheless, given that we have enjoyed the luxury of research and submission by two leading counsel on what is now an uncontested challenge, it would seem churlish to decline the invitation. I hope our observations may provide some assistance in the future.

Churlish indeed!

I’ve normally heard this process in writing called relay translation (e.g. getting a translation from Maltese to Latvian by way of English, for example).

The tip on the case came from Peter Tiersma – thanks to him. And look at Peter’s website on language and law and his book on legal language.

The use of they or their as a singular is a frequent subject of discussion among translators into English and also on the Internet in general. It’s been used for centuries – the article quoted below says the first use in the OED is in the 14th century , but under their there is a 1420 reference (‘the sun and moon, each with their own light’). Usually discussions are exhausted in pointing out to critics that it is not an invention of the women’s movement (which apparently is sufficient to disqualify usage in many quarters). However, one sometimes hesitates to use it in written, especially formal written, English even where it would be the most elegant alternative.

The latest issue of Clarity gives a link to an article on the website of the Canberra Society of Editors on the use of they as a singular, particularly in legal texts.
The article quotes the ‘big three’ dictionaries (Random House 1987 is the third), none of which criticizes the usage. It is in favour of it, but points out one problem:

bq. There are some situations in which the use of they could lead to ambiguity, for example:
Where an applicant notifies the other residents, …………. must lodge a section 12 notice within 14 days.
To insert they in the blank here would not work if we want it to refer unequivocally to an applicant. Readers could quite legitimately and most probably would – interpret they in this sentence as referring to the other residents.

However, it doesn’t see this as an argument against the usage, but recommends redrafting.

Clarity says the author of this article is Robert Eagleson, whereas the site quotes a Simplification Task Force that produced the paper in 1995. It does quote work by Eagleson:

bq. In 1974 Robert Eagleson conducted a series of usage tests in Sydney to see how much support remained for he in a universal or indefinite context and how effective the efforts of teachers had been (‘Anyone for his’ in Working Papers in Language and Linguistics (1976) 4: 31-45).

The Clarity website does not have full copies of the journal, but it does have other materials. Thanks also to Robin Bonthrone for reminding me of this conference on clarity and legal language planned for 2005 in Boulogne-sur-Mer.

Further to my last entry, Céline has posted on that thread two addresses of translation weblogs that are new to me.

One is a group blog called Translation Exchange, which began on April 16th as follows:

bq. This is intended as a forum for those interested in translation (and more generally, in world affairs) to post and comment upon relevant articles and information. Anything from political subterfuge to book reviews. Let’s just talk translation.

Unfortunately it doesn’t appear to have a newsfeed.

The other is Translator’s Note, by a translator in Japan, Zachary Braverman. It’s been running since November 2002.

LATER NOTE: Robin on Carob found the correct newsfeed for translation eXchange:
http://translationexchange.blogspot.com/atom.xml.

There was a thread on Translatorscafé yesterday started by someone looking for a freelance translator’s diary. Transblawg was mentioned, as were a number of others. There’s a nice photograph of Steve Maas of On-Time Updates there, too.

If anyone’s interested in translators’ weblogs, I have a set of links in the right-hand column. There are a couple of other translators’ weblogs out there too. Some are language/linguistics, some translation. I don’t know that any is exactly a diary. I think of a weblog as a log of what a person found on the Web, but Transblawg is not exactly that – more a log of what I was thinking about together with a few pictures and comments from day-to-day life.
But some of the translators’ weblogs are more diary-like.

A web search revealed an attempt at another translators’ site to gather diaries, but only one day from one diary had so far been offered.

Does anyone know more than I do – this is very likely – about banning comment spam? I have a poster, not automatic, who always uses the same Yahoo address, but advertises different URLs and obviously has different IP addresses every time. I know I could get this person banned from Yahoo under that address, but it seems pointless, since they could get another one with no problem. At a very cursory glance, I see no way of banning a specific email address.

(LATER NOTE: I’ve got MT Blacklist installed and it’s excellent, but as far as I can see it doesn’t block specific email addresses – but RL’s comment suggests it does. What am I overlooking?)

I’ve been thinking of leaving Movable Type for a long time, and the latest wave of departures encourages me that there are alternatives. It’s not the fee structure that worries me, but the fact that very few providers in Germany can run MT, and I don’t want to get my own server. Before I moved to another provider, my posting brought the server down and I was banned for a day. It would be nice to be on a system that doesn’t do that, if there is one.

Udo recently posted a lovely piece of German correspondence:

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren!
In der vorstehenden Sache erhalten Sie unter Bezugnahme auf Ihr Schreiben vom 2. April 2004 anliegend eine Ablichtung der in dieser Sache ergangenen Schlusskostenrechnung zur gefl. Kenntnisnahme übersandt.
Mit vorzüglicher Hochachtung
W. Justizamtsinspektor

(Dear Sir or Madam,
With reference to your letter of 2 April 2004 in the above matter, please find attached a photocopy of the final bill of costs in this matter for your esteemed attention.
Your humble servant
W. Justizamtsinspektor)

I occasionally have to translate this sort of thing. The biggest problem is understanding it. The comments are fun too. The entry is headed gepflegt, but I don’t think zur gefl. Kenntnisnahme means gepflegt. I thought it was geflissentlich, but some commenters think it is gefällig (in one case this is based on the strange claim that there is a P in geflissentlich). Nor do I think Udo thinks it means gepflegt – his title refers to a refined or cultured way of expressing oneself, and seems to be somewhat ironic. Some commenters didn’t even know the word Ablichtung for copy – it’s more common than they think!

Google doesn’t help much. The very large Duden großes Wörterbuch der dt. Sprache has often helped me with Amtsdeutsch. On geflissentlich it has

(Amtsdt. veraltet) freundlich, gefällig (bes. in der Fügung): zur gefälligen Kenntnisnahme

For gefällig it mentions the abbreviation gefl., though.

I see I’m repeating myself so refer to an earlier entry on Juristendeutsch and to an Amtsdeutsch site in Austria. A lot of it consists just of legal terms, but here for example:

hieramts
Der Begriff “hieramts” ist gleichbedeutend mit beim/im Amt.

The same site also has a copy of Thaddäus Troll’s Rotkäppchen auf Amtsdeutsch.