Nov 3, 2013 10:59
10 yrs ago
189 viewers *
English term
This is to certify that vs We hereby certify that
English
Other
Certificates, Diplomas, Licenses, CVs
discussion about the use of English in the translation of a certificate
I was asking if it is better to use the first or second expression when it comes to translating certificates. For ex. "THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT
Miss .... , born in .... on ...., with a 5-year Master’s degree in Pharmacy (14/S – Class of degree in Pharmacy and Industrial Pharmaceutics: Master of Science) from UNIVERSITY OF PERUGIA, etc.
is it correct??
Miss .... , born in .... on ...., with a 5-year Master’s degree in Pharmacy (14/S – Class of degree in Pharmacy and Industrial Pharmaceutics: Master of Science) from UNIVERSITY OF PERUGIA, etc.
is it correct??
Responses
| 5 | This is to certify |
Parvathi Pappu
|
| 4 +6 | optional |
Tony M
|
Change log
Nov 3, 2013 11:02: Angie Garbarino changed "Language pair" from "Italian to English" to "English"
Nov 3, 2013 14:15: writeaway changed "Field (specific)" from "Law (general)" to "Certificates, Diplomas, Licenses, CVs" , "Field (write-in)" from "certificate" to "discussion about the use of English in the translation of a certificate"
Responses
28 mins
Parvathi Pappu
India
India
Native in English
&
English
Works in field
India
EnglishHindiTelugu Translator
Native in: English
Works in: English to Hindi, Hindi, Hindi to English, and 4 more.
Related KudoZ points
:
4
Selected
This is to certify
"This is to certify"; is what is normally written to validate someone
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
David Moore (X)
: If this is opinion, a c.l. of five is excessive. If it is fact, on what is your claim based?
5 mins
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "thanks!"
+6
1 hr
optional
I think it is to a large extent optional, you might try looking for examples of similar docuents to get an idea of usage.
Personally, I'd say it depends a lot on exactly how the rest of the document is formulated (i.e. do they maintain the use of the first person plural?) — and also, on the people signing the document. If it is signed by one person, then 'we' sounds rather pompous, like the 'royal we' (but could be appropriate in say a historical or very formal register); if on the other hand, it means "We, the duly appointed members of the Board", then the use of the form with 'we' might be ideal.
Generally, though, my preference for this sort of document is to stick to an impersonal form unless there is a very good reason to do otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2013-11-03 13:25:20 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
As I was at pains to point out, PERSONALLY... this is my own approach when deciding this sort of question — my 'self guidelines' if you like.
However, I don't really think there is any one objectively 'right' answer, each translator needs to assess the various issues involved on a case-by-case basis.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day9 hrs (2013-11-04 20:12:10 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
In the light of your additional context, i.e. the IT original text which uses an impersonal expression, I'd definitely say you could safely use the equivalent impersonal expression in EN: 'this is to certify that...', or one of the alternatives suggested by Dariusz.
Personally, I'd say it depends a lot on exactly how the rest of the document is formulated (i.e. do they maintain the use of the first person plural?) — and also, on the people signing the document. If it is signed by one person, then 'we' sounds rather pompous, like the 'royal we' (but could be appropriate in say a historical or very formal register); if on the other hand, it means "We, the duly appointed members of the Board", then the use of the form with 'we' might be ideal.
Generally, though, my preference for this sort of document is to stick to an impersonal form unless there is a very good reason to do otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2013-11-03 13:25:20 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
As I was at pains to point out, PERSONALLY... this is my own approach when deciding this sort of question — my 'self guidelines' if you like.
However, I don't really think there is any one objectively 'right' answer, each translator needs to assess the various issues involved on a case-by-case basis.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day9 hrs (2013-11-04 20:12:10 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
In the light of your additional context, i.e. the IT original text which uses an impersonal expression, I'd definitely say you could safely use the equivalent impersonal expression in EN: 'this is to certify that...', or one of the alternatives suggested by Dariusz.
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Suzan Hamer
17 mins
|
|
Thanks, Suzan!
|
|
| neutral |
writeaway
: this is a very personal opinion imo. CL 3. /as you say, it's on a case by case basis. This is brainstorming. Not a terminology question.
49 mins
|
|
Indeed it is, as I thought I had been at pains to point out. Perhaps you have an alternative contribution to make? / I AM confident of my own judgement on this point, but that's all it is. Last-minute slip of the mouse, '3' was what I originally intended.
|
|
| agree |
Vanessa Brandao
2 hrs
|
|
Thanks, C!
|
|
| agree |
mlreid
2 hrs
|
|
Thanks, MLR!
|
|
| agree |
Christine Andersen
: Other things being equal, I go for ´this is to certify´, unless I can identify and want to specify who ´we´ are. I would not use ´we´ for a large body like a university, but might in a personal reference.
4 hrs
|
|
Thanks, Christine! Yes, I see it the same way.
|
|
| agree |
David Moore (X)
20 hrs
|
|
Thanks, David!
|
|
| agree |
Alison Jenner
1 day 7 hrs
|
|
Thanks, Alison!
|
Discussion
Personally, I'd say it depends a lot on exactly how the rest of the document is formulated (i.e. do they maintain the use of the first person plural?) — and also, on the people signing the document. If it is signed by one person, then 'we' sounds rather pompous, like the 'royal we' (but could be appropriate in say a historical or very formal register); if on the other hand, it means "We, the duly appointed members of the Board", then the use of the form with 'we' might be ideal.
Generally, though, my preference for this sort of document is to stick to an impersonal form unless there is a very good reason to do otherwise.