Thread: Please, correct my mistakes...

The bank is entitled to request a Customer to confirm an order or other documents issued to the Bank including that the documents had in fact been issued and undersigned by a person indicated in such documens and also his authority to undersign them. The bank is not entitled to accept such customer’s orders or other documents and (or) perform any actions upon them until a satisfactory answer from a customer’s authorized person is received. A customer provides the Bank with a list of persons whom the Bank is entitled to refer to in order to confirm customer’s orders received by the Bank and who are entitled to confirm such orders in a form of a letter composed in a form given in Appendix 12. By a general rule, such a list has to be undersigned by a person indicated in a card containing signature specimens of persons authorized by a customer (hereafter reffered as the card) and also certified by a seal indicated in such a card (if any); such a list can be undersigned by another person only in case a customer had provided the Bank with a list of persons authorized to undersign such lists and such list itself had been undersigned by a person indicated in the customer card being at Bank’s disposal at the moment and certified by a seal indicated in such a card (if any). The Bank is entitled to request the signature and due authority of a person undersigning any customer’s document presented to the Bank to be authenticated by a person who is listed in the customer card being at Bank’s disposal at the moment and not to accept the document in the absence of such an authentication.

Originally Posted by Ramil

The bank is entitled to request a Customer to confirm an order or other documents issued to the Bank including that the documents had in fact been issued and undersigned by a person indicated in such documents and also his authority to undersign them. The bank is not entitled to accept such customer’s orders or other documents and (or) perform any actions upon them until a satisfactory answer from a customer’s authorized person is received. A customer provides the Bank with a list of persons whom the Bank is entitled to refer to in order to confirm customer’s orders received by the Bank and who are entitled to confirm such orders in a form of a letter composed in a form given in Appendix 12. By a general rule, such a list has to be undersigned by a person indicated in a card containing signature specimens of persons authorized by a customer (hereafter referred as the card) and also certified by a seal indicated in such a card (if any); such a list can be undersigned by another person only in case a customer had provided the Bank with a list of persons authorized to undersign such lists and such list itself had been undersigned by a person indicated in the customer card being at Bank’s disposal at the moment and certified by a seal indicated in such a card (if any). The Bank is entitled to request the signature and due authority of a person undersigning any customer’s document presented to the Bank to be authenticated by a person who is listed in the customer card being at Bank’s disposal at the moment and not to accept the document in the absence of such an authentication.

Thanks a lot, although, I expected much more mistakes than that.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Thanks a lot, although, I expected much more mistakes than that.

These are just the grammatical errors (typos, I am sure). Someone might help with that banking lingo, although it seems OK. Maybe, insert some commas into very long sentences, if you want to.

Originally Posted by charlestonian

Originally Posted by Ramil

Thanks a lot, although, I expected much more mistakes than that.

These are just the grammatical errors (typos, I am sure). Someone might help with that banking lingo, although it seems OK. Maybe, insert some commas into very long sentences, if you want to.

That is the creepiest avatar I've seen. I can't tell you how many times I've nearly smashed my lcd screen by trying to swat that stupid bug. I've actually turned on AdBlock now...

Originally Posted by Бармалей

Originally Posted by charlestonian

Originally Posted by Ramil

Thanks a lot, although, I expected much more mistakes than that.

These are just the grammatical errors (typos, I am sure). Someone might help with that banking lingo, although it seems OK. Maybe, insert some commas into very long sentences, if you want to.

That is the creepiest avatar I've seen. I can't tell you how many times I've nearly smashed my lcd screen by trying to swat that stupid bug. I've actually turned on AdBlock now...

Originally Posted by charlestonian

Originally Posted by Бармалей

Originally Posted by charlestonian

Originally Posted by Ramil

Thanks a lot, although, I expected much more mistakes than that.

These are just the grammatical errors (typos, I am sure). Someone might help with that banking lingo, although it seems OK. Maybe, insert some commas into very long sentences, if you want to.

That is the creepiest avatar I've seen. I can't tell you how many times I've nearly smashed my lcd screen by trying to swat that stupid bug. I've actually turned on AdBlock now...

I liked it too I have a wonderful avatar to replace that green punk of mine too but it's too big (78Kb). I wish the forum engine was upgraded. (Sigh).

Ramil,

Where did you get this text? From your work?

Originally Posted by Dobry

Ramil,

Where did you get this text? From your work?

I had to translate it by tomorrow morning. Why?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by Dobry

Ramil,

Where did you get this text? From your work?

I had to translate it by tomorrow morning. Why?

I was curious.

This is the type of text I taught to Spaniards and Russians, to help them with Legal English, and doing business with American corporations.

Charlestonian corrected the errors. Good text. No worries.

Oh, man, this is such a terrible text! You've just declared WWIII! Run for the hills!

I kid, I kid...

Are you guys kidding?!?? This text reads like a legal headache! I am sure we can do something to shorten the sentences and make it more friendly, no?

Originally Posted by Ramil

The bank is entitled to request a customer (if customer is with a capital C, then it should be "the Customer") to confirm an order or other documents issued to the Bank, including that the documents has in fact been issued and signed by the person indicated in the documents and also his authority to sign them. The bank(make up your mind, Bank or bank?) is not entitled to accept any[?] customer_ orders or other documents and (or) perform any actions upon them until a satisfactory answer has been received from a person authourized by the customer (reworded). A[The?] customer provides the Bank with a list of persons whom the Bank is entitled to refer to in order to confirm the customer’s orders received by the Bank(if I had my way, I would delete "orders received by the Bank". Superfluous) and who are entitled to confirm such orders in a form of a letter composed with the form given in Appendix 12. By _ general rule, such a list has to be signed by a person indicated in a card containing signature specimens of persons authorized by a[/the] customer (hereafter reffered as the card) and also certified by a seal indicated in such a card (if any); such a list can be signed by another person only in the case that a[/the] customer has provided the Bank with a list of persons authorized to sign such lists and the list itself has been signed by a person indicated in the customer card, being at Bank’s disposal at the moment and certified by a seal indicated in such a card (if any). The Bank is entitled to request the signature and due authority of a person signing any customer’s document presented to the Bank to be authenticated by a person who is listed in the customer card being at the Bank’s disposal at the moment and not to accept the document in the absence of such an authentication.

HELP! I HAVE GONE BLIND!

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Are you guys kidding?!?? This text reads like a legal headache! I am sure we can do something to shorten the sentences and make it more friendly, no?

Originally Posted by Ramil

The bank is entitled to request a customer (if customer is with a capital C, then it should be "the Customer") to confirm an order or other documents issued to the Bank, including that the documents has in fact been issued and signed by the person indicated in the documents and also his authority to sign them. The bank(make up your mind, Bank or bank?) is not entitled to accept any[?] customer_ orders or other documents and (or) perform any actions upon them until a satisfactory answer has been received from a person authourized by the customer (reworded). A[The?] customer provides the Bank with a list of persons whom the Bank is entitled to refer to in order to confirm the customer’s orders received by the Bank(if I had my way, I would delete "orders received by the Bank". Superfluous) and who are entitled to confirm such orders in a form of a letter composed with the form given in Appendix 12. By _ general rule, such a list has to be signed by a person indicated in a card containing signature specimens of persons authorized by a[/the] customer (hereafter reffered as the card) and also certified by a seal indicated in such a card (if any); such a list can be signed by another person only in the case that a[/the] customer has provided the Bank with a list of persons authorized to sign such lists and the list itself has been signed by a person indicated in the customer card, being at Bank’s disposal at the moment and certified by a seal indicated in such a card (if any). The Bank is entitled to request the signature and due authority of a person signing any customer’s document presented to the Bank to be authenticated by a person who is listed in the customer card being at the Bank’s disposal at the moment and not to accept the document in the absence of such an authentication.

HELP! I HAVE GONE BLIND!

Wow. It's a sea of blood!

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Are you guys kidding?!?? This text reads like a legal headache! I am sure we can do something to shorten the sentences and make it more friendly, no?

Originally Posted by Ramil

The bank is entitled to request a customer (if customer is with a capital C, then it should be "the Customer") to confirm an order or other documents issued to the Bank, including that the documents has in fact been issued and signed by the person indicated in the documents and also his authority to sign them. The bank(make up your mind, Bank or bank?) is not entitled to accept any[?] customer_ orders or other documents and (or) perform any actions upon them until a satisfactory answer has been received from a person authorized by the customer (reworded). A[The?] customer provides the Bank with a list of persons whom the Bank is entitled to refer to in order to confirm the customer’s orders received by the Bank(if I had my way, I would delete "orders received by the Bank". Superfluous) and who are entitled to confirm such orders in a form of a letter composed with the form given in Appendix 12. By _ general rule, such a list has to be signed by a person indicated in a card containing signature specimens of persons authorized by a[/the] customer (hereafter referred as the card) and also certified by a seal indicated in such a card (if any); such a list can be signed by another person only in the case that a[/the] customer has provided the Bank with a list of persons authorized to sign such lists and the list itself has been signed by a person indicated in the customer card, being at Bank’s disposal at the moment and certified by a seal indicated in such a card (if any). The Bank is entitled to request the signature and due authority of a person signing any customer’s document presented to the Bank to be authenticated by a person who is listed in the customer card being at the Bank’s disposal at the moment and not to accept the document in the absence of such an authentication.

HELP! I HAVE GONE BLIND!

Correcting KV: see in blue. There are 2 corrections, but only one came out in blue (I have tried twice). The other correction, still in red, was "authorized," not authourized.

Like I said, I was not sure about the specifics of legal documents, but I have seen some that were similar to Ramil's translation. I wish we could see the original: there is a danger in making too many changes, re-phrasing, and omitting... can lose the original meaning...

Originally Posted by charlestonian

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Are you guys kidding?!?? This text reads like a legal headache! I am sure we can do something to shorten the sentences and make it more friendly, no?

Originally Posted by Ramil

The bank is entitled to request a customer (if customer is with a capital C, then it should be "the Customer") to confirm an order or other documents issued to the Bank, including that the documents has in fact been issued and signed by the person indicated in the documents and also his authority to sign them. The bank(make up your mind, Bank or bank?) is not entitled to accept any[?] customer_ orders or other documents and (or) perform any actions upon them until a satisfactory answer has been received from a person authorized by the customer (reworded). A[The?] customer provides the Bank with a list of persons whom the Bank is entitled to refer to in order to confirm the customer’s orders received by the Bank(if I had my way, I would delete "orders received by the Bank". Superfluous) and who are entitled to confirm such orders in a form of a letter composed with the form given in Appendix 12. By _ general rule, such a list has to be signed by a person indicated in a card containing signature specimens of persons authorized by a[/the] customer (hereafter referred as the card) and also certified by a seal indicated in such a card (if any); such a list can be signed by another person only in the case that a[/the] customer has provided the Bank with a list of persons authorized to sign such lists and the list itself has been signed by a person indicated in the customer card, being at Bank’s disposal at the moment and certified by a seal indicated in such a card (if any). The Bank is entitled to request the signature and due authority of a person signing any customer’s document presented to the Bank to be authenticated by a person who is listed in the customer card being at the Bank’s disposal at the moment and not to accept the document in the absence of such an authentication.

HELP! I HAVE GONE BLIND!

Correcting KV: see in blue. There are 2 corrections, but only one came out in blue (I have tried twice). The other correction, still in red, was "authorized," not authourized.

Like I said, I was not sure about the specifics of legal documents, but I have seen some that were similar to Ramil's translation. I wish we could see the original: there is a danger in making too many changes, re-phrasing, and omitting... can lose the original meaning...

Charlestonian is correct.

KV, there are reasons why legal documents are written in a certain way. Legal documents are not meant to be "user friendly" or easily readable, and this is a legal document. It must read and be written in a way that is acceptable among the courts and legal authorities.

This is similar to you trying to operate on yourself... but you're not a surgeon. Understand?

Or me trying to tell a Civil Engineer, "No, you can't build the bridge that way... it's wrong!"

Please, let's not confuse Ramil, and cause him to worry. The translation is due tomorrow. From a legal view, the translation is good.

KV, I'm not 'coming down' on you. No worry.

Originally Posted by Dobry

Originally Posted by charlestonian

Like I said, I was not sure about the specifics of legal documents, but I have seen some that were similar to Ramil's translation. I wish we could see the original: there is a danger in making too many changes, re-phrasing, and omitting... can lose the original meaning...

Charlestonian is correct.

KV, there are reasons why legal documents are written in a certain way. Legal documents are not meant to be "user friendly" or easily readable, and this is a legal document. It must read and be written in a way that is acceptable among the courts and legal authorities.

This is similar to you trying to operate on yourself... but you're not a surgeon. Understand?

Or me trying to tell a Civil Engineer, "No, you can't build the bridge that way... it's wrong!"

Please, let's not confuse Ramil, and cause him to worry. The translation is due tomorrow. From a legal view, the translation is good.

KV, I'm not 'coming down' on you. No worry.

I disagree entirely! First, the corrections I made weren't related to the style of the document, so you guys claiming it "looked good" when there were missing articles left and right is misleading. I don't like "undersign", do you? Maybe I am wrong there, but it looks soo much better with "sign"
Second, this is a translation, so there is some freedom. I wish we had the original to compare, what is Russian for "undersign" anyway? подписать?

I guess it really depends on the goal of the translation. But I would recommend looking at the changes Charlesontian and I made and making a judgment yourself, Ramilsky!

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Second, this is a translation, so there is some freedom. I wish we had the original to compare, what is Russian for "undersign" anyway? подписать?

I guess it really depends on the goal of the translation. But I would recommend looking at the changes Charlesontian and I made and making a judgment yourself, Ramilsky!

Of course there's freedom!

Please chill KV. I liked Charlestonian's changes and I agreed with them.

First... Legal English is very different, with different style (as you wrote) and different grammar rules than standard English.

"Undersigned" is legal language... there is certain language that is used for legal documents, and this is a legal document.

I completely understand your point, but please realize that there is a reason people use attorneys/lawyers/solicitors to write legal documents, including your Will and Testament for example.

I prefer "easy to read" legal documents, but these are not always suitable to protect businesses, including banks. Legal documents are designed to protect and secure agreements, with universal understanding between various Courts. Much different from standard English.

Again, remember, you're debating with a lawyer now, who has a lot of experience in these types of documents, a lot of U.S. and international contracts experience, and we're working with Legal English now... not standard English.

I am cooler than a cuecumber, don't think I am angry or anything

So you don't agree with proper article usage and tense?

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

I am cooler than a cuecumber, don't think I am angry or anything

So you don't agree with proper article usage and tense?

Normal, everyday English, yes, I agree with you, of course. No worries KV... you are using correct grammar and usage for standard English.

But... I'm saying it's different with Legal English... the rules change... this is part of the "legal arts" and when you are working with legal documents.

Different game... more complex... and different English rules.

Relax guys, I'm already done with the text. I'll post the original tonight when I get home, if you're interested.

As far as I understand the purpose of a legal translation, it has to bear a meaning as close to the original as possible. I don't have any "freedom" when translating. I must follow the exact meaning of the original.
Dobry, you should be familiar with Russian legal language. As for me - legal English (and Russian) are not the most understandable languages.
Personally, I suspect such wild "three-storey high" sentences come out of the desire of the author to look (and sound) important.