Spanish term
"arrimados"
"Señor Juez no tenemos bienes en común, ya que siempre estuvimos arrimados"
Honduras
Does this mean they were squatting and therefore had no property? Suggestion here is that it means they were living
on someone's property without paying rent.
(https://tureng.com/en/spanish-english/arrimada (honduras/el ...[despectivo])
It can't mean they were just "living together" because this is a divorce decree.
I thought it might just mean they were poor, or barely getting by?
3 +3 | living in another's home [we did not have a home of our own] | Robert Carter |
5 | in a consensual relationship | Yudith Madrazo |
Oct 11, 2019 16:19: Robert Carter changed "Level" from "Non-PRO" to "PRO"
PRO (3): JohnMcDove, neilmac, Robert Carter
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Proposed translations
living in another's home [we did not have a home of our own]
"Your Honor, we have no joint property because we were living in someone else's home"
The inference being:
"Your Honor, we have no joint property because we did not have a home of our own"
agree |
Marie Wilson
12 mins
|
Thanks, Marie.
|
|
agree |
AllegroTrans
: Yes, but I would not use "squatting" which would have negative implications
5 hrs
|
Thanks, Chris. No, it's nothing to do with squatting.
|
|
agree |
anademahomar
: Yup!!
22 hrs
|
Good to have the input of someone with on-the-spot knowledge. Thank you!
|
in a consensual relationship
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 21 hrs (2019-10-11 16:20:13 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
It make sense. One of the member of the couple is explaining to the judge that they don't have shared properties, since they were in a consensual relationship in which they both kept their personal possessions without legally sharing with the other.
How would this make sense though since this is a divorce decree? |
neutral |
Robert Carter
: As far as I can tell, there's no such thing as divorce from a common-law marriage in Honduras, so I don't think this is plausible. ¡Saludos!
32 mins
|
Discussion
THIRD- Your Honor, we have no shared property, given that we were always living together in someone else’s home.
The closest definition in Tureng to what I'm suggesting is "living with a romantic partner in their parent's house", but there's quite a number of possible variations on that obviously.
https://tureng.com/en/spanish-english/arrimado