This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
@Monica Yo en cambio sí creo que el uso valida la gramaticalidad de un enunciado, mucho más cuando se tiene una academia tan vetusta como la nuestra. Sin embargo - y dejando ideologías de lado - no creo que este sea un caso de falta de adecuación a la norma académica, sino más bien de conocimiento de estrategias de traducción, es decir: los casos en que el tiempo verbal es modificado en el idioma de destino para dejar que la semántica transfiera el significado de la forma más eficiente son INNUMERABLES y muy aconsejables cuando no producen ninguna distorsión en el significado del enunciado. De todas maneras, en un comentario anterior aclaré que tu opción me parece muy buena pero sigo sosteniendo que las demás son irreprochables desde un punto se vista gramatical y semántico. Saludos para todos.
y apasionada estudiosa de esta lengua, considero que el hecho de que se naturalicen formas gramaticales incorrectas no las valida. Tal vez el muy buen enlace que compartió Robert pueda echar luz sobre este tema. Saludos, colegas.
Thanks for commenting. I certainly don't wish to challenge any Spanish speakers about what's "correct" and what's not, but it seems to me more a question of logic than a matter of style. The past conditional is the tense used in the English here, and I feel that should be reflected in the interests of accuracy, particularly in a legal text. I could be wrong, but in any case, I'd be interested to hear the opinions of other native Spanish speakers on this. ¡Saludos!
@Robert As a native Spanish speaker I can guarantee that all the answers provided so far are grammatically correct. I think It's true that Monica's answer "sounds" more natural in a legal context, but it's a matter of style - not grammar.-
As I understand it, it's because "would not have been" is past conditional (no habría resultado herido), not pluperfect subjunctive (no hubiera resultado herido). Here's a better explanation: http://grammar.spanishintexas.org/verbs/subjunctive-pluperfe...
I agree with you. There is in fact "criminal negligence" too, sure. I should have neatly pointed out that my suspicion this is a civil case is based on the word "plaintiff".
The key is not "negligence" since the term applies to civil and criminal. The key term is "plaintiff" since it only applies to civil. Therefore, defendant must be translated as demandado-da.
In criminal procedure law, the term defendido-da should only be used to translate "client," not "defendant."
I truly thank you for your insight. What you have explanied about the "but for clause" is something new to me. You see, we live and learn. But now, what worries me is a matter of no less importance than the previous one, namely the kind of proceedings we are actually dealing with in this case. The translation will strongly depend on whether this is civil or criminal proceedings. The key term "negligence" suggests (to me at least) this is civil proceedings. And if this is the case, I am sorry to say, all the colleagues who mentioned "acusado" as a translation for "defendant" are mistaken. Your thoughts on this?
Although it might sound unusual in everyday language, the "but for" construction is actually a standard legal term of art relating to liability and causation (causa sine qua non):
But-for test The but-for test is a test commonly used in both tort law and criminal law to determine actual causation. The test asks, "but for the existence of X, would Y have occurred?" If the answer is yes, then factor X is an actual cause of result Y. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/but-for_test
In legal matters, "but-for", "sine qua non", causa sine qua non, or "cause-in-fact" causation, or condicio sine qua non, is a circumstance in which a certain act is a material cause of a certain injury or wrongdoing, without which the injury would not have occurred. It is established by the "but-for" test: but for the act having occurred, the injury would not have happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_qua_non#"But-for&quo...
1) Fully agree with Taña: It is necessary to respect the KudoZ rules. 2) The English source sentence is in my view grammatically very rare. In my opinion, the right structure should be: But for the defendent's negligence, the plaintiff would not have been injured. = If it had not been for the defendent's negligence, the plaintiff would not have been injured. This is the way it seems right to me, what we call in English "conditional type III".
UNIVERSIDAD DEL AZUAY Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas ... 201.159.222.99 › bitstream › datos by RA Castro Tello - 2019 - Related articles Ahora bien, dependiendo de la interpretación del pretor, el demandante podía ejercer ya .... La opinión reza: “Esto es más claro acerca del siervo herido, ... propiedad sobre cosas mancipii, donde no hubiera el resultado muerte. ...... El daño no hubiera ocurrido *** si no fuera por la negligencia del demandado*** (but-for test). 3.
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
12 mins confidence:
but for the defendent's negligence, the plaintiff would not have been injured.
Si no fuera por la negligencia del acusado, el demandante no hubiera resultado herido
Explanation: Mi opinión
Fiorella Garabano Argentina Local time: 04:28 Native speaker of: Spanish PRO pts in category: 8