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.
the undersigned, a notary public (...) personally known to me
French translation: que je connais personnellement ou...
07:46 Jun 14, 2019
English to French translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law (general) / Bill of sale
English term or phrase:the undersigned, a notary public (...) personally known to me
Je comprends le sens mais suis un peu perplexe quant à la tournure de la phrase. N'avez-vous pas l'impression qu'il manque un mot, avant "personally know to me" ? Est-il sous-entendu ? Help please!
"On this day, before me the undersigned, a notary public in and for the state of X personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and he/she acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her capacity and that by his/her signature on the instrument, the individual or person on behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument. XXX, Notary public."
Explanation: ...que je connais personnellement ou qui m'a prouvé, sur la base des éléments de preuve satisfaisants, qu'il est effectivement la personne dont la signature apparaît sur l'acte çi-joint, et qui m'a affirmé...
Bear in mind who this is about: N = the notary; P = the person whose signature is being notarized (confirmed as authentic). Before notarizing a document (i.e., placing an official seal on the document that confirms it as authentic), the notary has to be sure that the person presenting the document for notarization actually is the person who signed the document.
If the notary knows the person socially or professionally (i.e., "personally"), then the notary does not need to see identification papers; if the notary doesn't know them, then they must review identification papers before notarizing the document.
Here's an off-the-cuff grammatical analysis to show who's doing what in the English sentence:
On this day, before me [N], [P], whom I know personally or who has proven to me with satisfactory evidence [i.e., passport/driver's license/other suitable proof of identity] that they [P] are the individual whose name is subscribed [i.e., signed at the bottom] to the within instrument [i.e. document]...
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 6 hrs (2019-06-14 14:29:19 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
PS: This notarial statement could appear immediately below the signature of P (the person affirming that they executed the document). It would then be implying that P is the person the notary is talking about.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 6 hrs (2019-06-14 14:30:41 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
@ Asker: see my PS. Somewhere in the document the identity of P must be stated. Usually notarial statements and seals appear below the signature of the "P" in question. This could be a contract that P signed, and now N (the notary) is placing the notarial statement and seal below P's signature to confirm that P's signature is genuine.
Je me serais mal exprimé ? J'ai écrit : « ...c'est que vous avez ajouté « [Nom de la personne] », que je ne vois pas dans le texte source... ». Par contre, effectivement, j'ai zappé votre ligne d'intro concernant l'oubli.
Merci, Ph_B. Deux précisions, toutefois: je n’ai pas "ajouté for the state of X [???] personally known to me (relisez la question). J’ai "ajouté [Nom de la personne]" entre crochets après avoir mentionné que je soulignerais cet "oubli" au client... Nous sommes d’accord: le choix d’insérer (ou pas) le nom du signataire demeure le privilège du client.
Ph_B (X)
France
Germaine,
17:07 Jun 17, 2019
Le seul point d'interrogation concernant votre traduction, c'est que vous avez ajouté « [Nom de la personne] », que je ne vois pas dans le texte source et qui, s'il y avait été inclus, n'aurait probablement pas entraîné cette question. La phrase aurait été claire. La phrase anglaise n'est pas maladroite (on peut en consulter suffisamment d'exemples) mais il y manque par contre ce que vous y avez justement ajouté : for the state of X [???] personally known to me. Il est plus que probable que c'est ainsi que le texte aurait dû être rédigé (cf. les exemples que j'ai cités et le fait qu'on ne trouve aucune occurrence du texte tel qu'il nous est présenté) et vous avez bien fait de le traduire ainsi, du moins tant qu'on ne connaîtra pas la cause de cette absence. J'aurais simplement ajouté à mon commentaire qu'il faut signaler au client la décision qu'on a prise et pour quelle raison et le laisser décider en connaissance de cause.
Je ne suis pas copiste. Quand je reçois un texte à traduire qui n’a ni queue ni tête ou qui prête à interprétation, je considère que c’est "ma job" d’en aviser le client. Si aucune correction n’est apportée, bien sûr, je vais traduire ce qui est. Reste que "traduire" n’est pas copier un mot après l’autre; pour moi, ça consiste à rendre une idée de façon qu’elle soit perçue de la même façon dans les deux langues. Et comme tous les goûts sont dans la nature, je considère les "améliorations" comme très suggestives et je les évite; chacun a effectivement droit à son style.
Eliza, this is not about "changing" a content or translating by anything that it is not! I’m not a lawyer, but I have been closely working with lawyers for more than 15 years and I perfectly know that I can’t "change" what a text says for what it might be meaning! My comment is about the "clumsy written" translation of a "clumsy text" for "it isn’t our job to make the original writer seem like a better writer".
Combien de fois lit-on dans ces pages qu’une phrase est clumsy, awkward, nonsense, (very) bad english, etc.? J’ai constaté plus d’une fois que ces affirmations dépendent de celui qui lit. Quand on a l’habitude des textes légaux (contrats, actes notariés, jugements, etc.), il y a bien moins de maladresses, de non-sens et "d’impossibilités" que certains le croient!
Pour ma part, je ne considère pas le texte soumis comme "clumsy". Il est lourd, certes, et révèle cet archaïsme souvent associé au "legalese", mais ce genre de formules circulent pratiquement inchangées dans les guides de rédaction des notaires et des avocats depuis Matusalem. Je considère que j’en ai fait une traduction fidèle, rédigée correctement, même si certains pourront la trouver "maladroite".
Simple principle: We cannot change legal documents. What it says in language A is what it needs to say in language B.
Remember that I'm not just a translator, but also a lawyer and a certified court interpreter. I CANNOT change a legal document. I CANNOT change what someone said in court. That would be a violation of the ethical rules governing my profession. If a witness, while testifying, says something vulgar or stupid, I translate it as something equally vulgar or stupid. If a legal document is unclear, I translate it equally unclearly--because the client needs to know that it's written that way; it could make the difference between filing or winning a lawsuit, and not filing one or losing one.
If I'm translating a software manual or a literary text, something with no legal implications, then there is more room to embroider or improve. If I'm translating marketing or pedagogical documents, then sure, I might completely change an expression to make it "feel like" a similar document in English.
But in this case, we're talking about a legal document.
Sometimes texts are clumsily written... In that case we translate them into clumsy [French/language]. You can’t be serious!! Je ne vois pas comment un professionnel pourrait accepter de saboter sa réputation pour "ne pas faire en sorte que le rédacteur puisse paraître meilleur qu’il ne l’est". Faudrait qu’il soit vraiment en amour cul-par-dessus-tête! Ou alors déjà incapable d’aligner deux mots correctement! Pour moi, "garbage in, garbage out" ne justifiera jamais de faire honte au client en plus. Et je ne vois pas non plus qu’il puisse accepter de payer pour ça!
I don't know what your reference to "ST" means, Daryo, but the meaning of Sara's text is clear even though it is clumsily phrased. The text appears below a signature -- let's say the signature says, "Bob Smith." That name is implied in the text by the very nature of the text (a notarial statement as to the authenticity of a signature):
"[Bob Smith's signature] On this day, before me the undersigned, a notary public in and for the state of X [Bob Smith] personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and he/she acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her capacity and that by his/her signature on the instrument, the individual or person on behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument. XXX, Notary public."
Sometimes texts are clumsily written, but we still know what they mean. In that case we translate them into clumsy French (or whatever our target language is). It isn't our job to make the original writer seem like a better writer than they are; it's just our job to translate what it says.
your proposed translation would make perfect sense if "personally known to me" was part of an ST that makes sense.
But as the ST makes no sense (as resulting from some botched copy-pasting?) I would see as "helping the Asker" trying first to fix the ST - see what's missing. A good translation for a fragment that is part of some nonsense is not of much help ...
@Germaine
The Schrodinger Cat is at the same time dead and alive while still being one cat in one place - It think you had in mind "entangled particles" - acting as one particle while being in two different places - there are some rules and logic even in the quantum weirdness ...
@ Renate: No, not joking -- the original text doesn't include any verb that means "appeared"/a comparu. It's implied (but not stated) in the English, so the translator should imply it in the French as well.
If we were translating into a language where that could not be implied -- that is, where you needed such a verb because the absence of one meant the person did NOT appear -- then sure, use that language's equivalent of "comparaître." But French isn't like that.
@ Germaine: I like your reference to Schrodinger (haha). But given that this notarial statement appears right below the signature of the person whose signature is being notarized, the statement is referring to that person and doesn't need to repeat their name.
Pour ma part, voici ce que je remettrais au client - en soulignant « l’oubli » :
Ce jour, devant moi soussigné, notaire public dans et pour l’État de XX, [Nom de la personne], que je connais personnellement ou qui m’a donné preuve satisfaisante qu’il/qu’elle est le particulier dont le nom figure sur l’instrument ci-attaché, et il/elle reconnaît devant moi qu’il/qu’elle a signé ès qualité ledit document et que par sa signature dudit instrument, ce particulier ou la personne pour le compte de laquelle il agit a passé ledit instrument. XXX, notaire public
En partant, « before me » suppose qu’il y a deux personnes; même s’il s’appelait Schrödinger, le notaire public ne peut pas se trouver à la fois en un endroit et « devant » lui-même.
Il est d’autant plus étonnant qu’aucun espace ne soit prévu pour la mention du nom de la personne en question qu’il est certain que le notaire public ne peut signer pour lui-même une déclaration à l’effet qu’il se connaît personnellement ou qu’il s’est prouvé à lui-même qu’il est lui-même. Pour ce faire, il doit s’adresser à un (autre) notaire public, comme le commun des mortels. Il est donc possible que le client ait « ambitionné » sur les X ou biffé ce nom par souci de confidentialité, mais il en faut un, sinon, l’attestation perd sa valeur puisqu’elle peut s’attacher à n’importe quel autre document - à l’insu du notaire public "soussigné" qui devra néanmoins répondre de sa signature.
It is more common for notarial statements to say the person "personally appeared" or "appeared before me," but I think that is sufficiently implied in this text. The notary could not have recognized the person (if "personally known to me") or heard their acknowledgement that they executed the document if the person were not present before the notary.
So because the English doesn't actually say "appeared before me," you do have to avoid SAYING that they appeared in the translation -- phrases like "a comparu devant moi" are out. But yes, Sara, "il est sous-entendu" that the person was physically present before the notary. The main points are: (1) I, the notary, confirmed this person's identity either because I know them personally or because I checked their ID; and (2) this person acknowledged that it was their signature on the document.
Ph_B (X)
France
À tout hasard...
14:26 Jun 14, 2019
before me personally appeared_________________________________ (name of signer) ), whom I know personally...<p>https://www.notaryofamerica.com/downloads/arizona-sample-for... <p>... personally appeared___________, (name of document signer) proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, ...<p>https://members.usnotaries.net/files/Massachusetts_Notary_Ce......Before me, (insert the name and character of the officer), on this day personally appeared ____________________, known to me (or proved to me on the oath of ______________ or...<p>https://www.sos.state.tx.us/statdoc/forms/edinfo-sample-form... pas une recherche exhaustive et bien que la formule elle-même varie en fonction de la nature du doc, le signer est nommé à chaque fois, ce qui rend qd même les choses plus claires. Vérifier le texte source avec votre client ?
@Renate Radziwill-Rall Oui, je connais la formule mais elle n'apparaît pas en anglais. Il n'y a ni nom cité ni "personally appeared"... Merci tout de même !
@Yvonne Gallagher Many many thanks! It's still a little bit messy but I will try with something like "Devant moi, notaire soussigné connaissant personnellement le nom de l'individu susmentionné ou l'ayant reconnu comme signataire au moyen de..." Thanks again
It must be there? it says that the name of X (the individual whose name) is subscribed to within instrument so I would put that name (of X) before "personally known to me"
@Yvonne Gallagher I'm 100% with you, the only thing is that this "X" individual is not mentioned in the document - as I think it should be - before "personally known to me". That's why I don't know how to make it work in French.
@Renate Radziwill-Rall La phrase est comme je l'ai citée dans la question . Il n'est pas indiqué le nom d'une personne : "before me the undersigned, a notary public in and for the state of X personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence"
Editing this now: There's nothing missing as it's a common phrase. It just means that the undersigned (me) has seen/met X before and thus knows who he/she is, and /or X can prove his/her identity "on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed..."
J'ai l'impression que le notaire a surtout signé au nom de l'acheteur, d'où l'absence de la formule "personally appeared". Qu'en pensez-vous ? Cf: "Key wording of an acknowledgment is “personally appeared.” It is not acceptable to affix an acknowledgment to a document mailed or otherwise delivered to a notary public whereby the signer did NOT personally appear before the notary public, even if the signer is known by the notary public. Also, it is not acceptable to affix a notary public seal and signature to a document without the notarial wording." https://notary.cdn.sos.ca.gov/forms/notary-handbook-2005.pdf
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
6 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): +2
que je connais personnellement ou...
Explanation: ...que je connais personnellement ou qui m'a prouvé, sur la base des éléments de preuve satisfaisants, qu'il est effectivement la personne dont la signature apparaît sur l'acte çi-joint, et qui m'a affirmé...
Bear in mind who this is about: N = the notary; P = the person whose signature is being notarized (confirmed as authentic). Before notarizing a document (i.e., placing an official seal on the document that confirms it as authentic), the notary has to be sure that the person presenting the document for notarization actually is the person who signed the document.
If the notary knows the person socially or professionally (i.e., "personally"), then the notary does not need to see identification papers; if the notary doesn't know them, then they must review identification papers before notarizing the document.
Here's an off-the-cuff grammatical analysis to show who's doing what in the English sentence:
On this day, before me [N], [P], whom I know personally or who has proven to me with satisfactory evidence [i.e., passport/driver's license/other suitable proof of identity] that they [P] are the individual whose name is subscribed [i.e., signed at the bottom] to the within instrument [i.e. document]...
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 6 hrs (2019-06-14 14:29:19 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
PS: This notarial statement could appear immediately below the signature of P (the person affirming that they executed the document). It would then be implying that P is the person the notary is talking about.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 6 hrs (2019-06-14 14:30:41 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
@ Asker: see my PS. Somewhere in the document the identity of P must be stated. Usually notarial statements and seals appear below the signature of the "P" in question. This could be a contract that P signed, and now N (the notary) is placing the notarial statement and seal below P's signature to confirm that P's signature is genuine.
Eliza Hall United States Local time: 12:04 Specializes in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 80
Notes to answerer
Asker: Thank you so much for your answer! I perfectly understand the sentence as you explained it but the thing is there is no [P] in the original sentence. It's like [P] and [N] are the same, which is why I am having so much trouble. But maybe the [P] is implied in this case.
Asker: Thanks a million! You are perfectly right, this notarial statement appears below the box "Signature of buyer / transferor". At last I understand it. Thank you again for everything, you saved my day.
peer agreement (net): +2