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.
It also depends on what follows; it might well be "Under this guarantee, the Seller shall replace at its discretion either the faulty part, or the entire equipment." In that instance, the obligation to replace something is clear, but the Seller still has the right to decide which part. So as ever, the surrounding context can so easily change everything.
Oui. Soit un "will" initial a été remplacé par "shall", soit un "shall" a été ajouté sans qu'on prenne la peine de lire la suite! En effet, de deux choses l'une: "the Seller shall replace..." (obligation) ou "the Seller [will] replace at its discretion..." (choix). Du temps où l'on ajoutait un "doit" pour chaque shall ("le vendeur doit remplacer à sa discrétion") on aurait noté l'incongruité; aujourd'hui, l'emploi du présent (le vendeur remplace à sa discrétion...) la rend invisible.
Just worth noting that, for those of us old enough to still use the classic forms of the verb "to be", "I will" or "we will" connote willingness or determination (volonté) to do whatever. Hence the use of "I will", not "I shall" in the marriage ceremony. In a legal document an expression of willingness is generally (but not always) inappropriate.
Vous marquez un point! Mea culpa! :-) Mais ma seconde suggestion - un libellé contenant un verbe au futur... - (cf. www.itu.int) ne devrait pas poser ce problème. Et au risque de me répéter, s'il n'y a pas de sous-contrat ou de document intégré par renvoi susceptible de contenir une référence à cette définition (comme on lit parfois dans un document Y "les mots portant une majuscule aux présentes ont le sens qui leur est donné dans le document X."), il n'y a aucune raison de traduire. Reste que le client, lui (ou l'agence, ou le réviseur), voudra probablement savoir pourquoi vous avez "sauté" une définition! Ce pourquoi je crois que vous devriez en suggérer une, quitte à la mettre entre crochets, en surbrillance ou accompagnée d'une note.
As several of us have already explained at length, once the text is translated into FR the original problem goes away, as long as you are meticulous and consistent with your use of tenses in FR. After that, the interpretation of the persons signing the contract will be based on normal FR practice, as Germaine has kindly outlined.
que va comprendre le chef d'entreprise au contrat?
04:29 Aug 11, 2013
Le futur verbal (est interprété comme ayant le même sens impératif que) le présent simple parfaitement enrichissant mais qu'est ce que cela va vouloir dire au chef d'entreprise qui va signer le contrat ?
The "Plain Language Movement" may have some standing in North America, its writ does not extend to the UK. The similar organisation in the UK (a campaigning organisation, not a prescriptive organisation) is the "Plain English Society" (whose work I absolutely support) and it has, as far as I am aware, not called for anything as silly as using the simple present tense instead of the prescriptive "shall" when drafting legal documents. Indeed, they are very concerned about clarity, which would be lost by using the simple present tense instead of "shall". "Doors are painted red" is a statement of fact and it should only appear in a painting contract as information on the existing colour of the doors before performance of the contract. "Doors shall be painted red" is prescriptive (not imperative) and is the proper and unambiguous way to stipulate, in a contract, what colour the contractor should paint the doors.
If you are talking about FR, then I bow to your superior knowledge. In most of the documents of this type I get in FR>EN, I agree that in 95% of cases it is not hard to decide whether the simple present in FR needs to be translated as prescriptive or not. However, the situation is more tricky in EN; certainly, if a writer consistently uses 'shall', it makes for clear and unambiguous interpretation — and I'm sure it is for this reason that this form survives in legal and similar fields, outside of which it tends to appear quaint and archaic. However, I was brought up in the old school where tender documents etc. were written this way, and I do find that reverting to the simple present throughout makes for ambiguity and less-clear understanding. I have often encountered EN documents draughted this way, or been constrained by customer requirements to write my own translations in this style, and I have to say that to my mind it sits often awkwardly and sometimes downright confusingly. "All doors shall be painted red." — I am perfectly happy with that; "Doors are painted red." still sounds a little awkward to me, as if taking about some fait accompli.
L'emploi du présent simple dans un texte juridique pour traduire une obligation ("shall (verb)") ne pose vraiment aucun problème. Aucune distinction ne s'impose par rapport à un présent "ordinaire" (s'il en est!). Le sens impératif se dénote en contexte. Plusieurs prônent même l'abandon pur et simple de "shall" en anglais au profit du simple présent. Voir, par exemple: http://asp.revues.org/742?lang=en
I totally agree with Germaine: this is NOT the future, and the problem you are going to have is how to render this 'obligation' in FR in the first place, given that it may well also be muddled up with other 'genuine' present tenses.
1. Si "will" est absent de tout le texte, il n'y a pas lieu de traduire cette définition qui aurait dû être biffée de la version anglaise au départ, puisqu'elle n'a pas d'occurrence. (Les avocats utilisent couramment des précédents pour la rédaction de contrats et il arrive tout aussi couramment qu'ils "oublient" de vérifier que toutes les définitions/abréviations sont pertinentes dans la nouvelle mouture. Le cas échéant, je le mentionne au client qui, dans 99% des cas, corrige la version anglaise.) 2. Il ne s'agit pas de l'expression "du futur", mais de l'obligation; en principe, vous êtes déjà dans la version française.
I think that you and I both belong to a generation that was taught to 'speak proper' — but I maintain my assertion that current usage (i.e. not pedantic old fuddy-duddies like me!) has almost completely lost the use of 'shall' in the first person future, and using it tends to attract accusations of 'talking posh' etc. None of my current EN-speaking friends uses it regularly in conversation.
Platary (X)
@ Tony
17:44 Aug 9, 2013
Bien l'exemple de Cendrillon. Pour rendre les choses encore un peu plus tricky, la variante "tu vas aller au bal" n'est pas à négliger.
Your explanation is fine, there is just one point that worries me: in a lot of the FR docs I get for translation into EN, the present tense is used in some places where just a normal present tense is required, and equally, when a compound prescriptive 'shall' is required. It is often quite tricky to sort out which is which; so when this document is translated from EN > FR, I fear a number of simple present tenses in EN are going to be translated into simple present tenses in FR, but without their needing to be prescriptive. Is there a way to guard against this removal of differentiation, other than as I have suggested by the clumsy use of 'devoir'?
This definition is probably to guard against drafters who don't understand when to use will and when to use shall, or against Scottish usage.
I think it was Fowler who told the story of the Scotsman who drowned in the Thames because he shouted "I will drown, nobody shall save me!" and the Englishman who drowned in the Clyde because he shouted "I shall drown, nobody will save me!"
Comme le mentionne Tony, dans un document juridique, le shall... "prescriptive" se traduit par l'emploi du verbe au présent et "will", évidemment, par l'emploi du futur. Somme toute, cet énoncé se traduirait par quelque chose comme "L'emploi du futur est interprété comme indicatif de l'obligation au même titre que l'emploi du présent."
Comme le mentionne Adrien, c'est une recommandation superflue pour la version française. Mais on peut contourner peut-être par : "le verbe "devoir" aura, par les présentes, la signification d'une "obligation contractuelle".
In equivalent documents, FR tends to use the present tense for this 'prescriptive' sense of 'shall', and the simple future tense for the En compound future tense'. That in itself needs no explanation, but the problem is how to indicate in the FR translation when a present tense is a simply present, and when it is a prescriptive one? I think Asker may have no choice but to use 'devoir' throughout, but this is clearly going to be very cumbersome if (as may be expected) there are very many occurrences.
Platary (X)
09:48 Aug 9, 2013
Il serait très curieux de traduire cette recommandation qui ne concerne a priori que le texte anglais. Cela aurait-il du sens en français et si oui, lequel ?
If you have correctly translated these two terms throughout your document, this instruction is completely redundant, as you will already have dealt with the problem; as such, it would simply add confusion!
However, given the way the prescriptive use of 'shall' is usually rendered in FR, you will need to be incredibly careful — and in fact, you may need to add another quite different explanation, to make that even more tricky point perfectly clear...
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
31 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): -3
les formes du futur "will " et "shall" sont équivalentes
Explanation: je dirais
Ellen Kraus Austria Local time: 08:27 Specializes in field Native speaker of: German PRO pts in category: 89
Grading comment
dans le cas présent malheureusement c'est bien le cas
peer agreement (net): -3