concatenación con el derecho

17:42 May 27, 2020 

"Concatenation" is a very rarely used word in common English parlance. If somebody wants to sound pretentious, they could use the word to mean "linkage." I suspect it's also the case with the use of the word concatenación in Spanish.

Literal translations don't work in all cases, as they can sound unnatural and confuse the reader. In my opinion, part of our job is to clarify meanings as much as possible so that the reader can quickly and unambiguously understand what the source text is communicating. By default, I prefer to tone down any pompous language or legalese and get to the heart of the matter, unless the client specifically wants a literal translation.

17:10 May 27, 2020 

I understand your point, and you are right if we are talking about the interpretation of concatenación which means: "Su relación" con el Derecho "Su cumplimiento" con el Derecho, "Su Vinculación" con el Derecho, su conexión al Derecho, su apego al Derecho, but concatenación is just a word and not a legal term, so, concatenation can be used in English if you are looking to translate it literally and it will be completely fine, but if you are looking to interpretet the term and explain it, then I agree completely with you.

16:28 May 27, 2020 

Answerer Ramon Armora writes:
"Royal Decree-Law 10/2011, 26th august,
has modified the dichotomy between the restricted legal
concatenation and the illegal concatenation of temporary
employment contracts, which was introduced by the reforms of
2006 and 2010." "concatenation is used by Judge Harris Hartz, I'm guessing he knows more than we do... so, no solipsism here."
Answer: The quote and comment of Mr. Armora both appear to be inapt. "Concatenation" as used in the Armora quote has nothing to do with interpreting the law and everything to do with certain facts which do not relate to the present question -- namely facts of improper linking of temporary employments in sequence.

06:02 May 27, 2020 

In that case, since it's not clear whether they're referring to the legal bases nor the legal implications, then how about translating it as legal considerations? It's a bit more general and could potentially encompass both bases and implications (and thus all the legal 'links').

If a text is vague enough to encompass more than one meaning, you, as the translator, also have the option to be equally ambiguous. It would be best if you covered the multiple possible meanings in a way similar to the original.

05:28 May 27, 2020 

The document only mentions hechos comunicacionales twice and doesn't elaborate any further on them. The application for constitutional interpretation was not an appeal per se, it was an attorney who filed and acted on her own initiative (pro se). The application called for the Constitutional Division (of the Venezuelan Supreme Court) to review a few articles of of Venezuelan Constitution in relation to the legitimacy (of lack thereof) of a government official holding position as an attorney general. The considerations section mentioned some fishy acts between that government official and members of the National Assembly, so it's like that the hechos comunicacionales was between them (though no indication who issued those).

05:15 May 27, 2020 

but again I will say that as the translator, and the person in charge, you have to decide

05:11 May 27, 2020 

·founded in law" is the way I would go

20:50 May 26, 2020 

Can you confirm what sort of hechos comunicacionales they are referring to? Are they official notices from an authority or the correspondence between the authority and the appellant?

The phrase concatenación con el derecho ("linkage" with the law) is quite vague because it's not immediately clear whether they're referring to the legal basis (as Robert suggests) or the legal implications or ramifications (as Phil suggests). In my view, it could be argued both ways.

@Asker: Would you be able to clarify which of the above meanings is most likely the most accurate, taking into account the wider context? Are they referring to the legal substantiation of the communications or the legal effects that these communications have caused?