О внесении изменений в некоторые акты Президента Российской Федерации

16:37 Feb 14, 2019 

We can also specify that these acts are legislations and not (Actions). E.g. amendments to the Legislative acts

13:25 Feb 14, 2019 

Добавить legal instruments. I thought about it but numerous references convinced me that within the proper contexts "legal" is implied. Still, sounds better indeed.

12:55 Feb 14, 2019 

Надо писать "Дистрибуторы и девелоперы договорились с байерами и имплементировали свой акт" От переводчиков одни проблемы...

Миша, отвечаю по-русски. Вряд ли Вы предполагаете, что я не знаю,что такое act в юридической терминологии, а также что этого не знает опытный переводчик-Аскер. Но мы не имеем дело ни с законом, ни с подзаконным актом. Это мне немного напомнило нашу первую встречу по поводу Joinder and Severance:-). Я прекрасно понимаю его сомнения и у меня здесь претензии и к русским авторам. По сути, здесь требуется "дженерик" для "документов". Нельзя назвать как угодно, а потом иметь дело с основным текстом, который назван "Указом" и конкретно говорит только об "указах". И наконец, на мое ухо certain acts by the President однозначно звучит как "некоторые действия со стороны", во всяком случае при первом, автоматическом восприятии.

08:45 Feb 14, 2019 

the "acts" in your quote are synonymous to "actions" and as such refer to something totally different from what is being discussed here ("действия" vs "акты" in the legislative sense, meaning regulations, orders, directives, etc.). Consequently, the usage in this example does not transfer readily to "acts" as presidential edicts or other official documents. Again, it may be a subtle enough difference, but it would be enough to land you in the torture chambers down below if you were, say, a Stirlitz:)))

08:37 Feb 14, 2019 

as long as you are consistent and your client likes the word. Acts, orders, directives, even edicts, perhaps, would all be fine. I would still call them acts myself because there is really no point in deviating from the letter of the original for no discernible gain (to be sure, you can, and should, deviate, but you have to have a specific reason to do so). What I wouldn't do is call them acts of the "Russian President". The difference here may be fairly subtle but it lowers the register of the phrase below what would be appropriate in the title of an official legal act. For the life of me, I do not see myself calling them "instruments" either. I mean, "legal instruments" or "execute an instrument," sure, that works - but instruments" by/of the President? I don't think so.

23:54 Feb 13, 2019 

Так скажет следователь или Конгресс США:-)

4505.18 Prohibited acts.
(A) No person shall do any of the following:

(1) Operate in this state a motor vehicle for which a certificate of title is required without having that certificate in accordance with this chapter or, if a physical certificate of title has not been issued for a motor vehicle, operate the motor vehicle in this state knowing that the ownership information relating to the vehicle has not been entered into the automated title processing system by a clerk of a court of common pleas;