Jun 30, 2017 16:36
6 yrs ago
25 viewers *
Spanish term
toda vez que éste advino a la mayoría de edad
Spanish to English
Medical
Law (general)
Child Support
From a resolution relieving a father from child support payments:
Se releva al Sr. García del pago de pensión a favor de su hijo, toda vez que éste advino a la mayoría de edad.
Se releva al Sr. García del pago de pensión a favor de su hijo, toda vez que éste advino a la mayoría de edad.
Proposed translations
(English)
| 4 +9 | since he became of legal age |
Robert Carter
|
| 4 +1 | since he has reached legal age / majority |
Charles Davis
|
Proposed translations
+9
7 mins
Robert Carter
Mexico
Mexico
Native in English
Specializes in field
Mexico
Translating full-time since 1998
Native in: English (Variant: British) 
Works in: Spanish to English
Related KudoZ points
:
1376
Selected
since he became of legal age
mayoría de edad > legal age
Example sentence:
"Riggs, and the bulk of the estate to Elmer Palmer to be cared for by his mother, Susan Palmer, the widow of a dead son of the testator, until he became of legal age."
"However, in 1961 at the time of the adoption I was told by the adoption agency that when my child became of legal age he would have access to his birth certificate."
Reference:
https://www6.dict.cc/wp_examples.php?lp_id=1&lang=en&s=of%20legal%20age
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2017/pddata/tmy/2017SB-00977-R000322-Hook,%20Diane%20M.-TMY.PDF
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Toni Castano
: A pleasure to see you here again.
7 mins
|
|
Very kind, Toni, the feeling is mutual :-)
|
|
| agree |
Robert Forstag
10 mins
|
|
Thanks, Robert.
|
|
| agree |
franglish
21 mins
|
|
Thanks, Franglish.
|
|
| agree |
Carmen Blazquez
22 mins
|
|
Thanks, Carmen.
|
|
| agree |
Cristina Zavala
34 mins
|
|
Thanks, Christina.
|
|
| agree |
neilmac
1 hr
|
|
Thanks, Neil.
|
|
| agree |
AllegroTrans
3 hrs
|
|
Thanks, Chris.
|
|
| agree |
Michele Fauble
4 hrs
|
|
Thanks, Michele.
|
|
| agree |
JohnMcDove
5 hrs
|
|
Thanks, John.
|
|
| neutral |
Charles Davis
: Sorry, Robert, but I don't agree with "became"; I think it has to be "has become". This American pretérito indefinido (advino) has present perfect sense. With "became", "since" will be wrongly understood as temporal (since then). // See disc.
17 hrs
|
|
No problem, Charles. You make an interesting point very eloquently as usual. I think changing "since" to "because" would eliminate any ambiguity, although I disagree with your point on the present perfect removing ambiguity. Saludos!
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Selected automatically based on peer agreement."
+1
17 hrs
since he has reached legal age / majority
I am slightly intimidated by the number of "agrees" for Robert's answer, but I disagree with it. Let me explain why.
"Toda vez que" is causal; it means "since" in the sense of "because", or "given that":
"La expresión toda vez que —por supuesto, correctísima en nuestra lengua— es una locución conjuntiva. Funciona como una conjunción causal, y equivale aproximadamente a la conjunción causal porque, o a las también locuciones conjuntivas causales puesto que o ya que."
http://www.fundeu.es/noticia/gazapos-y-tropezones-mas-veces-...
Well now, since in English obviously has two different meanings: temporal since (during the period of time between a point in the past and now) and causal since (because, given that). Thus it can sometimes be ambiguous, and some people take the view that causal since should be entirely avoided:
https://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/using-sinc...
I don't agree with that, in fact I think it's absurd. Causal since is perfectly valid usage, and it's an accurate translation of toda vez que. However, the trouble is that with the past simple, since he became, any English speaker will understand since to be temporal: during the period starting from when he became. And that's not the meaning. In order for since to be understood correctly as causal, you must use a present perfect: since he has become. At least, that is certainly true in British English; since he became is not ambiguous. Perhaps it is in American English, but even so I think it's very likely to be understood as temporal.
In any case, aside from the since problem, the past simple is wrong here. This must be American Spanish. In Spain (apart from the north west), you would say "ha advenido a la mayoría de edad". As is well known, the use of the Spanish perfect tense is more restricted in American Spanish (and in Galicia in Spain, through the influence of Portuguese). There's a lot of good material on this here:
http://hispanoteca.eu/Gramáticas/Gramática española/Perfecto...
American speakers would say ¿Ya cenaste? where in (most of) Spain we would say ¿Ya has cenado?, just as in English we would say "Have you had dinner?". (Again, maybe an American speaker would say "Did you have dinner?", but I think probably not in formal speech.)
On the other points of vocabulary, I have no problem with "become of legal age". I would prefer "reach legal age", or "reach majority" or "reach the age of majority", but all these variants are legitimate.
Maybe you could argue that "he", for este, is ambiguous, but in practice I don't think it is; I don't think there's any chance at all that someone would interpret it as referring to Sr. García rather than his son. So I don't think we need to put "the latter", though it wouldn't be wrong.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 19 hrs (2017-07-01 12:09:11 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
In fact it might be better to avoid any possibility of misintepretation by putting "because he has reached legal age".
I don't know if I explained this very well. The point is that
(1) since he became of (or reached) legal age
would mean that the son has turned 18 and since then the father hasn't had to pay any more; whereas
(2) since he has become of (or reached) legal age
would mean that the son has turned 18 and therefore the father doesn't have to pay any more.
Toda vez que means (2); (1) is wrong.
"Toda vez que" is causal; it means "since" in the sense of "because", or "given that":
"La expresión toda vez que —por supuesto, correctísima en nuestra lengua— es una locución conjuntiva. Funciona como una conjunción causal, y equivale aproximadamente a la conjunción causal porque, o a las también locuciones conjuntivas causales puesto que o ya que."
http://www.fundeu.es/noticia/gazapos-y-tropezones-mas-veces-...
Well now, since in English obviously has two different meanings: temporal since (during the period of time between a point in the past and now) and causal since (because, given that). Thus it can sometimes be ambiguous, and some people take the view that causal since should be entirely avoided:
https://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/using-sinc...
I don't agree with that, in fact I think it's absurd. Causal since is perfectly valid usage, and it's an accurate translation of toda vez que. However, the trouble is that with the past simple, since he became, any English speaker will understand since to be temporal: during the period starting from when he became. And that's not the meaning. In order for since to be understood correctly as causal, you must use a present perfect: since he has become. At least, that is certainly true in British English; since he became is not ambiguous. Perhaps it is in American English, but even so I think it's very likely to be understood as temporal.
In any case, aside from the since problem, the past simple is wrong here. This must be American Spanish. In Spain (apart from the north west), you would say "ha advenido a la mayoría de edad". As is well known, the use of the Spanish perfect tense is more restricted in American Spanish (and in Galicia in Spain, through the influence of Portuguese). There's a lot of good material on this here:
http://hispanoteca.eu/Gramáticas/Gramática española/Perfecto...
American speakers would say ¿Ya cenaste? where in (most of) Spain we would say ¿Ya has cenado?, just as in English we would say "Have you had dinner?". (Again, maybe an American speaker would say "Did you have dinner?", but I think probably not in formal speech.)
On the other points of vocabulary, I have no problem with "become of legal age". I would prefer "reach legal age", or "reach majority" or "reach the age of majority", but all these variants are legitimate.
Maybe you could argue that "he", for este, is ambiguous, but in practice I don't think it is; I don't think there's any chance at all that someone would interpret it as referring to Sr. García rather than his son. So I don't think we need to put "the latter", though it wouldn't be wrong.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 19 hrs (2017-07-01 12:09:11 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
In fact it might be better to avoid any possibility of misintepretation by putting "because he has reached legal age".
I don't know if I explained this very well. The point is that
(1) since he became of (or reached) legal age
would mean that the son has turned 18 and since then the father hasn't had to pay any more; whereas
(2) since he has become of (or reached) legal age
would mean that the son has turned 18 and therefore the father doesn't have to pay any more.
Toda vez que means (2); (1) is wrong.
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Toni Castano
: Several points at issue here, Charles. Too little room in this little box so I am replying in the discussion area. // Your point is solid and your translation very likely the only correct one: You have my support on this,
1 hr
|
|
Thank you very much, Toni. I'm very grateful to you for engaging with this so thoughtfully.
|
Discussion
Since the particular issue of how readers will understand "since" is complex, and there is no perfect agreement on the probabilities (specifically, on whether "since he became" can be understood causally here), it does seem best to avoid it altogether and use an unambiguously causal conjunction such as "because".
In that case, it comes down to whether, in this context, "because he became of legal age" or "because he reached legal age", rather than "has become" or "has reached", can be said in English. I still say no, for reasons I've tried to explain and will elaborate on further if required.
I also have the highest regard for Robert's skill and judgement, so if he disagrees with me on this tense question, I'm surprised and disconcerted, but these things happen sometimes. All I can say is that I've thought and thought again about it (and I thought about it for some time before posting an alternative answer in the first place), and I am still sure. So be it.
And:
“Our job is to translate what the original means. I find it extraordinary that you don't seem to care about this”.
You say: ”In English, "since" with the past simple, "since he became", can only be temporal; it cannot be read as causal. With past perfect [I suppose you mean here the present perfect tense, not the past perfect, or perhaps both tenses???] it is causal. The meaning, of course, is causal.”
Your basic point is that it is irrelevant what tense you use in Spanish, but when you translate this obviously LatAm sentence into English (European or American) and accepting that this “toda vez que” has a causal and NOT temporal meaning in Spanish, a key point where I fully agreed with you from the beginning, you must use the present perfect (has become/reached), as you do in your own suggestion, and not the past simple (became or reached)., as our colleague Robert did in his proposal. Summarizing: Since the actual meaning of “toda vez que” is causal here, absolutely, the present perfect use is mandatory in English. Therefore, the past simple is wrong.
1. Changing "since" to "because", as I suggested myself, would remove ambiguity, but you still have to change the tense:
"Sr. García no longer has to pay his son child support, because his son became of age."
This is ungrammatical. It has to be "because his son has become of age", doesn't it?
2. You don't agree with me that "since he has become of age" removes the ambiguity. It is not inconceivable that someone would say this meaning "since the time when he became of age", but I think it's very unlikely that a reader would understand it to mean that, and I don't think it would actually be grammatical. You can use temporal "since" with present perfect referring to a state ("since he has been here") but not to a point in time; so although you can say "since he has been of age", you can't really say "since he has become of age".
So fine, let's change "since" to "because". But not with the past simple; it can't be done.
I have already commented on the idea that there is "no semantic distinction" in Spanish. The distinction in Spanish, I suggest again, is regional; if you read "toda vez que alcanzó" in this context, you can tell that the writer comes from Latin America (or maybe Galicia or the Canary Islands), because otherwise they would have written "ha alcanzado". Seriously, would you ever say "alcanzó" in this context? But this has no bearing on the choice of tense in English. There is no simple mapping here of these two tenses between the two languages; each has its own differences. In informal American English (I think), you can use the past simple here, but otherwise not. Let's use "because" to avoid ambiguity. You can't say "the father no longer has to pay the son child support because his son reached legal age" (unless it is qualified; for example, you can say "because he reached legal age last month"). You can only say "because he has reached legal age".
In English, "since" with the past simple, "since he became", can only be temporal; it cannot be read as causal. With past perfect it is causal. The meaning, of course, is causal. Therefore "since he became" is a mistranslation, because it means "desde que alcanzó la mayoría", and that's not what "toda vez" means.
My only doubt has to do with the convenience of using past simple or present perfect in the English translation. What is better in this case bearing in mind that there´s no semantic distinction in the Spanish? I´m not sure. You natives are better qualified to judge in this respect. I tend to think, Charles, that your misgivings regarding Robert´s suggestion, when you say, “the simple past is wrong here”, might be a too rigorous opinion.