Re: [Czechlist] Elementary legal expressions from Czech to English
- At 09:59 2000/03/04 +0100, Jirka Bolech wrote:
>How do you convey things like the following into English[myI thinnk it depends in part on the expected audience. U.S. law librarians
>- zakon c'. ... Sb. ["Act ... of Digest"; I see "of Cl." as of "Collection"]
in academic settings will prefer "Sb." without any translation (or "Zb."
for Slovak, since the split). My reference for that is the Bluebook (15th
ed. p. 231; I'm sure the more recent editions track on this point). But
law librarians' "professional deformation," especially when working in
academic settings, gives them particular needs and interests.
If one assumes that a more or less typical common-law jurisdiction lawyer,
or even a layperson, is the audience, I would suggest using one of the six
combinations resulting from "Compiled|Collected Statutes|Laws|Acts," but
not the "of" forms that would be required if the "-ed" adjectives were
turned into nouns. (Of course, the "of the Czech Republic" part is fine.)
My own preference is "Collected Laws of the Czech Republic (year)." That
is, I suggest using adj+noun of the CR, not noun-of-noun of the CR.
The reason is that such adj+noun titles are the norm for comparable U.S.
works, e.g., ILCS = Illinois Compiled Statutes, MCL = Michigan Compiled
Laws, McKinney's (N.Y.) Consolidated Laws (uncompiled session laws), Nevada
Compiled Statutes, Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, etc., included
sometimes in parentheses, e.g., Alaska Laws (Compiled Statutes) (although I
think the latter is generally a librarian's note, not part of the official
title). The "Collected Laws" form is more common in non-official
compilations, typically historical, but fits the same adj+noun (not
noun-of-noun) form, and would be easy for any U.S. lawyer to understand and
I don't like "of Cl.," for two reasons. First, I think that "Coll." works
better than "Cl." for "Collect[ed|ion]." "Cl." looks more like "class" or
"clause," not "collection." Second, even where one might, speaking, say
"of" when following a division number with a work's title, U.S. written
legal citation style is to use commas instead of words. So "Act No. XXX,
Coll. 19xx" works for me.
But, since "Coll." is not, by itself, going to be very meaningful to a
non-Slavist law librarian, and a lawyer would ask a law librarian for the
full text, my practice would generally be to translate it in full once, the
first time it appears, as "Collected Laws of the Czech Republic (year)"
(even if it only said "Sbirka zakonu" without finishing the title), and put
in a parenthetical saying (hereinafter "Coll."), assuming a document that
would allow doing that (maybe without the "hereinafter").
I'd stay away from "Digest" or "Digested," and I don't think I've ever seen
anyone else use it. At least in U.S. legalese, and I think maybe in U.K.
and other jurisdictions, too, but am not certain of them, a "digest" often
implies some kind of analytical, summarizing or classifying work, not a
straight uncommented collection of full text. A web search on "legislative
digest" will show some of the kinds of things I mean.
I'd be interested in how others handle "v zneni." The sbirka cite uses "in
the wording of." But often, I'm inclined to think that "in the . . .
version . . . " (choose post- or pre-modification) or "as amended by X
thing / through Y date. . . " works better (or maybe even without
reflecting the "v" at all, just saying in a parenthetical ("text of . . ."
or ". . . version"). Opinions?
Michael Trittipo, J.D. UofMinn 1981