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.
Cookie settings
unblind --> deblinderen?
carbon footprint
This question was closed without grading. Reason: Errant question
Jul 15, 2009 13:50
14 yrs ago
English term

providing that . . . (zie a.u.b. beneden)

English to Dutch Law/Patents Law: Contract(s) inboedelpolis
Het gaat mij niet om de term. Ik zie even door de bomen het bos niet meer. Het lijkt erop dat ze eerst zeggen voor niets aansprakelijk te zijn, en daarna opeens weer voor alles. Wat zie ik hier over het hoofd?

The Company is expressly declared to the free from liability for loss of, or damage to, any electrical machine, apparatus or any portion of the electrical installation arising from, or occasioned by overrunning, excessive pressure, short-circuiting, arching, self-heating or leakage of electricity from whatever cause (lightning not included) arising. Providing that this exemption shall not apply to the particular electrical installation so affected and not to other machines, apparatus or electrical installation destroyed or damaged by fire set up by such particular machine, apparatus or other electrical installation.
Proposed translations (Dutch)
2 -1 mijn interpretatie

Discussion

vixen Jul 23, 2009:
Thanks, Manuel Must be terribly frustrating!
Marianne
Manuel Maduro (asker) Jul 23, 2009:
Actually, my dear Vixen, it's still pitch black around here. I asked the client about it and haven't heard from them ever since. As soon as things clear up a little, I'll let you know.
vixen Jul 23, 2009:
Errant question? Please don't keep us in suspense. Did the text suddenly become crystal clear? I'm curious to know how you managed to solve the riddle and what the text is actually trying to convey. ;-)
Lianne van de Ven Jul 15, 2009:
Yes, not the author, the client.... :-)
Jack den Haan Jul 15, 2009:
My advice: 1. Contact the client (not necessarily the author) and get this messy source clarified. 2. If clarification is not provided, then that is client's responsibility, not yours. Translate as literally as possible and include the source in a Translator's Note in the form of footnote. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with an accurate, more or less literal translation of nonsensical source text if that's the only way out.
Manuel Maduro (asker) Jul 15, 2009:
nonsense They certainly seem to be working very hard at it!
Lianne van de Ven Jul 15, 2009:
nonsense You sometimes wonder if that's actually the purpose...
Chris Hopley Jul 15, 2009:
no sense I agree that it makes no sense. So poorly phrased, even taking into account OCR errors, that I have no idea at all what they might have been trying to say...
Manuel Maduro (asker) Jul 15, 2009:
Your mere co-confusion brings me a measure of relief.
Lianne van de Ven Jul 15, 2009:
I thought of that but in that case it says it is free of liability occasioned by (list of things that can go wrong).... providing that that doesn't apply to damage by fire. Which is strange: they are not responsible for all kinds of damages except for those caused by fire...?
Manuel Maduro (asker) Jul 15, 2009:
I have been trying to make sense of it by correcting the punctuation as follows (I'm pretty sure the text was OCRed)

The Company is expressly declared to be free from liability for loss of, or damage to, any electrical machine, apparatus or any portion of the electrical installation arising from, or occasioned by overrunning, excessive pressure, short-circuiting, arching, self-heating or leakage of electricity from whatever cause (lightning not included) arising, providing that this exemption shall not apply to the particular electrical installation so affected and not to other machines, apparatus or electrical installation destroyed or damaged by fire set up by such particular machine, apparatus or other electrical installation.
Lianne van de Ven Jul 15, 2009:
incomplete sentence It's lacking a verb: Provided that blah blah.... and then nothing.
You are right, no way to make sense out if the text. Contact author.

Proposed translations

-1
31 mins

mijn interpretatie

Hieronder mijn interpretatie van wat er mogelijk bedoeld zou kunnen worden:

De schade aan de machine/het installatieonderdeel dat de schade veroorzaakt wordt niet vergoed indien deze schade het gevolg is van (de opsomming). Eventuele vervolgschade aan de installatie of vervolgschade aan andere apparatuur die wordt veroorzaakt door brand als gevolg van genoemde problemen bij de/het als eerste genoemde machine/installatieonderdeel wordt echter wél vergoed.

Zonder een deugdelijke brontekst blijft het echter een gok. Je zult de klant daarom om uitleg of (bij voorkeur) om een betere brontekst moeten vragen.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 34 mins (2009-07-15 14:24:16 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

error (must be contagious): De schade aan de machine/het installatieonderdeel zelf wordt niet vergoed...
Peer comment(s):
disagree Karel Thijs : De brontekst is erg gebrekkig, daar zijn we het allemaal over eens, maar het lijkt in elk geval niet logisch dat een bedrijf zich niet aansprakelijk zou stellen voor hoofdschade maar wel voor gevolgschade. Het omgekeerde ligt veel meer voor de hand.
24 mins
We zijn het er gelukkig allemaal over eens dat de brontekst niet deugt en dat de vertaling ervan een gok is. Jouw aanname is echter niet logisch. Als de problematische machine wordt vergoed, zal de vervolgschade ongetwijfeld ook worden vergoed.
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search