English term
the undersigned, a notary public (...) personally known to me
"On this day, before me the undersigned, a notary public in and for the state of X personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and he/she acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her capacity and that by his/her signature on the instrument, the individual or person on behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument. XXX, Notary public."
| 4 +2 | que je connais personnellement ou... |
Eliza Hall
|
Non-PRO (1): Yvonne Gallagher
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Proposed translations
United States
Lawyer-Translator-Certified Interpreter
Native in: English (Variants: Canadian, Irish, British, UK, US, Scottish)
Works in: French to English, English to French
que je connais personnellement ou...
Bear in mind who this is about: N = the notary; P = the person whose signature is being notarized (confirmed as authentic). Before notarizing a document (i.e., placing an official seal on the document that confirms it as authentic), the notary has to be sure that the person presenting the document for notarization actually is the person who signed the document.
If the notary knows the person socially or professionally (i.e., "personally"), then the notary does not need to see identification papers; if the notary doesn't know them, then they must review identification papers before notarizing the document.
Here's an off-the-cuff grammatical analysis to show who's doing what in the English sentence:
On this day, before me [N], [P], whom I know personally or who has proven to me with satisfactory evidence [i.e., passport/driver's license/other suitable proof of identity] that they [P] are the individual whose name is subscribed [i.e., signed at the bottom] to the within instrument [i.e. document]...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 hrs (2019-06-14 14:29:19 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
PS: This notarial statement could appear immediately below the signature of P (the person affirming that they executed the document). It would then be implying that P is the person the notary is talking about.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 hrs (2019-06-14 14:30:41 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
@ Asker: see my PS. Somewhere in the document the identity of P must be stated. Usually notarial statements and seals appear below the signature of the "P" in question. This could be a contract that P signed, and now N (the notary) is placing the notarial statement and seal below P's signature to confirm that P's signature is genuine.
| Thank you so much for your answer! I perfectly understand the sentence as you explained it but the thing is there is no [P] in the original sentence. It's like [P] and [N] are the same, which is why I am having so much trouble. But maybe the [P] is implied in this case. |
| Thanks a million! You are perfectly right, this notarial statement appears below the box "Signature of buyer / transferor". At last I understand it. Thank you again for everything, you saved my day. |
| agree |
Ph_B (X)
: personally known to me = « que je connais personnellement ». Répond à la question. Et quoi d'autre, de toute façon, quel que soit le texte source ?/In short, your answer is correct - what else could the ST mean?
18 mins
|
|
Désolée, je ne comprends en fait pas ce que vous dites, là.
|
|
| agree |
Yvonne Gallagher
: I knew the name of X was there somewhere (since it said it was)! I was going to suggest present tense 'je connais' but decided to leave it to French natives to phrase
1 hr
|
| neutral |
Germaine
: "subscribed" = écrit = le nom est mentionné/figure sur le document; 1er executed in his/her capacity = signé ès qualité = signataire autorisé; 2nd executed : passé = formally approved/authorised/validated
4 hrs
|
| neutral |
Daryo
: yes, that's what would make sense, but the way it's phrased it looks like it's the person whose signature is being authenticated is the one confirming knowing personally the notary => the ST makes no sense as it is.
23 hrs
|
|
Not sure why my translation gets a "neutral" when the problem is in the original text. It sounds a little weird but we know, in context, what it means; translate the slight weirdness and the French reader will know what it means.
|
Discussion
Combien de fois lit-on dans ces pages qu’une phrase est clumsy, awkward, nonsense, (very) bad english, etc.? J’ai constaté plus d’une fois que ces affirmations dépendent de celui qui lit. Quand on a l’habitude des textes légaux (contrats, actes notariés, jugements, etc.), il y a bien moins de maladresses, de non-sens et "d’impossibilités" que certains le croient!
Pour ma part, je ne considère pas le texte soumis comme "clumsy". Il est lourd, certes, et révèle cet archaïsme souvent associé au "legalese", mais ce genre de formules circulent pratiquement inchangées dans les guides de rédaction des notaires et des avocats depuis Matusalem. Je considère que j’en ai fait une traduction fidèle, rédigée correctement, même si certains pourront la trouver "maladroite".
Remember that I'm not just a translator, but also a lawyer and a certified court interpreter. I CANNOT change a legal document. I CANNOT change what someone said in court. That would be a violation of the ethical rules governing my profession. If a witness, while testifying, says something vulgar or stupid, I translate it as something equally vulgar or stupid. If a legal document is unclear, I translate it equally unclearly--because the client needs to know that it's written that way; it could make the difference between filing or winning a lawsuit, and not filing one or losing one.
If I'm translating a software manual or a literary text, something with no legal implications, then there is more room to embroider or improve. If I'm translating marketing or pedagogical documents, then sure, I might completely change an expression to make it "feel like" a similar document in English.
But in this case, we're talking about a legal document.
"[Bob Smith's signature]
On this day, before me the undersigned, a notary public in and for the state of X [Bob Smith] personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and he/she acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her capacity and that by his/her signature on the instrument, the individual or person on behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument. XXX, Notary public."
Sometimes texts are clumsily written, but we still know what they mean. In that case we translate them into clumsy French (or whatever our target language is). It isn't our job to make the original writer seem like a better writer than they are; it's just our job to translate what it says.
But as the ST makes no sense (as resulting from some botched copy-pasting?) I would see as "helping the Asker" trying first to fix the ST - see what's missing. A good translation for a fragment that is part of some nonsense is not of much help ...
@Germaine
The Schrodinger Cat is at the same time dead and alive while still being one cat in one place - It think you had in mind "entangled particles" - acting as one particle while being in two different places - there are some rules and logic even in the quantum weirdness ...
If we were translating into a language where that could not be implied -- that is, where you needed such a verb because the absence of one meant the person did NOT appear -- then sure, use that language's equivalent of "comparaître." But French isn't like that.
@ Germaine: I like your reference to Schrodinger (haha). But given that this notarial statement appears right below the signature of the person whose signature is being notarized, the statement is referring to that person and doesn't need to repeat their name.
Ce jour, devant moi soussigné, notaire public dans et pour l’État de XX, [Nom de la personne], que je connais personnellement ou qui m’a donné preuve satisfaisante qu’il/qu’elle est le particulier dont le nom figure sur l’instrument ci-attaché, et il/elle reconnaît devant moi qu’il/qu’elle a signé ès qualité ledit document et que par sa signature dudit instrument, ce particulier ou la personne pour le compte de laquelle il agit a passé ledit instrument. XXX, notaire public
Il est d’autant plus étonnant qu’aucun espace ne soit prévu pour la mention du nom de la personne en question qu’il est certain que le notaire public ne peut signer pour lui-même une déclaration à l’effet qu’il se connaît personnellement ou qu’il s’est prouvé à lui-même qu’il est lui-même. Pour ce faire, il doit s’adresser à un (autre) notaire public, comme le commun des mortels. Il est donc possible que le client ait « ambitionné » sur les X ou biffé ce nom par souci de confidentialité, mais il en faut un, sinon, l’attestation perd sa valeur puisqu’elle peut s’attacher à n’importe quel autre document - à l’insu du notaire public "soussigné" qui devra néanmoins répondre de sa signature.
are you joking???
So because the English doesn't actually say "appeared before me," you do have to avoid SAYING that they appeared in the translation -- phrases like "a comparu devant moi" are out. But yes, Sara, "il est sous-entendu" that the person was physically present before the notary. The main points are: (1) I, the notary, confirmed this person's identity either because I know them personally or because I checked their ID; and (2) this person acknowledged that it was their signature on the document.
through satisfactory evidence of identification, ...<p>https://members.usnotaries.net/files/Massachusetts_Notary_Ce......Before me, (insert the name and character of the officer), on this day personally
appeared ____________________, known to me (or proved to me on the oath of
______________ or...<p>https://www.sos.state.tx.us/statdoc/forms/edinfo-sample-form... pas une recherche exhaustive et bien que la formule elle-même varie en fonction de la nature du doc, le signer est nommé à chaque fois, ce qui rend qd même les choses plus claires. Vérifier le texte source avec votre client ?
It must be there? it says that the name of X (the individual whose name) is subscribed to within instrument so I would put that name (of X) before "personally known to me"
and /or X can prove his/her identity "on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed..."
Cf: "Key wording of an acknowledgment is “personally appeared.” It is not acceptable to affix an acknowledgment to a document mailed or otherwise delivered to a notary public whereby the signer did NOT personally appear before the notary public, even if the signer is known by the notary public. Also, it is not acceptable to affix a notary public seal and signature to a document without the notarial wording." https://notary.cdn.sos.ca.gov/forms/notary-handbook-2005.pdf