Oliver Simões Jan 27, 2021:

Interpretação O texto-fonte diz "Inteligência do artigo 18 do CPC". Não sou em quem está dizendo. Inteligência é no sentido de interpretação. É óbvio que a interpretação vêm dos que a fazem. Quanto à interpretação "correta", isso não está no texto-fonte. Como eu disse anteriormente, os tribunais mudam suas interpretações com certa frequência. A interpretação da lei não é estanque, e muitas vezes é incorreta. Alguns exemplos:

"Thus, FDR initiated a high-stakes game of “chicken” in which the Supreme Court was forced to choose between enforcing the written Constitution and saving its own skin from a President bent on transforming and packing the Court. Ultimately, the Court blinked. In a 1937 decision called West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, the Court changed its interpretation of the Constitution, upheld a minimum-wage law that it previously determined was unconstitutional, and placated the popular President in the process." - Texas Tribune

"In 2007 and again in 2009, the Court changed its interpretation of the rules in a manner that took power away from the jury." - Scholarship Law WM

Outros exemplos: https://www.google.com/search?q="the court changed its ...

Mario Freitas Jan 26, 2021:

Both of you "inteligência" is but an ornamented way to say the contents or the provision of the article. It's pretty stupid, I know, as most of the ornamented legalese in Portuguese, but that's all it is. An article has no intelligence, its author does. And the intelligence in this case does not refer to the interpretation of the law, yet to the merits of those who elaborated the provisions.

Oliver Simões Jan 25, 2021:

@Mark No, I think you are the one who’s missing my point. Fair enough. Let’s agree to disagree. This won’t get us anywhere.

Mark Robertson Jan 25, 2021:

@Oliver Your answer to the "when" question. You have missed the point again, which is that I disagreed with your interesting answer to a question to which I posted no answer. My disagree did not thrrefore fall foul of the practice we discussed.

Oliver Simões Jan 25, 2021:

No mention of “correct” Now back to the current issue. Indeed there is no mention of “correct” in the source-text. This is unwarranted addition that’s not in the source. It would be considered a translation error in the ATA certification exam: https://www.atanet.org/certification/aboutexams_error.php
It suffices to say “interpretation”. Again, court interpretation changes, it’s not set in stone. What is “correct” today may not be so in a few years. The source-text does not say “correct”. This is someone’s idiosyncratic, subjective opinion!

Oliver Simões Jan 25, 2021:

Mark Here is the answer to your “when” question: https://masterportuguesetranslator.com/wp-content/uploads/20... As you can see, you disagreed with one of my answers before, so I didn’t quite understand what you meant when you said that my disagree is a “bad show and bad form between answerers”. If you look at the date, you’ll see that your disagree came in first. But it’s irrelevant who disagreed first. The bottom line is that there is no such rule in ProZ. I checked with Customer Service in the past. I’m glad we are on the same page and it’s comforting to see that you are making use of your prerogatives. Feel free to disagree whenever you see fit, and I will do the same.

Mark Robertson Jan 25, 2021:

@Oliver OS: "The original has no mention of “correct” as claimed in your answer. My translation is faithful to the source. You have added stuff that’s not in the source-text. I don’t care what your reference says, it’s not in the original."

MR: You have missed the point. What I am saying, based on and fully supported by the distinguished author of my reference, is that "inteligência", in this specific legal context, means correct interpretation. There is no need for any addition to the source text.