en presencia y a la vista de

21:28 Apr 17, 2017 

Thanks. Yes, "before" certainly is more common. But as I said before, we are translating an uncommon Spanish phrase (uncommonly explicit), so perhaps this is an occasion that doesn't sutomatically call for the most common English exoression.

In my view, we should translate every bit of substantive meaning in a document of this kind, even if we think it's redundant, in a way that is meaningful and idiomatic in English. I don't think using only the phraseology similar English documents use is the highest priority. So actually I don't think my examples of "sight" are crucial. Our job is usually to enable an English-speaking lawyer to understand exactly what the original means, and it is much better to err on the side of being over-literal than to edit it according to our own assumptions.

03:41 Apr 17, 2017 

Well, I certainly wouldn't say you were wrong to translate it like that, quite the contrary, and I'm glad you've found some sources that show that it is in fact used in these contexts - it's good to know it's an option that wouldn't be out of place.
All I would say is that, to my mind, "before" is a standard way of indicating the same thing and it seems to be much more common. As I say, the implication of "before" has the same meaning as "in the presence and sight of", and I don't think, given the widespread use of "before" in this context, that any court would construe it otherwise.
In fact I think it's highly unlikely that a court would construe "before witnesses" to mean that the witnesses didn't actually have sight of the act or weren't in fact present.
In any case, you'll get my agree, if only for your research and time!

20:03 Apr 16, 2017 

The English formula is still standard in notarial attestations:

"Each of the undersigned, individually and severally being duly sworn, deposes and says:
The within Will was subscribed in our presence and sight at the end thereof by _____________________, the within-named Testator/Testatrix, on the ____ day of __________, 20 __, at ________________________[address].
Said Testator/Testatrix at the time of making such subscription declared the instrument so subscribed to be his/her Last Will and Testament.
Each of the undersigned thereupon signed his or her name as a witness at the end of said Will at the request of said Testator/Testatrix and in his/her presence and sight and in the presence and sight of each other."
http://www.notarypubliccentral.com/Sample Forms.htm

As I say, I can't believe that there would be any dispute about how to construe the phrase.

19:53 Apr 16, 2017 

Let me say first that I don't think this is a crucially important point, but I remain unhappy with reducing this to "before"

I would be quite happy with "before" for "en presencia de". And in both cases I think it would be assumed that "a la vista de" was also understood. But "en presencia y a la vista de", it seems to me, is an unusually insistent and specific formula, and rather than assume it is mere verbiage, as I think some people are too prone to do with apparent redundancy in legal texts, my inclination is to try to reflect the distinction between presencia and vista that is made explicit in the ST.

"In the sight of" seems to me the obvious way, and I can't see that it's any more ambiguous than "in the presence of", or indeed "before". I am pretty sure that if it were an issue in court it would construed as meaning that they were close enough to see and did see that what it is claimed happened did happen.

When in English it is required that wills must be signed "in the presence and sight" or witnesses, I think there is a reason for including "sight" and that there would be no dispute about what it means.

(Continued in next post)

17:19 Apr 15, 2017 

I parsed the exact idea you're talking about in my head and tried to think of how we phrase it in English before ending up with "before". It occurred to me that "in the presence and sight of" would be just as ambiguous as "before", paradoxically because it's not specific enough. How far away do you have to be to remain in the sight of something? Do you have to be conscious of the thing you're looking at it. That isn't made clear by "in the sight of" either. On the other hand, if you are "before" something, you are both in its presence and in the sight of it, whether you choose to look at it or not.

I'm reasonably sure that's what we see in English documents to refer to the same idea.
Although it's nothing more than anecdotal, for years, I've been using "held before me" as a translation for "tuve a la vista", and I don't think it's any more ambiguous than "held in my sight".

In any case, I think the point you make is worth raising, I just disagree with the solution. Saludos!