(zich het recht) ontzeggen

16:34 Jul 7, 2010 

will post my 'agree' immediately.

12:59 Jul 7, 2010 

Waiving a right (zich het recht ontzeggen) is stronger than 'shall not', possibly, as I pointed out above, with legal implications. I would not paraphrase but stay close to the source.

12:18 Jul 7, 2010 

"The employee explicitly agrees not to use the vehicle to participate in car races or other competitions." I think that conveys the idea of waiving or forgoing the right without getting us hung up on the whole idea of having the right in the first place and achieves the objective of not imposing a prohibition on the employee by emphasising the element of consent.

11:41 Jul 7, 2010 

The employee shall not ...

03:22 Jul 7, 2010 

I don't get at all what the issue is with this translation. It is/seems very straightforward to me. It says 'ontzeggen' meaning 'afzien van' which translates as waive/forgo. This is not about a 'right to forgo' but 'forgoing a right', by the way. Yes, employees are prohibited to use the vehicles, but that is not how this is (usually) stated. Why? Usually it is meant to avoid that individuals will seek legal action to challenge the regulation (and claim such rights - it is not said that they 'have' them). We don't have all that much context to understand/evaluate the details of this statement, and I don't think it's necessary.

21:29 Jul 6, 2010 

Lianne - it's nothing to do with marketing competitions or lotteries. It's about racing their company cars, and they're being told (in a rather oddly expressed way) that they're not allowed to.

14:31 Jul 6, 2010 

Employees zijn normaalgesproken uitgesloten van deelname aan door een bedrijf georganiseerde wedstrijden/loterijen (bedoeld ter werving van klanten, natuurlijk). Dus moeten ze zich uitdrukkelijk het recht op deelname ontzeggen.

14:19 Jul 6, 2010 

The employee explicitly forgoes the right to use the vehicle to participate in car races or other competitions.

14:19 Jul 6, 2010 

Writeaway - you're quite right, and I didn't read the question properly.

13:56 Jul 6, 2010 

'The employee is explicitly prohibited to use the company vehicle to participate in car races or other competitions.' (Although the question would then arise as to whether it is in fact a correct translation of 'De werknemer ontzegt zich uitdrukkelijk het recht om met het voertuig deel te nemen aan autoraces, of andere wedstrijden.' Suggestions welcome.

13:51 Jul 6, 2010 

Yes, these days, instead of being prohibited to do something or being responsible for it, we have the right not to do it, or the right to be responsible for it, apparently. ;-]

13:44 Jul 6, 2010 

so employees basically have 'the right' to race company cars. And they are being required to give it up? strange.....

13:18 Jul 6, 2010 

Thanks Phil. By preferred, I meant to ascertain whether for example 'The employee explicitly rejects the right to ...' is incorrect, or frowned upon; basically, to see what those in the know think and feel about it.

13:06 Jul 6, 2010 

What do you mean by " one preferred translation" - preferred by whom? " Waives" and "renounces" are both fine, but I don't think "rejects" or "dismisses" work.