Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
OK, thx! If I recall (http://www.proz.com/kudoz/1573394), acknowledgment of sources was sth *you* liked to remind *other* people about. As for your "professional conscience," I note u also call yourself a "native English speaker." --> Credibility Factor?
Thanks for the glossary entry. However, please take another close look at V N Ganesh's answer, which included both these suggestions. It seems you could have awarded him/her some points rather than quickly closing without grading, considering this is....
Kathy, you got a point there. It is a good suggestion so I would like to respond to your enquiry. The expression by the help of the client was "hold". Improvising that it could be "Court held that ...." "Court holding was.....", etc., etc., depending on the context. Yours.
Update 21-Feb-07: So, do enlighten us!! What was the "single, all encompassing expression" that you ended up using in your translation. How about entering it in the glossary for people searching for this term in the future?
Hamo, thank you for posting your answer. Nonetheless I cannot agree with this is abbreviation of 裁判表示. To me the word 判示 appears to be derived from 判旨 (判決の要旨）, but question still remains if direct translation of this word is indeed all-encompassing (applicable to all slightly different context throughout the document I am translating).
Thank you for your time, anyway.
Time's up. I had to close this question withou grading, as I stated earlier I cannot find appropriate answer. Context I presented is only one example as 判示 is all over the document I am translating, and each one has slight different shade. Even so I had to find one single, all encompassing expression that can be used to all these different situations.
Ganash's additional notes contains some hint to the direction I am looking, but because he cannot post another answer, I cannot give point to the present answer.
You can remedy that by entering the correct glossary entry. Fortunately for you, some of the terms posted were in verb form anyway. Regardless, I have no doubt that you will choose-not-to-choose, but perhaps you should reread the answers provided.
Kathy, you are right. I should wait 24 hours before deciding either way. I will wait in hope more appropriate answer be given. By the way context is this .......
In any event, I posted question in "noun" form, but I should seek for "verb" 判示する。
Gee, soooo surprised (NOT!). Perhaps you could try waiting 24 hours before closing the question, to give people in other time zones the opportunity to help you, as per KudoZ guidelines. Indeed, providing context is vital if you expect others to help you.
I have to close this question as I cannot find acceptable answer. This term is very tricky and neither answers fit my context. Maybe I did not give enough context. In any event thank you for both KathyT and Ganash.
Explanation: Although your use of brackets is not entirely clear, a formal definition of 判示 -- perhaps an abbreviation for 裁判表示 -- appears unnecessary. As it appears that the cited text is indeed legal text (Article 6), any accurate translation of 表示 would likely be appropriate in this context.