11:20 Sep 1, 2011 

Ye-haw! That clears things up. Why didn’t we think of that? We have certainly seen this happen often enough. This sort of thing gives new life to the old saying: “The only stupid question is the one that isn’t asked.”

Thank you for sharing, Timothy. I guess I was standing too close to the trees, again…

09:58 Sep 1, 2011 

Just received clarification from the client after several days. Apparently it was the result of a an over-zealous cut and paste job. They wanted to replace formacion with capacitacion, and all the informacion was converted to incapacitacion, hence the strange references.
Many thanks for all your help and advice!

12:35 Aug 28, 2011 

:)

12:35 Aug 28, 2011 

:)

12:33 Aug 28, 2011 

I would have to assume that the author meant “capacitación” and was so unfamiliar with the term that he or she added the prefix “in” which happens to be, more times than we would like to admit, an affectation of certain regional Spanish speaking cultures. I would think that a similar phenomenon is responsible for the common use of the word inflammable when we really mean flammable. If I had this problem, I would assume “capacitación”, and ask the client for clarification. If none is forthcoming I would add a comment to the translation, explaining my interpretation of the term.

12:28 Aug 28, 2011 

let's wait and see what other colleagues have to say
:)

12:18 Aug 28, 2011 

Barhein como referente de vanguardia en la asimilación de las nuevas tecnologías y en el desarrollo de la Sociedad de la Incapacitación. It is perplexing, isn't it?

11:56 Aug 28, 2011 

since apparently there are more occurrences, would you provide some more examples
I'm perplex
:)