This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
As for the substantive linguistic issue, I am not saying that there is an established grammatical rule that says the meaning of "since" depends on the tense of the verb, but simply that in this case the use of one tense or the other changes its meaning. Like most people, my judgements about grammaticality in my native language are intuitive in the first place; if something sounds wrong to me, I look for an explanation, or try to rationalise my response, but this is a posteriori. In the first place, something simply trips me up as I read, and I stop and think "hang on, you can't say that".
Since the particular issue of how readers will understand "since" is complex, and there is no perfect agreement on the probabilities (specifically, on whether "since he became" can be understood causally here), it does seem best to avoid it altogether and use an unambiguously causal conjunction such as "because".
In that case, it comes down to whether, in this context, "because he became of legal age" or "because he reached legal age", rather than "has become" or "has reached", can be said in English. I still say no, for reasons I've tried to explain and will elaborate on further if required.
Thank you very much for your carefully considered and detailed response. The first thing I must do is apologise for the unjust imputation that you "didn't seem to care" about accuracy. Before you posted these latest comments I had already removed that sentence, whcih seemed unwarranted as well as offensive. I know you well enough from the forum to know that you do care about accuracy, and indeed that's what I meant: I couldn't understand why you (as opposed to a number of people on the forum who don't seem greatly concerned about accuracy) seemed to think that the causal/temporal distinction didn't matter. I misunderstood you to be saying that it didn't matter whether the translation reflected it accurately, and I now see that was wrong. So I apologise.
I also have the highest regard for Robert's skill and judgement, so if he disagrees with me on this tense question, I'm surprised and disconcerted, but these things happen sometimes. All I can say is that I've thought and thought again about it (and I thought about it for some time before posting an alternative answer in the first place), and I am still sure. So be it.
I do care about this, and that is the reason why I am replying now. You obviously misunderstood what I wrote. I merely said that the temporal or causal meaning of “since” in the English translation changes nothing on the actual fact that the alimony will no longer be paid. This is what I said, nothing else. So careful: I referred only to the fact, just the fact, that those payments will stop. But I didn´t say anything about the reason why they have to stop (temporal or causal) because I did not know that distinction of “since” being used with the present perfect or simple past. To me it is important not to be misquoted. And you do not need to remind me of the importance of being accurate and loyal to the source when doing a legal translation. I know that myself pretty well without being reminded. Just wanted to clarify this misunderstanding.
You wrote, literally: “You say "If “since” has a temporal or causal meaning, that is a point with no influence on the essential fact that the alimony payments (will) have to stop due to the reason mentioned." I can't accept that it doesn't matter whether we change a causal conjunction to a temporal conjunction”. And: “Our job is to translate what the original means. I find it extraordinary that you don't seem to care about this”.
I admit I did not know that essential distinction between the use of present perfect and simple past in English in connection with the word “since” (temporal/causal use), true. I have, I think, a sensible understanding of the English language, but I have my limits also. And as you see, it is not easy to know this for natives either. Perhaps there is a distinction between European and American English in this respect, I don´t know. Robert disagrees with you on this as per his response. This is beyond my knowledge. But either way, your translation is at any rate correct (probably the only correct one) and it is to me a simple matter of fairness to post an agree for it and remove the neutral assessment I had posted before.
Thank you for your input. I have taken some time to read all your posts carefully. I shall try (again) to reply in short. You say: ”In English, "since" with the past simple, "since he became", can only be temporal; it cannot be read as causal. With past perfect [I suppose you mean here the present perfect tense, not the past perfect, or perhaps both tenses???] it is causal. The meaning, of course, is causal.” Your basic point is that it is irrelevant what tense you use in Spanish, but when you translate this obviously LatAm sentence into English (European or American) and accepting that this “toda vez que” has a causal and NOT temporal meaning in Spanish, a key point where I fully agreed with you from the beginning, you must use the present perfect (has become/reached), as you do in your own suggestion, and not the past simple (became or reached)., as our colleague Robert did in his proposal. Summarizing: Since the actual meaning of “toda vez que” is causal here, absolutely, the present perfect use is mandatory in English. Therefore, the past simple is wrong.
One important issue has not been clarified in the discussion, namely the country of origin of the text. Would anyone consider the possibility that the intention of the source term might be "provided/once/after/following". If it's LatAm Spanish, South American specificly, I would not readily discard such possibility.
I ought to qualify what I just said. The past simple can be used unqualified after causal conjunctions, provided that the action is one that might not have happened. For example, you can say "I was able to see him because he went to the concert". He might not have gone, and if he hadn't, I wouldn't have seen him. But becoming of age is something that will inevitably happen in due course, unless you die first. That's why "because he became of age" is ungrammatical: because it's nonsensical. Of course he became of age; he was bound to. The question is whether he has become of age yet.
My whole point is that the past simple can't used in English here, and I am still convinced that is the case. You can't use the past simple with causal conjunctions unless the verb is qualified (see my last discussion entry).
1. Changing "since" to "because", as I suggested myself, would remove ambiguity, but you still have to change the tense:
"Sr. García no longer has to pay his son child support, because his son became of age."
This is ungrammatical. It has to be "because his son has become of age", doesn't it?
2. You don't agree with me that "since he has become of age" removes the ambiguity. It is not inconceivable that someone would say this meaning "since the time when he became of age", but I think it's very unlikely that a reader would understand it to mean that, and I don't think it would actually be grammatical. You can use temporal "since" with present perfect referring to a state ("since he has been here") but not to a point in time; so although you can say "since he has been of age", you can't really say "since he has become of age".
So fine, let's change "since" to "because". But not with the past simple; it can't be done.
You also say: "My only doubt has to do with the convenience of using past simple or present perfect in the English translation. What is better in this case bearing in mind that there´s no semantic distinction in the Spanish?"
I have already commented on the idea that there is "no semantic distinction" in Spanish. The distinction in Spanish, I suggest again, is regional; if you read "toda vez que alcanzó" in this context, you can tell that the writer comes from Latin America (or maybe Galicia or the Canary Islands), because otherwise they would have written "ha alcanzado". Seriously, would you ever say "alcanzó" in this context? But this has no bearing on the choice of tense in English. There is no simple mapping here of these two tenses between the two languages; each has its own differences. In informal American English (I think), you can use the past simple here, but otherwise not. Let's use "because" to avoid ambiguity. You can't say "the father no longer has to pay the son child support because his son reached legal age" (unless it is qualified; for example, you can say "because he reached legal age last month"). You can only say "because he has reached legal age".
You say "If “since” has a temporal or causal meaning, that is a point with no influence on the essential fact that the alimony payments (will) have to stop due to the reason mentioned." I can't accept that it doesn't matter whether we change a causal conjunction to a temporal conjunction. Our job is to translate what the original means. To translate "toda vez que" as if it said "desde que", and then to say, in effect: "well, what does it matter? The payments stop, and obviously for this reason" is not acceptable to me as a matter of translation practice, least of all in a legal text. They are two different statements.
Unfortunately your two posts have nothing to do with the point (only one) at issue, which is not about the Spanish at all; it has to do with the ambiguity of "since" in English and the fact that its meaning is different in this context according to which tense follows it. Perhaps you have to be a native speaker to appreciate this, I don't know, but is definitely so. It's not a matter of whether there is a difference of meaning here between the two tenses in Spanish. The only point I'm making about the Spanish tenses is that there is a regional difference in usage to express the same meaning; in most of Spain this would have been expressed as "ha advenido a" (or probably "ha alcanzado", as you say), rather than "advino" (or "alcanzó").
In English, "since" with the past simple, "since he became", can only be temporal; it cannot be read as causal. With past perfect it is causal. The meaning, of course, is causal. Therefore "since he became" is a mistranslation, because it means "desde que alcanzó la mayoría", and that's not what "toda vez" means.
3) In the context given, the meaning of “since” (clearly a causal meaning in the Spanish source: “toda vez que”) does not create confusion in the potential readership of the translation since it is obvious that the father has no longer to pay alimony because his son became/has become of legal age. If “since” has a temporal or causal meaning, that is a point with no influence on the essential fact that the alimony payments (will) have to stop due to the reason mentioned. My only doubt has to do with the convenience of using past simple or present perfect in the English translation. What is better in this case bearing in mind that there´s no semantic distinction in the Spanish? I´m not sure. You natives are better qualified to judge in this respect. I tend to think, Charles, that your misgivings regarding Robert´s suggestion, when you say, “the simple past is wrong here”, might be a too rigorous opinion.
I´ll try to put it shortly. 1) "Advino a" is not used in European Spanish at all (we say "alcanzó/ha alcanzado/alcanza/alcanzará" la mayoría de edad, depending on the tense needed). “Advenir a” is therefore strictly LatAm use, never European Spanish, thus no Spaniard would ever say “alguien ha advenido a la mayoría de edad", as you say, unless you examine texts from the “Siglo de Oro”. 2) The formal distinction between “pretérito indefinido” (= “pretérito perfecto simple”, this is how it is called in the new “official” terminology) and “pretérito perfecto”, which seems to be the main issue at stake here in the English translation, is irrelevant in this case, at least as far as the Spanish is concerned: There is no semantic difference.
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
7 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +9
since he became of legal age
Explanation: mayoría de edad > legal age
Example sentence(s):
"Riggs, and the bulk of the estate to Elmer Palmer to be cared for by his mother, Susan Palmer, the widow of a dead son of the testator, until he became of legal age."
"However, in 1961 at the time of the adoption I was told by the adoption agency that when my child became of legal age he would have access to his birth certificate."
peer agreement (net): +9