Help with legal terms

Question

Hi guys,I'm translating a short article and I need your help with several legal terms.1) What is the best formal English phrase for a relationship not formalized via wedding or any other contract. Should I say 'informal relationship' or is it something else?2) "Rzeczpospolita Polska (the Polish State) recognize/recognizes the need to .... ". Which would be better? In grammatical terms there should be -s, but I think the first option would be more accurate.Thank you,Michal

Terryxpress · Accepted Answer

1. domestic partnership. or common law marriage
2. "State" is singular, so why do you think a plural verb is called for?

MichalS · Answer

Hi,

Thanks for the reply!

I just thought that in this case state may mean some people in it and not the whole state, as clearly not everyone recognizes the need but only some people. What do you think?

And one more thing if you'd be so kind.

I have a problem translating a compound into English. The compound is adjective and in Polish it means roughly: relating to family - relating to law. Should I say simply "family-legal", as in "family-legal relationship"? Or maybe should I say something else? Please, advise.

Michal

Terryxpress · Answer

When you say 'Polish State', you are referring to the set of laws passed by each successive government/governing body of Poland, such laws still being in effect (on the statute books). Whether some people in Poland agree with them and others don't is irrelevant.

Note that I provided a couple of terms that are used to describe domestic partnerships, but that these have NO LEGAL MEANING. That is, it is a myth (in the UK) that couples who have been together for 4 or 5 years then have the same legal rights as formally marriage couples. They do not. The law would consider they are merely something like, 'flat mates' - that is, two people who decide to share a flat or house together, just as many friends do early in life, so they can share the rent and other bills between them. Disputes arising out of that situation are covered by Contract Law -(deciding to share and agreeing on who-pays-what etc. would constitute a verbal contract. That is, a contract does not necessarily have to be in writing (though **** preferable!).

In the UK, Australia and USA, the term is 'Family Law' as in Family Law Court, and 'that is a family law court matter' or 'that dispute is covered by Family Law'.

MichalS · Answer

TerryxpressWhen you say 'Polish State', you are referring to the set of laws passed by each successive government/governing body of Poland, such laws still being in effect (on the statute books). Whether some people in Poland agree with them and others don't is irrelevant.

I see what you mean and you are absolutely right. I am now convinced to use -s

TerryxpressIn the UK, Australia and USA, the term is 'Family Law' as in Family Law Court, and 'that is a family law court matter' or 'that dispute is covered by Family Law'.

Would that be OK in the context like "People bound by family - law relationships". Would you consider saying "People bound by familial - legal relationships", or does it sound off to you?

Thank you very much for your help!
Michal

Terryxpress · Answer

Would that be OK in the context like "People bound by family - law relationships". Would you consider saying "People bound by familial - legal relationships", or does it sound off to you?.

I'm not sure what we are talking about here.
Firstly, people aren't 'bound by' law. Their actions and behaviour are, but people are bound 'under the law'.
Secondly, 'familial' refers to 'family', which the law regards as a married couple, their off-spring, and those related by blood; and hence, the children of an unmarried couple have familial ties with both the mother, and the father if he is registered as such on the birth certificate.

People are not bound by or under any legal/family law/ 'familial-legal' relationships. A married man by have an affair. The church may frown, but the law does not intervene. It is only if the wife cries 'adultery' and seeks a divorce that the law comes into play. Their rights, as to pensions, alimony etc. are bound by law, as is ensuring the welfare of their children.

Are you trying to say something like, 'de facto couples whose relationship is recognized by the State, and thereby, is bound by Family Law' ?
'recognized by the State': in the last few decades, (with the impetus of those seeking recognition of same-*** couples and their right to be recognized as a married couple), legislation has appeared in many countries to address what rights de facto couples/domestic partners do have. Usually, recognition requires some form of registration/acknowledgement of their mutual agreement to be regarded as a couple.

So - 'people' is too general. Use 'domestic partners' bound under Family Law.
In English, there is no quasi Latin adjective like 'familial-legal'. 'Family Law' is the best I can suggest.

MichalS · Answer

Thank you for your efforts to explain these legal terms to me. I really appreciate that.

In this case, the author (I'm only the translator) no longer speaks of domestic partners but people bound under any relationship recognized by the Polish Family Law (be that the one of a wife and husband, a mother/father and child, etc.). I'm sorry I didn't make that clear earlier.

So by these "family - legal" relationships I meant all possible familial relationships recognized by the Polish law. So I'll translate it as "Persons bound under the Family Law" instead of "Persons bound under family-legal relationships".

I need your help with one more sentence as well but let me first explain the idea I want to express.

The idea is that there are people in our country who want to make us believe that we need to account for civil partnerships in the family law and therefore we face a "sort of a legal pressurisation, which involves a “forceful/enforced” subsuming such relationships under a legal norm". (or "a 'forceful/enforced' capturing such relationships into a legal norm")

Would that 'pressurisation' and the rest be understandable?

I hope I haven't overused your patience yet.

Michal

Terryxpress · Answer

Yikes! Shades of a Napoleonic form of government: every aspect of people's lives centralised, and the State regulating all aspects of people's lives.
So - not only is this creeping into the UK***, but Poland too, huh?

Firstly, not 'account for'. More like, 'civil partnerships need to be legally recognized under Family Law..."
People may feel pressured and forced, but this is their subjective experience of what you are referring to: 'enforced legal regulation'

'pressurization' (the noun) refers to pressurization of an aircraft, or some such involving oxygen.

*** the latest in the UK is that the market no longer regulates the price of alcohol, but the Government. It seems that, because young adults binge drink and cause civil disruption with their drunken behaviour - (as well as a nurse-maid government 'worried' about their long-term health from such binge drinking) - the Government is proposing legislation to impose minimum prices determined by alcohol content. Trouble is, any price hike also hits the already-depleted pocket of the responsible drinker (depleted by receiving little interest on savings, no pay rise versus inflation), that the poor pensioner whose pleasures are few, but include purchasing cheap alcohol from a supermarket so he can have a couple of pints of an evening while he watches TV - they also have to suffer.
The average Britisher, back at the time of Napoleon and 'an Englishman's home is his castle', was outraged and fought Napoleon, because they had the sense that the State was there to protect the rights of the individual. Today, in Britain, a terrorist-inciting Muslim has more right to stay in Britain than the British people have to feel safe.
I know of your history, particularly your pilots who joined the RAF, and the Warsaw uprising. You have another fight on your hands here!

MichalS · Answer

TerryxpressI know of your history, particularly your pilots who joined the RAF, and the Warsaw uprising.

I'm glad to hear that. Especially in times when the fact that there never were any Polish death camps seems to be more than enough to know.

Thanks again for your help!

Michal

Help with legal terms

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions