0
Renan torres-rivero Posted 16 years ago
Grammar
Shall to be? OR Shall be?
Dear native teachers,
I'd like your help on the following Grammar issue. I ran into this use of modal SHALL when checking the translation of an agreement into Spanish. The original text is this:
«XXX is a Peruvian Company and they shall to be legalized by the
Ministry con Foreign Relations in Colombia.»
Why do they use SHALL + infinitive? Is this legal English usage?
We normally use modal SHALL + base form (infinitive without "TO").
Why is it different in this context?
I've found several texts with this use of SHALL+infinitive but all of them are texts from Legal documents.
Thanks for your answers in advance.
RENAN
I'd like your help on the following Grammar issue. I ran into this use of modal SHALL when checking the translation of an agreement into Spanish. The original text is this:
«XXX is a Peruvian Company and they shall to be legalized by the
Ministry con Foreign Relations in Colombia.»
Why do they use SHALL + infinitive? Is this legal English usage?
We normally use modal SHALL + base form (infinitive without "TO").
Why is it different in this context?
I've found several texts with this use of SHALL+infinitive but all of them are texts from Legal documents.
Thanks for your answers in advance.
RENAN
Top answer
Hi, It just seems wrong to me. Legal English often uses odd and/or archaic grammar and vocabulary. Clive
- Hi, It just seems wrong to me.
- Legal English often uses odd and/or archaic grammar and vocabulary.
- Clive
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
6 Answers
0
Hi,
It just seems wrong to me.
Legal English often uses odd and/or archaic grammar and vocabulary.
Clive
It just seems wrong to me.
Legal English often uses odd and/or archaic grammar and vocabulary.
Clive
00
renan torres-rivero... they shall to be legalized by ...I'm inclined to say that this is a mistranslation. I have never seen this strange combination before.
CJ
00
Thank you both.
And, yes, I think the same. It must be a mistake repeated on different documents, because I can't find anything on the web about it.
Cheers,
RENAN
And, yes, I think the same. It must be a mistake repeated on different documents, because I can't find anything on the web about it.
Cheers,
RENAN
00
Do you have access to the original Spanish (I assume) from which this was translated?
I'd be curious in that case. I wonder if it's a misguided attempt to translate the seldom-used legalistic future subjunctive of Spanish -- in this specific case, ... que estuvieren legalizados.
CJ
I'd be curious in that case. I wonder if it's a misguided attempt to translate the seldom-used legalistic future subjunctive of Spanish -- in this specific case, ... que estuvieren legalizados.
CJ
00
Sure, here it is, but there's no Spanish Subjunctive:
«*** S.A. es una compañía peruana y ellos tienen que estar legalizados por el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores en Colombia. *** debe presentar pruebas de que el Sr. XYZ está autorizado a que dentro del Acuerdo de Consorcio pueda emitir (o firmar en este caso) la propuesta y para ejecutar (o firmar como representante en es
«*** S.A. es una compañía peruana y ellos tienen que estar legalizados por el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores en Colombia. *** debe presentar pruebas de que el Sr. XYZ está autorizado a que dentro del Acuerdo de Consorcio pueda emitir (o firmar en este caso) la propuesta y para ejecutar (o firmar como representante en es
00
Thanks for posting that. Good information. It appears that I was wrong about the future subjunctive. I had always heard that it was used in legal documents, but not in these.
0
Related Questions