翻訳者レビュー ( 日本語 → 英語 )

日本語

・ご依頼頂いた書類のうち、１、２、３と９について、公証を受けるための素案を作成しましたので、間違いがないかご確認頂けますでしょうか？
・Aさんには事前に署名をもらうため、削除します。
・書類４はB社 のウェブサイトに掲載されているものです。これについても公証が必要でしょうか？
・書類５と７については、本社内を探しましたが、原本を見つけることができませんでした。
既にお伝えしたとおり、C弁護士は休職中で署名をもらうこともできないのですが、他の弁護士に作成を依頼してもよろしいでしょうか?

英語

- Documents 1, 2, 3 and 9: I've prepared drafts of these for notarisation. Could you check these for any errors?
- In order to obtain A's signature beforehand, I've removed them.
- Document 4: This document is available on Company B's website. As such, does it still require notarisation?
- Documents 5 and 7: I was unable to locate the originals for these documents on our end.
As discussed, we're unable to get Lawyer C's signature as he's away from work. Would it be possible to pass this work on to another lawyer?

レビュー ( 1 )

[削除済みユーザ]はこの翻訳結果を"★★★★"と評価しました 2014/01/25 11:21:12

元の翻訳
- Documents 1, 2, 3 and 9: I've prepared drafts of these for notarisation. Could you check these for any errors?
- In order to obtain A's signature beforehand, I've removed them.
- Document 4: This document is available on Company B's website. As such, does it still require notarisation?
- Documents 5 and 7: I was unable to locate the originals for these documents on our end.
As discussed, we're unable to get Lawyer C's signature as he's away from work. Would it be possible to pass this work on to another lawyer?

修正後
・For the documents 1, 2, 3, and 9 among those you requested, I have provided the preliminary drafts to be notarized, and so would you review them for any errors?
・I am going to delete it for obtaining the signature of A san in advance.
・The document 4 is posted in the website of B company. Does it also require to be notarized?
・For the documents 5 and 7, I searched in the head office, but I have not been able to find out the original of those documents.
↵
As I previously informed to you, I cannot get the signature of the attorney C since he has been on leave, but may I request another lawyer to create them?↵

こんなのもあるかと表現を変えただけです。

[gaieios]

Thank you for your comments. I do have some things to note about your corrections.

• "to be notarized, and so would you review them...": "and so" reflects the "ので" in the original, but in this context is not grammatically correct - this is an example of a run-on sentence without a correct transition. Prefer: "to be notarized; could you review them...". The semicolon joins the two sentences together and the context makes it clear that the drafts are what are to be reviewed.
• "delete it for obtaining the signature...": Again, "for" in this sentence is a translation of "ので", but the result is not grammatical. Prefer: "delete it for the purposes of obtaining the signature", but even then a native speaker would find the latter too long and unwieldy.
• "posted in" -> "posted up on". Similarly, "Does it also require to be notarized" is grammatically incorrect; prefer: "Does it also require notarisation" or "Will it also require notarisation". Require is a transitive verb (他動詞); instead of "Does it also require" prefer: "Is it also required to be notarised".
• "I have not been able to find out the original" -> "I have not been able to find the original". "Find out" is a phrasal verb that does not mean to locate; rather, it has the strong nuance of investigation and discovery of hitherto unknown information, and also the nuance of digging deeper into a subject. It would never be used in the context of locating a lost document.
• "As I previously informed to you": Grammatically incorrect, this should be changed to "As I previously informed you" or "As I previously communicated to you". "Informed to" is not a correct formation.

Thanks for your review.