Hi there,

I have recently been doing some freelance translation work and have a few questions regarding the meaning of some Japanese sentences. The stuff I've been given to do has been mainly technical and financial translations - fields which I have very little knowledge in. Below are some sentences about which I'd be very grateful I could get some opinions on. To give you some context, the document is one company discussing with the other the things they want from the other if they sign a contract.

1. 負担をお願いいたします
This keeps cropping up a lot, I know it basically means something like,
"You have responsibility/you bear the burden", is it kind of like a keigo version of 任せる?

Example sentences:
~場合は、貴社の出資比率（49%)に応じてご負担をお願いいたします.
Does this mean something like, "In the case of ~, your company's controlling share bares the burden" = Money is coming out of your controlling share (49%)

~場合は, 年金債務積立不足額を全額現金等によりご負担をお願いいたします。
Is this something like, "in the case of~ We ask you for (to take the burden of=pay) a full equivalent value in cash of the pension liability reserve shortage."

2. Under a section titled 'Recent Forecast: Combined Profits and Losses' there is:
賃借料削減　半年間25百万円を取り込み
It is mainly the 取り込み I'm a little confused about - does this just mean they will gain/get 25 million in the next 6 months? I can't get my head round this abbreviated business Japanese with no proper verb endings and sentences...

3. There are sections on a chart marked ０７／３期，０８／３期，０９／３期 and so on. I know this is obviously labelling some period of time, but what? Does it mean month or something? Like, March 7th, 8th, 9th etc.?

Once again I'm not used to business Japanese at all and have tried my best to find information on all of these things to no avail. Any help about any of them would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Actually, re: my last question I was just told it most likely means July 3rd, August 3rd etc... That sounds about right.

looks like this means ０７／３期 "3rd semester of 2007" etc.

maybe using a Japanese->Japanese dictionary might be helpful in finding the full meanings of the words

A bit of advice from a fellow translator: don't translate outside of your field of expertise. If you need to ask this forum of all places for help on it, you shouldn't be translating that topic. Translation is a LOT more than just knowing two languages. You need to know the subject matter too.

Submitting a sub-standard translation because you don't know about the field will ruin your reputation as a translator.

Jarvik7 Wrote:A bit of advice from a fellow translator: don't translate outside of your field of expertise. If you need to ask this forum of all places for help on it, you shouldn't be translating that topic. Translation is a LOT more than just knowing two languages. You need to know the subject matter too.

Submitting a sub-standard translation because you don't know about the field will ruin your reputation as a translator.

In an ideal world I wouldn't be translating financial reports but the company I'm working for gave me these documents knowing full well my lack of knowledge in this area. The translation has been mostly okay so far, and I don't really think any of my questions relate to finace, rather they are Japanese language questions. I am not going to submit a substandard translation when it could damage my reputation, as a last resort I can always ask a Japanese friend to check it for accuracy but I'd just prefer not to bother them.

Getting into translation seems like a bit of Catch 22 situation, in that it is difficult to get into without experience, but you can only earn experience by actually doing it. This is the first company that has offered me any work (aside from volunteer work) and so naturally I am going to give a shot.

Since this is mostly a beginner forum you should definitely ask your questions again here:
http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku?pli=1
Higher density of people who do that for a living.

If you are a freelancer you should have the ability to turn translations down.

If you just started with the company it might be better to do that rather than give them a translation that doesn't read like a proper English financial report (even if the meaning is all there) and never get any work from them again.

Here's my advice: translation works best when you work in pairs. One native English speaker and one native Japanese speaker. It looks like you've got a pretty good grip on your Japanese and you just need a native (with appropriate understanding of the content) to clear up a few issues and check your work to make sure you haven't misunderstood areas.

負担をお願いする means to ask the other company to bear the burden of....
I think you got that.

Quote:~場合は、貴社の出資比率（49%)に応じてご負担をお願いいたします.
Does this mean something like, "In the case of ~, your company's controlling share bares the burden"

You got it. You just need to work out what "bearing the burden" means. Rather than money coming out, I suspect it means that it is the controlling company's responsibility to do something.

Quote:~場合は, 年金債務積立不足額を全額現金等によりご負担をお願いいたします。
Is this something like, "in the case of~ We ask you for (to take the burden of=pay) a full equivalent value in cash of the pension liability reserve shortage."

Think you've got it again.

Quote:2. Under a section titled 'Recent Forecast: Combined Profits and Losses' there is:
賃借料削減　半年間25百万円を取り込み
It is mainly the 取り込み I'm a little confused about - does this just mean they will gain/get 25 million in the next 6 months? I can't get my head round this abbreviated business Japanese with no proper verb endings and sentences...

It means that by cutting rental expenses, they will save 25 million yen in the space of 6 months. For abbreviated business Japanese, you need to have an intimate knowledge of the kanji and what they each mean. Looking words up in a dictionary won't cut it because the kanji can mixed and matched so that different combinations are translated differently.

Quote:3. There are sections on a chart marked ０７／３期，０８／３期，０９／３期 and so on. I know this is obviously labelling some period of time, but what? Does it mean month or something? Like, March 7th, 8th, 9th etc.?

I suspect it's the 3rd quarter of 07, the third quarter of 08 etc. It could be the 3rd of July, the 3rd of August etc. I'd need more context.

One final bit of very important advice. If the documents you're translating are confidential, you should be very careful about posting on public forums. You'll probably get away with it if you don't mention any identifying information but just watch out.

Good luck.

Quote:~場合は、貴社の出資比率（49%)に応じてご負担をお願いいたします.
Does this mean something like, "In the case of ~, your company's controlling share bares the burden"

Actually, scratch my last answer. You haven't quite got it. I think this means the following:

"In the case of..., we request that [name of company] bear the burden proportionate with your investment share in the company (49%). "

I don't think 49% is a controlling share.

Capsule, I'm not sure if you're just confirming the meaning or producing an English translation.

*"burden" sounds a bit odd here. Perhaps "will be responsible for", "liable for". "bear the~ of" or use a verb that makes sense with the rest of the sentence. Not enough info about the form (letter? agreement?) and context. Careful - wrong wording can create binding obligations (even though doc is meant as letter of understanding only)

*~場合は、commonly "if" or "in the event of" in agmts

*出資比率 Wrightak's sentence is correct. 出資比率 can use more specific terms depending on type of company, joint venture, etc.

*I'd use 'shortfall' over shortage ... amount [in cash] equal to the full amount of [any] pension liability reserve shortfall. [edit: I'm sure not sure about this one, please ask someone who knows. It's not unusual for a co. to make up a pension liability deficit, but in English it'd be "amount" not specifically cash. But there's also a term "cash equivalent" for payouts to employees. Also, some terms have very specific meanings in this area by industry use or by defined term, so you want to get it right. (eg is it reserve shortfall or funding shortfall).

* the periods are most likely the fiscal years ending Mar 31, 2007-09. Japanese corporate fiscal years often end in March and give 3 year financial histories are common.

I echo Jarvik's caution. Particularly if your client is the sender. It's not just style concerns, there are other issues.

If you haven't already, you should definitely join some translator communities. There are a couple really good mailing lists you can join (if you can handle the traffic every day) and many websites. For example, check out proz.com

Their Kudos section is for asking translation questions and getting help from peers.

http://www.proz.com/kudoz/

Good luck!

負担をお願いします, 負担お願いいたします, etc. are idiomatic phrases that mean "We'd like you to pay the money for X." Nothing to do with a burden. My understanding is that when you ask for 負担, it usually means you want money. A typical example is XXX円（送料はお客様のご負担になります）, which means "XXX yen (shipping not included)."

Xの場合は、貴社の出資比率（49%)に応じてご負担をお願いいたします. means "In the case of X, we ask for a certain amount of money according to your contribution, which is 49%." Note that 49% is the ratio of 貴社's equity investment (or contribution) and does not refer to the amount of the fee 貴社 will be asked to pay if X happens. Most likely 貴社 has already contributed 49% of something or agreed to do so.

As for 賃借料削減　半年間25百万円を取り込み, it needs more context.

０７／３期, ０８／３期, and ０９／３期 most likely mean Q3 2007, Q3 2008, and Q4 2009, respectively. No one can be sure because we don't have the document, though. Anyway, native Japanese speakers wouldn't assume they mean July 3rd etc. when 期 is used. If 期 is used in context of months, it should read ０７／３月期, which means March of fiscal year 2007 (or the third month, March, etc. of accounting year. It all depends on context).

True, it's kind of silly guessing the meaning without the doc. Capsule, if the income statement you're translating is an interim income statement, it will say at the top (and in headings) that it is an interim income statement for the 9 month period starting x and ending Y. In that case, the meaning of 3期 in the graph is probably 3rd quarter. If, on the other hand, you are translating an annual income statement, then a comparison of 3 periods (3期比較損益計算書) would use 2007年度3月期 for the fiscal year ending March. So perhaps your graph abbreviated that to 07/3期. You should be able to tell by the income statement.

magamo Wrote:Xの場合は、貴社の出資比率（49%)に応じてご負担をお願いいたします. means "In the case of X, we ask for a certain amount of money according to your contribution, which is 49%." Note that 49% is the ratio of 貴社's equity investment (or contribution) and does not refer to the amount of the fee 貴社 will be asked to pay if X happens. Most likely 貴社 has already contributed 49% of something or agreed to do so.

I'm afraid I don't fully understand this comment. 49% can refer to both. The 'ownership' ratio is 49%, so the company is responsible for payment of its proportion (49%) of the cost of [whatever X is]. X might be the the initial contribution or X might be some other cost (future cash call, liability, etc.).

edit -no wonder folks prefer manga Japanese

I've noticed that Capsule hasn't replied after my post. Perhaps he's worried about the confidentiality issue I brought up. You can delete the thread if you're worried about it.

Thora Wrote:

magamo Wrote:Xの場合は、貴社の出資比率（49%)に応じてご負担をお願いいたします. means "In the case of X, we ask for a certain amount of money according to your contribution, which is 49%." Note that 49% is the ratio of 貴社's equity investment (or contribution) and does not refer to the amount of the fee 貴社 will be asked to pay if X happens. Most likely 貴社 has already contributed 49% of something or agreed to do so.

I'm afraid I don't fully understand this comment. 49% can refer to both. The "ownership" ratio is 49%, so the company is responsible for payment of its proportion (49%) of the cost of [whatever X is]. X might be the the initial contribution or X might be some other cost (future cash call, liability, etc.).

The point is that the "49%" only refers to 出資比率. The 'ownership' ratio affects how much 貴社 will pay when X happens, but it doesn't necessarily mean 貴社 will pay 49% of the cost in the case of X. If it refers to the cost ratio and doesn't necessarily mean 49% of 出資, then it should read Xの場合は、貴社の出資比率に応じてご負担（49%）をお願いいたします.

Without reading the document, you can never tell if the cost that 貴社 has to pay is determined by a linear function y=x, where y is the ratio of 'ownership' and x is the ratio of the cost for X a member owe. It could be a step function (e.g., 0-9% ownership = 0% of the cost, 10-19% ownership = 20% of the cost...) or a very steep curve.

In fact, 応じて doesn't mean it should be in direct proportion. If Capsule assumed 49% ownership also meant 49% of the cost for X under the y=x assumption, then the translation could be devastating.

[to Wrightak] Your advice is good. But as you say, he was careful not to include any identifying stuff (including his name =]).

btw, I just notice "Recent Forecast: Combined Profit and Losses". Perhaps "consolidated"? Japan uses consolidated(連結） and unconsolidated financial statements. [You might want to double check "recent forecasts" if the info is prior year rather than projections (unless it's a comparison to actual).] If this is being sent out, it really should be looked at by someone familiar with the area.

[edit ]

magamo Wrote:In fact, 応じて doesn't mean it should be in direct proportion.

Thanks for the clarification. Your comment makes perfect sense to me now. I did indeed assume it was proportional (for a number or reasons). We may have lost Capsule, but I'd be grateful if you (or anyone) could answer my questions.

1. 出資比率に応じて is [edit: can be] used in general writing with the sense that it's proportional. I see your point, however, that it needs to be more specific in agreements. Is pro rata always explicitly stated in Japanese contracts? And could you let me know how that clause would be rewritten to mean directly proportional?

"in a ratio in accordance with ownership percentage"
出資比率に応じた割合で/を??
"payment pro rata in accordance with" 出資比率に応じて案分負担する??

2. If the cost ratio is not the ownership ratio, a contract in English would set out the formula or cross reference it in that clause. Otherwise, "in accordance with/ in proportion to ownership percentages" might be interpreted as pro rata. Is such ambiguity typical in Japanese agreements? Similarly, why refer here to the (49%) at all? It's inclusion suggests significance. This seems like a case where a direct translation might not convey an unambiguous meaning. But perhaps a translator's hands are tied.

Cheers.

Hi guys, thanks to everybody for all your help. I already sent the translation off but I raised some of my concerns about the ambiguities with the company. I don't think I'll be taking any stuff like this on in future, I'm simply not knowledgeable enough to be accurately doing this sort of stuff. I appreciate all the support and advice from everybody.

Cheers!

Thora Wrote:1. 出資比率に応じて is used in general writing with the sense that it's proportional. I see your point, however, that it needs to be more specific in agreements. Is pro rata always explicitly stated in Japanese contracts? And could you let me know how that clause would be rewritten to mean directly proportional?

"in a ratio in accordance with ownership percentage"
出資比率に応じた割合で/を??
"payment pro rata in accordance with" 出資比率に応じて案分負担する??

You're right that it is usually, though not always, considered proportional. 案分負担 leaves no ambiguity. I have also seen "出資比率に応じて平等に..." "出資比率に応じて平等負担..." and so on.

I think 応じて can be a little ambiguous in some situations. Whether this kind of grammar applies to legal documents is beyond my knowledge. I thought there could be a caveat or a footnote because Capsule apparently swapped the closing parenthesis in the original sentence 出資比率（49%)に応じて. You can see that the opening parenthesis is Japanese（, i.e., zenkaku while it is closed with the usual ). I thought the original sentence could be 出資比率に（49%）*1に応じて or something along those lines.

Thora Wrote:2. If the cost ratio is not the ownership ratio, a contract in English would set out the formula or cross reference it in that clause. Otherwise, "in accordance with/ in proportion to ownership percentages" might be interpreted as pro rata. Is such ambiguity typical in Japanese agreements? Similarly, why refer here to the (49%) at all? It's inclusion suggests significance. This seems like a case where a direct translation might not convey an unambiguous meaning. But perhaps a translator's hands are tied.

I am no expert on this. I wouldn't be surprised if the semantics of 応じて in legal documents is narrower and restricted to "proportional" to avoid ambiguity. It's just the usual meaning is wider and the discrepancy in the opening and closing parentheses made me think it could be non-proportional.

I think you're right to keep it open ("in accordance with"). English would use "pro rata in accordance with" in order to stipulate directly proportional. I have no idea what Japanese practice is, so I shouldn't make assumptions that might change the meaning.

"出資比率に応じて平等負担..." Wouldn't that be contradictory? - divide equally based on the ratio (which might not be equal.) Or am I taking it too literally somehow. That's my last question.

I appreciate these kinds of threads. For me, it's far easier to learn and remember it as specific questions as opposed to just trying to sit down and read a bunch of it. And btw - welcome magamo!

Thora Wrote:"出資比率に応じて平等負担..." Wouldn't that be contradictory? - divide equally based on the ratio (which might not be equal.) Or am I taking it too literally somehow. That's my last question.

I thought that too! I'm guessing it's like progressive taxation. Some say it's fair, and some say it's not... Or perhaps it's because people with the same ownership ratio will have to pay the same amount of money. Or possibly it's grammatically wrong. But I know 株主平等の原則 is a correct term. This also is kind of contradicting because your voice will be louder if you hold more shares. Maybe being in direct proportional is considered "equal" or "fair."

Thora Wrote:And btw - welcome magamo!

Thank you!

Of course - it's the same in English: men and women are equal, but not the same. (thank goodness) Dividing in equal parts would be 等分, I suppose.

So 出資比率に応じて平等負担 says to divide fairly, which probably means directly proportional, but not necessarily. As you pointed out, another way might be more fair. (equality sometimes requires different treatment). So adding 平等 might not affect the meaning of the sentence. So we've come full circle - always a nice place to leave off.

They aren't equal. I certainly like women more than I like men

Apparently we need a Japanese lawyer and a linguist.

#Jarvik7
Same here.

Of course you both do - we're better
.....and cuter. =]