Correct "Spanish" wording?

[ZX9RCAM]

While perusing Texas3006.com, I have noticed different verbiage in the Spanish wording of signs at different locations.

https://www.texas3006.com/getimage.php?id=684


https://www.texas3006.com/getimage.php?id=673


Which, if either, is correct?

[ScottDLS]

There's nothing in the law that addresses the Spanish text other than it has to be there and be a translation of the specified English text. Some native speakers have told me some of the translations are pretty bad... I think the reason for the Spanish text might be just to make the sign ahrder to miss...

[ZX9RCAM]

One of the signs in Spanish translates to "handguns", & one translates to "firearms", if this makes a difference??
Of course, this is contingent on my translating, lol....

[joelamosobadiah]

Given the lack of exact verbiage in the penal code for the Spanish text I would never risk the legality of a sign on the wording of the Spanish text.

[WildBill]

One of the signs in Spanish translates to "handguns", & one translates to "firearms", if this makes a difference??
Of course, this is contingent on my translating, lol....

Nope, it doesn't made a difference.

[equin]

Interesting. As a Puerto Rican, I speak, read and write Spanish fluently, but never bothered to double-check the Spanish translations til now. It's hard to see the full text for both signs, but the little I was able to see tells me the second sign appears to be a more accurate translation.

Part of the problem is that because of Germanic, Latin, Saxon, and Norman (to name a few!) influences on the English language, there are invariably more English words than Spanish words. One example is "handgun." I could be wrong, but I don't believe there is a Spanish word for "handgun" that I'm aware of. It's either a "pistola," a "revolver," or an "arma de fuego" (firearm), depending on the context. The first sign uses what I believe to be a made-up phrase for "arma corta" - whose literal translation is "short weapon" or "weapon that cuts." Then again, it could be a perfectly legit word in Mexico or some other Spanish-speaking country, since not all Spanish-speaking folks use the same words, much less accents.

Either way, I wouldn't risk running afoul of the sign despite any translation discrepancies.

[WildBill]

Interesting. As a Puerto Rican, I speak, read and write Spanish fluently, but never bothered to double-check the Spanish translations til now. It's hard to see the full text for both signs, but the little I was able to see tells me the second sign appears to be a more accurate translation.

Part of the problem is that because of Germanic, Latin, Saxon, and Norman (to name a few!) influences on the English language, there are invariably more English words than Spanish words. One example is "handgun." I could be wrong, but I don't believe there is a Spanish word for "handgun" that I'm aware of. It's either a "pistola," a "revolver," or an "arma de fuego" (firearm), depending on the context. The first sign uses what I believe to be a made-up phrase for "arma corta" - whose literal translation is "short weapon" or "weapon that cuts." Then again, it could be a perfectly legit word in Mexico or some other Spanish-speaking country, since not all Spanish-speaking folks use the same words, much less accents.

Either way, I wouldn't risk running afoul of the sign despite any translation discrepancies.

I would say that is a wise choice.

[thetexan]

I noticed this discrepancy early on.

The rule uses the term "identical" in reference to the English wording. Yet does nothing but imply that the Spanish version be a translation of the English. But such a translation is subjective there can be no "identical" test applied to it.

The legislature should have specified the precise wording for the Spanish. But, alas, they did not.

As a result one can never test a sign's compliancy against the Spanish; only the English.

tex

[Charles L. Cotton]

I don't speak Spanish, but I've been told by more than one CHL student that the Spanish version is not an order, but a suggestion not to enter with a firearm. Is that correct?

Chas.

[AJSully421]

I don't speak Spanish, but I've been told by more than one CHL student that the Spanish version is not an order, but a suggestion not to enter with a firearm. Is that correct?

Chas.

That is true. In spanish, there is a conjugation of verbs that make them "imperative", and none of these signs include that conjugation. As has been said, some dialects are more formal than others. So to a large group of spanish speaking people, these signs are doing what we would call "simply informing of the wishes of the owner". It would be like a sign that said "According to the law, the owner of this location politely advises no open carry allowed". The implication is very much there, but it is far from a warning that you are about to get pounded for a misdemeanor if you walk past that sign.

That being said, how many LTCers are completely english illiterate? Probably not too many. How many speak spanish about 1% better than they do english, probably about 5-7%... well, 5% of nearly 950,000 licensees is 47,500 folks.

I'd love to have a statutory spanish language added to 30.06/7 in 2017 and make every current sign null and void... again.

Bring it up as an "inequality" issue that many of our spanish speaking citizens are not receiving proper notice in their native language, and that as a minority, that places them in a disproportinate risk of being prosecuted. Use the liberal's own tactics against them.

[MeMelYup]

I don't speak Spanish, but I've been told by more than one CHL student that the Spanish version is not an order, but a suggestion not to enter with a firearm. Is that correct?

Chas.

That is true. In spanish, there is a conjugation of verbs that make them "imperative", and none of these signs include that conjugation. As has been said, some dialects are more formal than others. So to a large group of spanish speaking people, these signs are doing what we would call "simply informing of the wishes of the owner". It would be like a sign that said "According to the law, the owner of this location politely advises no open carry allowed". The implication is very much there, but it is far from a warning that you are about to get pounded for a misdemeanor if you walk past that sign.

That being said, how many LTCers are completely english illiterate? Probably not too many. How many speak spanish about 1% better than they do english, probably about 5-7%... well, 5% of nearly 950,000 licensees is 47,500 folks.

I'd love to have a statutory spanish language added to 30.06/7 in 2017 and make every current sign null and void... again.

Bring it up as an "inequality" issue that many of our spanish speaking citizens are not receiving proper notice in their native language, and that as a minority, that places them in a disproportinate risk of being prosecuted. Use the liberal's own tactics against them.

In that context what would be the proper Spanish interpretation.

[AJSully421]

I don't speak Spanish, but I've been told by more than one CHL student that the Spanish version is not an order, but a suggestion not to enter with a firearm. Is that correct?

Chas.

That is true. In spanish, there is a conjugation of verbs that make them "imperative", and none of these signs include that conjugation. As has been said, some dialects are more formal than others. So to a large group of spanish speaking people, these signs are doing what we would call "simply informing of the wishes of the owner". It would be like a sign that said "According to the law, the owner of this location politely advises no open carry allowed". The implication is very much there, but it is far from a warning that you are about to get pounded for a misdemeanor if you walk past that sign.

That being said, how many LTCers are completely english illiterate? Probably not too many. How many speak spanish about 1% better than they do english, probably about 5-7%... well, 5% of nearly 950,000 licensees is 47,500 folks.

I'd love to have a statutory spanish language added to 30.06/7 in 2017 and make every current sign null and void... again.

Bring it up as an "inequality" issue that many of our spanish speaking citizens are not receiving proper notice in their native language, and that as a minority, that places them in a disproportinate risk of being prosecuted. Use the liberal's own tactics against them.

In that context what would be the proper Spanish interpretation.

Now that you ask, there really isn't one based how the wording on the spanish signs is trying to keep the same organization and stay close to the english wording.

The nuances are a little strange, but how the english "May not enter" is worded, it cannot be directly translated. The word used in spanish is "poder" which means to do, to make, or when added in front of another verb in the unconjugated tense or the infinitive as it is called, means "to be able to". So, to say "May not enter..." that is often translated to "No puede entrar..." or "No puede ingresrar". Literally translated, "Is not able to enter", or "is not able to ingress" (access or enter) In that exact context, I do not believe that the imperative is able to be used and still use the "poder + Infinitive" form to make the "not able to..." phrase work in Spanish. To some dialects, the Poder + infinitive form is like saying "you are not able to lift a feather off a table" To which you reply, "Sure I can". As worded, it could literally taken to mean that you are not physically or metaphysically able to pass those doors with a gun... and it would not be taken to be a statement of prohibition in any way. Obviously the intent is there, but literally taken... no. Some dialects, it can imply that you do not have permission to enter.

Now, the other (and slightly better) word I have seen used is "Deber" which is more like "you should" or "you ought to". So saying "no deben entrar" literally means "You should not enter", or "you ought not enter". Again, not really a clear statement of prohibition, more like a piece of advice.

It needs to be more along the lines of "La Ley se prohibita cargar armas en este edificio de acuerdo a la seccion 30.06..." translates to: "The law prohibits the carrying of arms in this building pursuant to section 30.06...." So, instead of trying to make it "follow" the english wording by trying to translate it word-for-word as you go along, just reorganize it if necessary so that a clear intent is established without causing the problems mentioned above.

There is no reason why one of our spanish speaking reps could not bang this translation out in five minutes and make it a bill in 2017.