FinWord May 5, 2013:

non-governmental

nadia_s (asker) May 5, 2013:

@ all
thanks for your time and effort

James (Jim) Davis May 5, 2013:

ente non strumentale
19500 results:
https://www.google.com/search?source=ig&rlz=&q="ente non str...

non instrumental entity
https://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q="non ...

non instrumental institution
3 results
https://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q="non ...

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@ nadia "autonomous" would be wrong because the entity could may well be non autonomous, and the fact that it is autonomous is a mere coincidence that has nothing to do with his being "non instrumental". I see that Jim has not yet understood the difference. Translating is not saying one thing just because it is true, if such thing is not in the source text (in this case, the letterhead)

James (Jim) Davis May 5, 2013:

@Nadia Sounds very fit and proper to me
"During the Medieval period lawyers used a mixture of Latin, French and English. To avoid ambiguity, lawyers often offered pairs of words from different languages. Sometimes there was little ambiguity to resolve and the pairs merely gave greater emphasis, becoming a stylistic habit. This is a feature of legal style that continues to the present day. Examples of mixed language doublets are: "breaking and entering" (English/French), "fit and proper" (English/French), "lands and tenements" (English/French), and "will and testament" (English/Latin)."

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@Nadia try this:

http://books.google.it/books?id=8ZzvNc6Y4rUC&pg=PR6&lpg=PR6&...


The unity of the soul and its "instrumental body"

Here "instrumental" is used on its own.

You will find other examples on the net.

James (Jim) Davis May 5, 2013:

@Nadia If you look in the dictionary, it will only say that "instrumental" is to achieve an end. Only Googling examples of its use by native English writers will show you whether it is appropriate here. "not ancillary" would just be acceptable, but the logical consequence of autonomous is much clearer in English and as Sebastiano says and the law declares it is autonomous anyway so it would not be inaccurate or misleading and would be very clear to a native English reader.

nadia_s (asker) May 5, 2013:

when in rome do as the romans...
you can't expect the british to twist around... it is incumbent upon you to provide the correct meaning and not hope/pretend that the receiver will get the drift in any case

"And if the use of the adjective "strumentale" is probably forced/stretched in the legal expression "Ente strumentale", because no one would understand to whom the entity is "strumentale", why can't we use "instrumental" in English without the preposition "to"?"..... because they are two languages that work in two ways

where was it i read that english was born when the norman nobility was trying to communicate with the saxon peasantry...... you see that's the latin world colliding with the teutonic.... don't expect it to go along very well

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@ Nadia Perhaps this is the reasoning made by the EUR-LEX translator: if the Italian word "strumentale", which is generally accompanied by the specification "a chi, a cosa", is used on its own in this legal context "Ente strumentale", why can't I use the English word "instrumental" without the following "to"?

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@ Nadia And if the use of the adjective "strumentale" is probably forced/stretched in the legal expression "Ente strumentale", because no one would understand to whom the entity is "strumentale", why can't we use "instrumental" in English without the preposition "to"?

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@ nadia "Ente non strumentale": what does it mean? "Strumentale" rispetto a cosa, a chi??? This is quite concise, ellyptical, I would say...

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@ Nadia The same thing may be said in Italian: "Non strumentale" to what???

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@ nadia that's the point!!! We are in a legal context, in which, for the sake of brevity (let's not forget that we are in the field of definitions, of "tags", of classification) some words that are normally used with a preposition, ("strumentale a qualcosa), are used alone, which is not exactly correct or "orthodox".

nadia_s (asker) May 5, 2013:

national research body of a non ancillary/strumental nature

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@ nadia You're right!! But in Italian also you will notice that the adjective "strumentale" is almost always accompanied by the preposition "a" (strumentale a qualcosa, a qualcuno), and only rarely used alone, so....

nadia_s (asker) May 5, 2013:

you see SMGB in English if you use instrumental or non instrumental you need to have a link in the form of 'to' to the verb or subject

he was instrumental in the capture of the highwayman
the tanks were instrumental to the routing of the enemy forces

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@ Nadia You see, my idea (which is the EUR-LEX translator's idea) is that there is no need to specify TO WHOM the Institute is not instrumental. In italian you find "Ente ... a carattere non strumentale", and in English you translate "Non instrumental research institute"

James (Jim) Davis May 5, 2013:

@Nadia Believe me as a native speaker, instrumental to or just instrumental would mean little here. You could put it say in inverted commas with perhaps an explanation in brackets. In reality as a heading, it is probably not terribly important.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@ James (Jim) At this stage, Nadia has understood the meaning of "a carattere non strumentale", and has also understood that this does not mean that the Institute is "autonomous" (even if the Institute is certainly atutonomous!!!). It does not matter anymore what you or what I think.

It is for her to decide how to convey this meaning in English.

I (and the EUR-LEX translator, and the author of the phrase Nadia quoted in the context) think that "instrumental/non instrumental" in a good translation. You think otherwise.

Do you really think there is anything more to say?

nadia_s (asker) May 5, 2013:

NON INSTRUMENTAL BY ITSELF WOULD NOT DO YOU NEED TO PLACE A TO SOMEWHERE
........ SORRY FOR CAPS

James (Jim) Davis May 5, 2013:

@Sebastiano If all translation was based on etymology and cognates there would be no false friends and this is precisely what we are dealing with here.

James (Jim) Davis May 5, 2013:

What does this mean "the benefits of its work should be oriented/directed towards another entity" in concrete terms? That is the question. To translate Italian into English you have to see the concrete reality, the suppy of goods or services by one organisation to another. Or perhaps these benefits are cash?

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@ Nadia My suggestion is and remains "Non instrumental research organization", or something to that effect...

Because I agree with the EUR-LEx translator on the fact that the adjective "instrumental", because of its etimology of "instrument" (the "tool" to which you referred), is suitable to convey the meaning of "strumentalità"/"non strumentalità"

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@ Nadia It means that the law does not provide that the benefits of its work should be oriented/directed towards another entity. And this has nothing to do with autonomy/independence

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@ Nadia finally, the problem is to convey the meaning that this Institute (or its work) is not instrumental to any other entity (the State, the province, the Commune, the ASL, etc.), is not functional to any other entity.

James (Jim) Davis May 5, 2013:

@Sebastiano "they may be serving the population" that simply proves my point, which you don't seem to have grasped, which is that all entities which do something will probably be serving some purposes for somebody, therefore they will all be "strumentale" in some way. In this context as you have clearly demontrated an "ente strumentale" works for a higher entity "un ente pubblico".

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@ Nadia "self-serving" makes me understand that you perfectly got what I have been trying to say since this afternoon. there is only one problem....

nadia_s (asker) May 5, 2013:

Self serving research body

and perhaps we can add a parasite somewhere...

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@ Nadia You see, in my opinion it is the "Ente" which is "a carattere non strumentale", i.e. we should understand "Ente a carattere strumentale" (alias "Ente non strumentale"), but of course tha fact that this ente is "a carattere non strumentale" means that its activity (the research) is not functional / instrumental to any other entity but... the Institute itself!

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@ Nadia On that we can say that the adjective "non strumentale", while referring immediately to the "Ente" ("Ente non strumentale", "ente a carattere non strumentale"), in a certain sense also refers to the activity of this "ente", since the fact of being "non strumentale", while being (IMHO) a connotation/qualification of the "Ente", means ultimately that its activity (in this case, research) is not "functional" to any other entity but the Institute itself!

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@ Nadia I'm afraid the letterhead is not referring to the subordination/lack of subordination of the Institution in respect of other entities. The letterhead is only referring to the fact that the institute's work is not serving, is not "instrumental" to any other entity/body, regardless of any possbile subordination/autonomy in respect to that body/entity.

nadia_s (asker) May 5, 2013:

it says 'Ente nazionale di ricerca a carattere non strumentale'
nowhere can it be established with 100% accuracy that the non strumentale is conjoined with ONLY the ente and not the ricerca

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@ Nadia The letterhead, when it says "a carattere NON STRUMENTALE" is not referring to the Institute's autonomy (an autonomy whcih ther Institute has indeed, but this is not said in the letterhead); it is referring to the fact that hte Institute's work is not dedicated by the law to another entity's purpose.

nadia_s (asker) May 5, 2013:

how about non-subordinated then which will cover both aspects of autonomy and non 'strumental'

James (Jim) Davis May 5, 2013:

@Sebastian Out of context. "Both categories, irrespective of their autonomy/lack of autonomy (= right of self-government) may be "serving the purposes of other entities" because the law so provides."
All entities which do anything will probably serve the purpose of some entity somewhere.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 5, 2013:

@ Nadia The letterhead says that the Institute is "a carattere NON STRUMENTALE", whcih means strictly that its work is not to be dedicated/does not serve the purposes of another entity. This and only this is what it is meant by this expression.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia well, if you consider that "tool" is "strumento" in Italian, you understand what I mean...

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

@Sebastiano These entities are completely free, except that they must supply another entity. They are not even free to choose the entity they supply. However, those that are "non strumentale" are free. They don't even have to supply anybody at all, let alone be bound to one single recipient.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia "a carattere non strumentale" is an expression that may apply indifferently to autonomous and to non autonomous entities. Both categories, irrespective of their autonomy/lack of autonomy (= right of self-government) may be "serving the purposes of other entities" because the law so provides.

nadia_s (asker) May 4, 2013:

Ok so either you are a tool or you are not a tool

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia it is not "servitude". There are entities which are autonomous (i.e. they have their own regulations (autonomia regolamentare), they manage their money (autonomia finanziaria), but whose work goes to the benefit of other entities beacuse the law provides so. They are autonomous but "instrumental" nonetheless.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia The concept to be rendered is that the Institute (which is also independent, but this IS NOT SAID in the letterhead) is "non strumentale" to any other entity. (I still believe that "strumentale" refers to the Institute's own nature, rather than to the specific activity it performs, i.e. research)

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

@Nadia The key to everything is here in this law which clearly governs the IISG. I should have looked for it at the beginning, but I was lazy

Articolo 8 della legge 9 maggio 1989 n° 168,

Art. 8
Autonomia degli enti di ricerca

1. Il CNR, l'Istituto nazionale di fisca nucleare (INFN), gli Osservatori astronomici, astrofisici e vesuviano, nonché gli enti e istituzioni pubbliche nazionali di ricerca a carattere non strumentale hanno autonomia scientifica, organizzativa, finanziaria e contabile ai sensi dell' articolo 33 della Costituzione e si danno ordinamenti autonomi, nel rispetto delle loro finalità istituzionali, con propri regolamenti.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia And we have ascertained that you can serve other people's/entities' purposes while being independent of them as far as your internal organization/your internal rules are concerned, i.e. while being "independent" of that person/entity. Which is why you cannot use "independent" to translate "a carattere non strumentale".

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia Let's put it this way: You are "instrumental" to someone ("strumentale a qualcuno o a qualcosa") when you serve that person, when your activity is functional to that person's purposes...

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

The problem is the word "instrumental" "is not "instrumental to other entity's benefit, "non è strumentale ad altri enti."
This here is not an accurate translation.
"not instrumental to another entity's benefit" means "no assolutemente essenziale ad altri enti". We need to say this with other words. We can't translate with "instrumental" because it is not used in the same way as strumentale. We might have to compromise to avoid the complete nonsense of a literal translation.

nadia_s (asker) May 4, 2013:

I say what I say because from all that has been discussed I get the feeling that the phrase has the word ricerca directly related to non strumentale.

possibly the 'non-strumentalità' does not refer to the nature of the body itself but to its work

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia I must admit that the expression that you chose ("non ancillary research") makes me understand that you have understood the difference b/w "autonomia" and "non strumentalità", because "a carattere non strumentale" means more or less that the results of the entity's research are not to be dedicated to the benefit of any other entity. But there is only one problem....

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

@Sebastiano The problem is two things:
"their work is to be dedicated wholly or partly to the benefit of another entity WITHOUT BEING SUBORDINATED TO THAT ENTITY" your shouting.
The second is just how do you say "non strumentale" in English, in this specific context without using the word "instrumental". Or even how you might briefly explain "non strumentale" in Italian without actually using the word to explain the meaning, a lexicological exercise.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

One thing is being "AUTONOMO", i.e. having the power to regulate itself, to spend its money at will, etc.

Another thing is being "a carattere NON STRUMENTALE", which means that, irrespective of being autonomous (which is a different concept), the entity's work (wholly or partly) is not "instrumental to other entity's benefit, "non è strumentale ad altri enti.

nadia_s (asker) May 4, 2013:

"its function, its work, is not dedicated by law to another entity, i.e. ithat this funciorn, thsi work is not "strumentale a un altro ente"."
whereof ..... for non-ancillary research/work/ends/functions

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

The letterhead says that it is "a carattere non strumentale", which does not mean that it is autonomo (= self-governing, self-ruling, spending its money as it likes, etc.), even if it is autonomo indeed, but it means that its function, its work, is not dedicated by law to another entity, i.e. ithat this funciorn, thsi work is not "strumentale a un altro ente".

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

The institute is certainly autonomo, self-govenring, etc., but the letterhead says another thing!!!! I'll explain:

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia: let me explain again... The letterhead (we are not talking about the law, now, just the letterhead) does not say that the Institute is "autonomo" / "self-governing", etc...

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia the Institute is self-governing indeed, but this is not what the letterhead says!! This is what I mean.

nadia_s (asker) May 4, 2013:

try this for size..
National self-governing entity for non-ancillary research

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia If you insert the word "autonomous" in your translation you are telling tyhe truth, because the Institute has indeed the right of self-government, but...

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

@Nadia "National autonomous body for non-ancillary research" this is better.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@Nadia "Autonomous" means "which has the right of self-government" (Oxford Dictionary", whereas the source text says "a carattere non strumentale", which means that the product of the entity work is not "instrumental" to any other entity but the... Institute itself!!! :-)

nadia_s (asker) May 4, 2013:

or..
National autonomous entity for research of non-ancillary nature

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia In all honesty, this translation is not good for 2 reasons:

1) the notion of "autonomy" (i.e. the right or condition of self-government", according to the oxford Dictionary) is not present in the source text, which would have simply said "autonomo" ("ente autonomo") if this were the intention of its authors...

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

@Nadia Yes I'd go for that or maybe put the Italian and that in brackets. Sorry about all this "discussione".

nadia_s (asker) May 4, 2013:

actually following from the 2nd but last of SMGB I would hazard...
Ente nazionale di ricerca a carattere non strumentale = National autonomous body for non-ancillary research
Any takers?
It's a little more than the 5 words limit, J(J)D

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ all If you are still convinced that "A CARATTERE NON STRUMENTALE" roughly means "INDEPENDENT/AUTONOMOUS", you will understand (hopefully) that I will not tell you the difference between these two concepts for the 24th time.

So I will leave you with your (wrong) conviction according to which you can translate "a carattere non strumentale" with "autonomous" or "semi-autonomous" and the like.

For the last time, my firm conviction is that the EUR-LEX translator, and the author of the phrase that Nadia quoted are right, and that "non instrumental" is the best translation for "a carattere non strumentale".

I hope that you agree with me that after 94 posts we have said all that we had to say. Good night

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

Not at all. "INDEPENDENT" means that they are not subordinated, that they are autonomous.

Which is different from having "carattere NON STRUMENTALE"!!

Otherwise they would not have complicated their lives (and our lives) saying "a carattere non strumentale", but they would have just said "INDIPENDENTE" or "AUTONOMO", don't you think?

And this is the 23rd time I repeat this concept.

There are entities which are AUTONOMOUS (because they rule themselves within the limits of the law, they spend their money with a certain autonomy, they even make their own regulations, and so on, depending on the circumstances) and which are STRUMENTALI at the same time, since the law provides that their work is to be dedicated wholly or partly to the benefit of another entity WITHOUT BEING SUBORDINATED TO THAT ENTITY.

And there are entities which are NOT AUTONOMOUS, because they are "ruled" (roughly) by another entity, but whose work does not serve the "ruling" entity, and which are therefore NON STRUMENTALI to the ""ruling"" entity (the entity upon which they depend)!

The two concepts do not coincide at all!

(23rd time)

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

Finally approaching five words! '"Autonomia" means (roughly) that they can decide their internal organisation, their regulations, how to spend their money, and so on.' Yes and most importantly decide what they want to do, their objectives. They are free to do theoretical research and their noses are not held to the grindstone of applied research, even if they might actually do applied research of their own free will.

'"NON STRUMENTALITA'" means that the product of their work, or thei work if you prefer, is not instrumental to any other entity.'
Now can we say that without using the word "instrumental". Might we say that (unlike dipendenti) they are not working for another institution? Which is extremely close to saying they are independent?

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

The distinction is quite clear! And it is not about hair splitting at all!!!!

Law is not about hair splitting.

The law in question is using 2 different expressions for 2 different concepts!!!!

Everyone sees that they would have said "AUTONOMO" if they meant "autonomo", and not "A CARATTERE NON STRUMENTALE", which is quite long and complicated to just say "autonomo", don't you think?

The truth is, and I repeat, that the two concepts do not coincide, and are quite different indeed (as I have repeated for the 22nd time):

"AUTONOMIA" means (roughly) that they can decide autonomously on their internal organisation (autonomia organizzativa), their regulations (autonomia regolamentare o normativa), how to spend their money (autonomia finanziaria), and so on...

"NON STRUMENTALITA'" means that the product of their work, or their work if you prefer, is not instrumental/auxiliary/serving to any other entity.

These are two different concepts!!!!


That is why they use different expressions!!!!!

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

You are looking for a distinction between autonomo and "non strumentale". In the context you are first trying to split a hair and then translate it into another language.
In terms of the laws and definitions that you have documented so well concerning "enti", to an "ente strumentale" is one which is "ausiliario a" another higher ente. What you fail to examine is exactly what this means. It means it works for the higher ente, it is a tool of the higher ente. It is a slave of the higher ente. The problem we are facing is how to render this in English. We have already established that "instrumental" is not an option, so what is the next best thing: autonomous, independence, which you seem to reject for the sole reason that it is I (I am always totally wrong, while with others you "respectfully beg to disagreeI) you posted it. In other contexts, such as finance and accounting, "strumentale" can mean "business" or "operating", but here it is clearly defined in law under the clear heading "autonomia". So from not following the order to others not "ausiliario" to independent is a small logical step.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

Autonomia e non strumentalità "AUTONOMIA" means (roughly) that they can decide autonomously on their internal organisation (autonomia organizzativa), their regulations (autonomia regolamentare o normativa), how to spend their money (autonomia finanziaria), and so on...

"NON STRUMENTALITA'" means that the product of their work, or their work if you prefer, is not instrumental/auxiliary/serving to any other entity.

There are two different concepts!!!!


That is why they use different expressions!!!!!

I have repeated this 21 times...

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ James (Jim) But I never said that they are not autonomous!!!

I repeat:

this article refers specifically to the "enti di ricerca", and uses two different expressions:

1) "A CARATTERE NON STRUMENTALE"

and

2) "hanno AUTONOMIA".

For you these are synonyms, so "a carattere NON STRUMENTALE" and "autonomo" for you are the same thing.

Well, this is not true, as I repeat for the 20th time.

They would not have used two different expression to indicate the same thing.

One thing is being "a carattere non strumentale", another thing is being "autonomous/independent".

"A carattere non strumentale" means that the entity is not auxiliary/ancillary to any other entity, which means that it does not work for the benefit of any other entity, but this is not coincident with being "autonomous" or "independent".

"independence" / "autonomy" is a matter of organization, of subordination, and this concept does not coincide with the notion of "serving to another entity" of "dedicating one's work to another entity".

For the umpteenth time: "Non strumentalità" and "autonomia" do not coincide, and you cannot translate "a carattere non strumentale" with "independent".

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

"di carattere non strumentale" Again just in case you hadn't noticed the law: Articolo 8 della legge 9 maggio 1989 n° 168,

Is about research institutions.
istituzioni pubbliche nazionali di ***ricerca*** a carattere non strumentale
And specifically "a carattere non strumentale".

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

@Sebastiano As you can clearly see, if you read carefully, this is all about the "autonomia" or "independence" of "istituzioni pubbliche nazionali di ricerca a carattere non strumentale", which my original post addressed as not applied research institutes an subsequently more accurately as independent institutions. Now as you can clearly see, my arguments seem to be very well founded and accurate.
As I have said many times, but only because you insisted in telling me and the world that I was completely wrong, these are independent research institutions.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ James (Jim) http://www.consiglio.basilicata.it/consiglionew/site/consigl...

you can read: "Poi, Assessore, che le APA siano Enti NON strumentali era già di nostra conoscenza;

Well, the APA is the "associazione provinciale allevatori"

http://www.basilicatanet.com/ita/web/item.asp?nav=associazio...

this has strictly nothing to do with research.

Are you finally satisfied???

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

@Sebastiano This is the law in question.
Articolo 8 della legge 9 maggio 1989 n° 168,

Art. 8
Autonomia degli enti di ricerca

1. Il CNR, l'Istituto nazionale di fisca nucleare (INFN), gli Osservatori astronomici, astrofisici e vesuviano, nonché gli enti e istituzioni pubbliche nazionali di ricerca a carattere non strumentale hanno autonomia scientifica, organizzativa, finanziaria e contabile ai sensi dell' articolo 33 della Costituzione e si danno ordinamenti autonomi, nel rispetto delle loro finalità istituzionali, con propri regolamenti.

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

@Sebastiano To quote you "I respectfully beg to differ". Please read again this
https://www.google.com/search?source=ig&rlz=&q=ente "caratte...
All research institutes.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ JudyC I respectfully beg to differ. To say (as you just did) that "the autonomy of a body is a consequence of its being "non strumentale"" is surely wrong, as there are certainly entities which are at the same time "non autonomi" and "non strumentali". As I said, the two concepts are different, and you cannot translate "a carattere non strumentale" with "autonomous" or with "independent".

Or, to be more precise, you can certainly do that, but in my opinion that would not be a good translation.

JudyC May 4, 2013:

@ Jim I completely agree and my first suggestion was "autonomous". But it's also true that the autonomy of these bodies is a consequence of their being "non strumentali" i.e., not subordinate, not ancillary to another body. So perhaps we can all agree on a more "transparent" rendering of "non strumentali", which is why I suggested "nonancillary"

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ James (Jim) http://books.google.it/books?id=ZkYTaMZ3bEMC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA2...

Here the ISVAP is called "ente NON strumentale".

ISVAP deals with insurance, not research.

And, as I told you, you will find many other examples of "enti NON strumentali" which have nothing to do with research.

Contrary to your opinion.

Are you finally satisfied?

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

@Judy "ancillary" is certainly better than "auxiliary" but clearly these are institutions with a degree of independence or autonomy and I feel this is the key concept. They are not told what to do. They are not subordinate.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ JudyC I appreciate your contribution. Nadia has all she needs to decide, and I am sure she will make an excellent translation! :-)

JudyC May 4, 2013:

another suggestion national non-ancillary research body

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

@Nadia I think the best thing is to do what I believe you have already done and put the original translation in Italics with something like "autonomous" of semi autonomous in brackest or as a footnote.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia Please consider that there is not only EUR-LEX translators opinion, but in the same phrase you quoted you read "a national NON INSTRUMENTAL research organisation". That makes at least two lazy and incompetent translators, don't you think?

nadia_s (asker) May 4, 2013:

@ in the legal context yes, however here this is a participation certificate for a secondary school level project, which will probably be read by some clerk/impiegato who may or may not have legal training or resources...

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia Please consider two things: the adjective "instrumental" is not only referred to music. If the EUR-LEX translators (which are a lawyer-linguists having an excellent command of English) translate "Ente strumentale" as "Instrumental entity", there must be something in this adjective which renders it useful in legal contexts, don't you think? Furthermore, there are other uses of the adjective "instrumental" which you can easily find, and I reckon they are related to the meaning of "instrument", which is not necessarily a musical instrument, don't you think? :-)

nadia_s (asker) May 4, 2013:

instrumental in english leads me to think of music...
99.9% chance no one is going to read the letterhead of this certificate.. but in that 0.1% chance someone does read it, then instrumental will 99.9% of times not be connected with the law, italian or otherwise...

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia As regards the "involvement" of various other entities (to which you referred), this is another question (and there are various degrees of involvement, as there are various degrees of autonomy). The problem here is how to render the fact that this specific entity is not (roughly) auxiliary to any other entity. But you already know my answer to this question, do you not? :-)

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

@Sebastiano I quote again from your reference which clearly states that the "enti strumentali" ... "che non appartengono a questa categoria sono detti enti autonomi"
You are being inconsistent.


http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ente_strumentale
"Un ente strumentale (o ausiliario o funzionale) è un ente pubblico che persegue fini propri di un altro ente pubblico (ente principale o ausiliato), sovente territoriale, al quale è legato da vincoli di soggezione.[1] Gli enti pubblici che non appartengono a questa categoria sono detti enti autonomi e comprendono, tra gli altri, gli enti territoriali."

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia You have to translate that expression, irrespective of the fact that the entity in question is autonomous or not. The entity may well be defined as autonomous, but you have to translate an expression which does not say that the "ente" is "autonomo" or "indipendente", but that this "ente" is "a carattere strumentale", which means (roughly) that it is not auxiliary to any other entity (which is not the same thing as saying that it is independent of any other entity). I hope this is clear.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia The letterhead is not saying that IISG is an "independent/autonomous" entity (which it is, anyway), otherwise it would have said "Ente autonomo". It says that this "ente" is an "ente a carattere non strumentale", which is not the same thing.

nadia_s (asker) May 4, 2013:

not sure about the order of the two words... but from the various posts the sum of the argument seems to be that it is
1. autonomous
2. auxiliary or non status

As far as INFM is concerned there is CNR that is involved which is different from MIUR so perhaps the two cases are not quite parallel?

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia Indeed, while it is certainly true that this entity enjoys a large autonomy, the letterhead ("Ente nazionale di ricerca a carattere non strumentale") does not refer to the notion/concept of autonomy (otherwise it would have simply said "Ente autonomo di ricerca", don't you think?). The entity could have been "non autonomo", just like INFM, and "a carattere strumentale" all the same. This is the problem.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia well, after reading the Statuto I agree with you. The IISG enjoys a very large autonomy. The problem is how to translate the expression in the letterhead. If I am not mistaken, are you suggesting something like "autonomous non-auxiliary"? In this case, I do not think it is a good idea.

nadia_s (asker) May 4, 2013:

Statuto IISG the statuto seems to say that it is autonomous in just about everything...

http://www.miur.it/Documenti/ricerca/statuti_enti_di_ricerca...

see page Page 2 art. 1 para 2

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia Combining the two adjectives which you propose ("autonomous" + "auxiliary") is a bit "risky" insofar as you may not be certain whether or not the entity to which you refer is really "autonomous". Indeed, it may well be "not autonomous". Are you sure about that?
For instance, INFM is not an autonomous entity (since it is placed "under the authority of the Ministry"), but it is "non strumentale" nonetheless. I would not combine the two concepts if I were not sure of the exact situation.

nadia_s (asker) May 4, 2013:

@ Sebastian
You think a combination of the words 'autonomous' and 'auxiliary' might make it clearer to the layman as against a precise legal definition as seems to be the case with the term 'non strumentale'?

Something along the lines of 'autonomous non-auxilary body'...

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ James (Jim) as regards the difference between the notion of "autonomia" and that of "(non) strumentalità" I think that I have explained it quite well, considering that we are talking about Italian administrative law and that I am not using my mother tongue. For any further explanation on this difference, I suggest a manual of Italian administrative law.

As regards the problem under discussion, i.e. how to translate the expression "Ente non strumentale", I cannot but repeat for the umpteen (and hopefully last) time that I consider the EUR-LEX translation as the best possible option.

Then, while I respect your opinion, I think that your suggestion is not a good translation, because "independent" does not mean "non strumentale".

On the contrary, I agree with the translators/writers who have used "Instrumental/non instrumental" (see EUR-LEX and the phrase quoted by Nadia).

Finally, I think we have exposed and repeated various times our respective positions. Nadia will surely have her opinion and will certainly make a good choice. Have a nice week-end!! :-)

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

@sebastiano So what precisely in less that let's say five words is an ente non strumentale either in italian or English? After all that is what the art of translation is about.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ JudyC: L'autonomia è un concetto diverso The article you quoted refers to different levels/degrees of "autonomia", and this confirms the fact that the concept of "non strumentalità" does not coincide with that of "autonomia".

In Italian administrative law, an "ente" which is not autonomous is called simply "NON AUTONOMO", but nobody dreams of calling it "strumentale".

As I said, not all "enti non autonomi" are also "strumentali".

There are many "enti non autonomi" which are also "non strumentali".

The two concepts are not definitely coincident.

That is why the EUR-LEX translator translated "Ente strumentale" as "Instrumental entity", and that is why in the phrase quoted by Nadia (in the context) you will find a mention of an entity which is at the same time "dependent" (as it is placed "under the authority of the Minister") and "non instrumental". This means that such entity, while non being autonomous, is not auxiliary to any other entity nonetheless.

That is why the author of that phrase mentions separately the two concepts, i.e. the concept of "indipendenza/autonomia" and the different concept of "strumentalità".

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ James (Jim) In the same article you can also read that "Alcuni autori distinguono dagli enti strumentali gli enti ausiliari, che perseguono fini propri di altro ente pubblico, ma non esclusivi di esso e godono, quindi, di MAGGIORE autonomia. Questi autori, perciò, in luogo della bipartizione enti strumentali/autonomi, adottano la tripartizione enti strumentali/ausiliari/autonomi".

The classifications may vary, but the notion of "ente non strumentale" does not certainly coincide with that of "ente autonomo", because not all "enti non autonomi" are also "instrumental", as the phrase quoted by Nadia makes clear. There are certainly "enti non autonomi" which are not "enti strumentali".

The concept is this:

An "ente autonomo" is an entity which is not dependent of any other entity (I am simplifying a bit, but substantially this is the meaning).

An "ente strumentale" is an entity which serves another entity, which is "auxiliary" to another entity.

The concepts are not the same, since not all entities which are not "independent" are also "instrumental" to other entities.

You can find umpteen "dependent entities" which are not auxiliary to any other entity.

That explains EUR-LEX translation.

JudyC May 4, 2013:

il tratto saliente sembra essere l'autonomia http://www.nuovarassegna.it/web/nuovarassegna/art_det_nolgn....
L’Ente strumentale viene definito come un organismo giuridico:
- «che svolge un’attività di esclusivo interesse dell’Ente che di regola, non richiede una accentuata autonomia operativa. Questi enti sono pertanto affini ad uffici dell’Ente pubblico ai quali solo per ragioni tecniche viene data una limitata autonomia e la personalità giuridica» (cfr. Rossi G., Gli enti pubblici», in «Trattato di diritto amministrativo» diretto da G. Santaniello, Padova, 1990, vol. VIII, 38);
- «che esercita in proprio funzioni e servizi di spettanza dello Stato o di altro Ente pubblico; esso in qualità di Ente “servente” è perciò soggetto alle direttive, alla vigilanza e al controllo da parte dello Stato o dell’Ente pubblico cui è collegato.
L’Ente non strumentale gode, invece, di ampia autonomia per il raggiungimento di obiettivi di interesse pubblico che l’ordinamento giuridico riconosce di particolare rilevanza; le direttive e la vigilanza dello Stato sono molto più affievolite rispetto a quelle esercitate dallo Stato stesso o dall’Ente “primario” sugli enti strumentali» (cfr. A.M. Sandulli, Manuale di diritt

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

@Sebastiano If you read your own references, the opposite of an ente strumentale is an ente autonomo
Un ente strumentale (o ausiliario o funzionale) è un ente pubblico che persegue fini propri di un altro ente pubblico (ente principale o ausiliato), sovente territoriale, al quale è legato da vincoli di soggezione.[1] Gli enti pubblici che non appartengono a questa categoria sono detti **enti autonomi** e comprendono, tra gli altri, gli enti territoriali.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ JudyC and Nadia The article you quoted refers specifically to the autonomy enjoyed by the "enti di ricerca". That is why the article focuses on the concept of "autonomia". But this concept is different from that of "strumentalità", as you can easily verify from this link: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ente_strumentale

An "ente autonomo" is an entity which is autonomous/independent.

An "ente strumentale" is an entity which, irrespective of its autonomy/independence, serves another entity, is "auxiliary" to another entity. As the phrase posted by Nadia makes clear, INFM is at the same time "dependent" (since it is placed "under the authority of the Ministry") and "non instrumental", since it is not auxiliary to any other entity.

JudyC May 4, 2013:

autonomous Art. 8. Autonomia degli enti di ricerca. (legge 168 1989)
1. Il CNR, l'Istituto nazionale di fisica nucleare (INFN), gli Osservatori astronomici, astrofisici e vesuviano, nonché gli enti e istituzioni pubbliche nazionali di ricerca a carattere non strumentale hanno autonomia scientifica, organizzativa, finanziaria e contabile ai sensi dell'articolo 33 della Costituzione e si danno ordinamenti autonomi, nel rispetto delle loro finalità istituzionali, con propri regolamenti.

Articolo 33 (Costituzione)
L'arte e la scienza sono libere e libero ne è l'insegnamento.
[...]
Le istituzioni di alta cultura, università ed accademie, hanno il diritto di darsi ordinamenti autonomi nei limiti stabiliti dalle leggi dello Stato.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia Once we have ascertained that "non strumentale" cannot be translated as "independent", I suggest that you use the EUR-LEX translation ("Ente strumentale" = "Instrumental entity").

This translation, which is consistent with the phrase you quoted, has been well pondered by a lawyer-linguist with specific reference to the Italian context (see below for reference), and is the best possible, in my opinion.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia As you may notice from this phrase, which you posted above:

"Before that date, INFM was an INDEPENDENT public research institution, established in 1994 as a national NON INSTRUMENTAL research organisation UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF the Ministry of University and Research (LD. 156/1994)."

the notion of "ente non strumentale" does not coincide with that of "ente autonomo/indipendente", because the INFM is "NON INSTRUMENTAL" while being placed at the same time " UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF the Ministry"!

nadia_s (asker) May 4, 2013:

yes it is the letterhead

JudyC May 4, 2013:

I'm all for precision but ... we're probably talking about the letterhead, not a treatise on "enti di ricerca" !
from TCTerms (same question asked today) (also by Nadia ?)
carattere non strumentale
This is a certificate conferred by the Istituto italiano di studi germanici -IISG
http://www.translatorscafe.com/tcTerms/en-US/thQuestion.aspx...
See here for an example (someone's contract) :
http://www.studigermanici.it/uploads/report/1335531104_contr...

nadia_s (asker) May 4, 2013:

@ Sebastiano
but what is it 'instrumental' about?
@ James
left it in italian with an explanatory note in brackets refering to the autonomy of the body

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ Nadia The sense is not that of an autonomous/independent body. As you can read from this phrase: "Before that date, INFM was an INDEPENDENT public research institution, established in 1994 as a national NON INSTRUMENTAL research organisation under the authority of the Ministry of University and Research (LD. 156/1994).", before 1994 INFM was an INDEPENDENT body, but in 1994 it was transformed by law into a "a national NON INSTRUMENTAL research organisation UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF the Ministry of University and Research", which means that now it is not INDEPENDENT! As I said, the notion of "non strumentalità" and that of "indipendenza/autonomia" are different. There may well be "dependent entities" which are NON INSTRUMENTAL, just as INFM.

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

@Nadia What about leaving it in Italian with an explanation? It does seem similar to a quango, but that is limited to UK and Irish readers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quango
a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation (quango or qango) is an organization to which a government has devolved power. In the United Kingdom this term covers different 'arms-length' government bodies, including "non-departmental public bodies", non-ministerial departments and executive agencies.

nadia_s (asker) May 4, 2013:

@ all
Per sè found nothing in terms of translation, however the sense seems to be that it is an autonomous body

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

On "instrumental" Not only EUR-LEX translators (rightly) use the adjective "instrumental" to translate "Ente strumentale" (as you can verify below and searching on EUR-LEX search engine), but the same context given by Nadia (above) contains the following phrase: "Before that date, INFM was an independent public research institution, established in 1994 as a national NON INSTRUMENTAL research organisation under the authority of the Ministry of University and Research (LD. 156/1994)."

This translation is quite good, in my opinion.

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

Who said Google was a Bible? It is a phenomenally powerful research tool which requires great skill to use and interpret.
By your argument, since the term is totally Italy specific, it would be better to leave the original Italian in Italics and then perhaps put an explanation as a footnote or in brackets, which is perhaps not a bad idea.

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

Instrumental is simply not used in English in the same way as "strumentale" is in Italian. That is why the Google gives you zero hits, surprisingly even without a filter.
In English "Instrumental" is similar in meaning to "Machiavellian", unless it means of "crucial importance". Personally I always find needs creativity to translate because the literal translation is usually meaningless.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ James (Jim) The notion of "strumentalità" is non coincident with that of "independence". If they were coincident (as they are not), the source text would have simply said "indipendente", instead of saying "a carattere non strumentale", don't you think?

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ James (Jim) We are talking about a specific notion of Italian administrative law. My suggestion is to simply add a "NON" to the EUR-LEX translation of "Ente strumentale" as "Instrumental entity". Please do not consider that Google is a bible as regards translation. Here the problem is how to render in English the notion of "Ente non strumentale", which is quite an Italian notion. I repeat again, if EUR-LEX translators translate "Ente strumentale" as "Instrumental entity" (see the reference I provided, but you can find other references), I think that "Ente NON strumentale" may well be translated as "NON instrumental entity". I repeat again, your second answer "independent" is not exact, since the Italian notion of "strumentalità" does not coincide with the notion of "independence".

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

What about this:
https://www.google.com/search?source=ig&rlz=&q="non instrume...

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

The EUR-LEX translators are definitely right... ...when they translate "Ente strumentale" as "Instrumental entity".

And they are translating as such with specific reference to an Italian entity!!!

This is the link: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?mode=dbl&lang=it&lng1=it,...

And these are the italian and English versions:

"L'UIC, ai sensi del Decreto legislativo n. 319 del 26 agosto 1998 [3], è un ENTE STRUMENTALE della Banca d'Italia."

"The UIC, in accordance with Italian Legislative Decree No 319/9 of 26 August 1998 [3], is an INSTRUMENTAL ENTITY of the Banca d'Italia.".


As I said, the notion of "strumentalità" does not coincide with that of "independence", so I think that EUR-LEX translation is correct.

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

Please James (Jim) consider that I have already commented on your "neutral" objection to my post. As regards your previous answer ("not applied research"), please consider that I first expressed my objection to it, and only subsequently I suggested my answer. Considering your second suggestion ("independent"), I think that the notion of "strumentalità" does not coincide with that of "independence" to which your answer refers. I really think that the EUR-LEX translation of "Ente strumentale" as "Instrumental entity", far from being (as you said) "a sign of a deterioration in the quality of those translation", is a good translation. Ergo, I'll stick to mine, which is strictly derived from theirs.

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

@Judy and @Nadia I don't think you are going to find examples of a "a non instrumental institution" which are not translations from Italian or perhaps another language. Also try asking a non-linguist native English speaker if they have ever heard of a "non-instrumental" institution.

JudyC May 4, 2013:

http://www.translatorscafe.com/tcTerms/en-US/thQuestion.aspx...

James (Jim) Davis May 4, 2013:

@Nadia What did you find?

Sebastiano Massimo Barbagallo May 4, 2013:

@ James (Jim) Davis You will find here evidence of the use of the expression "enti di carattere strumentale" referred to contexts which have nothing to do with research.

http://www.aicspistoia.it/?Statuto

“Promuovere e/o costituire Associazioni, Istituti, Fondazioni, Cooperative e/o altri enti di carattere strumentale, per la gestione del territtorio a tutti i livelli di progetti in materia di associazionismo sociale; per la realizzazione di specifici obbiettivi e per la gestione diretta di determinati servizi.”


I can provide umpteen examples.

"Enti a carattere strumentale" are all entities which are instrumental/auxiliary to other entities.

See here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ente_strumentale

nadia_s (asker) May 4, 2013:

thanks everyone for the help.

JudyC May 4, 2013:

to find out more http://www.science.unitn.it/~indam/estratto.html
"Ente di ricerca a carattere non strumentale".
Gli enti di ricerca a carattere non strumentale sono, secondo la legge 168 del 1989, quelli che ricadono nella previsione di autonomia
previste per le "Istituzioni di Cultura" dall'articolo 33 della Costituzione...

http://books.google.it/books?id=sG5gSu6pfjgC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA8...

nadia_s (asker) May 4, 2013:

Same term in another context I also found the text given here below which uses the same words but is NOT a description
A questo proposito, visto il carattere marcatamente tecnico e strumentale degli obiettivi della proposta, sembra ragionevole chiedere alla Commissione ....

Consequently, and in view of the markedly technical and instrumental nature of the objectives of the proposal, it would seem reasonable to ask the Commission ..


I need confrmation that the above is the correct translation and that not-for-profit does not cover this aspect