Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
absence
English answer:
absence [of][from]
Added to glossary by
Alexander Onishko
Apr 5, 2017 15:20
7 yrs ago
English term
Veni Vidi Vici
Native in: Russian 
, Ukrainian
Works in: Russian to English, English to Russian, Ukrainian to English, and 5 more.
absence with(?) xxx of yyy
English
Bus/Financial
Insurance
use of English
Is "with" ok in this case? Or some other preposition should be used?
Thank you all in advance!
===
8.1. The Insurer has the right to refuse payment of an insurance compensation in full or in part if the Insured:
8.1.1. Failed to notify the Insurer about the occurrence of the insured event, unless it is proved that the Insurer promptly learned about the accident or that absence *with* the Insurer of the information about this could not affect his duty to effect payment;
Thank you all in advance!
===
8.1. The Insurer has the right to refuse payment of an insurance compensation in full or in part if the Insured:
8.1.1. Failed to notify the Insurer about the occurrence of the insured event, unless it is proved that the Insurer promptly learned about the accident or that absence *with* the Insurer of the information about this could not affect his duty to effect payment;
Responses
| 5 +3 | Not just the preposition that's wrong! |
B D Finch
|
Change log
Apr 5, 2017 21:52: writeaway changed "Field (write-in)" from "(none)" to "use of English"
Responses
+3
12 mins
Selected
Not just the preposition that's wrong!
This whole dire text needs to be rewritten by a native-speaker of English.
For example:
"... or that absence *with* the Insurer of the information about this"
might be better expressed as:
... or that the Insurer's lack of such information.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2017-04-05 18:20:49 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Re Asker's notes
a) "ROLF"?
b) "absence *with*" is wrong on two counts: the preposition "with" (it should be "of") and the use of the noun "absence".
c) As this is a translation from another language, I wouldn't venture an opinion. However, I would note that it seems more than unreasonable to expect an insurer to pay out on the occurance of an insured event that it doesn't know about! It is more likely that this is about a duty on the insured to declare the event within a certain timescale. Nonetheless, it is for a translator to translate the source text, which is probably perfectly clear about this, but needs to be translated into English by a native speaker of English who is a competent translator of the source language.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2017-04-05 18:22:34 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
The above got a bit garbled in editing and should have read:
... Nonetheless, it is for a translator to translate the source text, which is probably perfectly clear about this, not to amend it. But that source text needs to be translated into English by a native speaker of English who is a competent translator of the source language.
For example:
"... or that absence *with* the Insurer of the information about this"
might be better expressed as:
... or that the Insurer's lack of such information.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2017-04-05 18:20:49 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Re Asker's notes
a) "ROLF"?
b) "absence *with*" is wrong on two counts: the preposition "with" (it should be "of") and the use of the noun "absence".
c) As this is a translation from another language, I wouldn't venture an opinion. However, I would note that it seems more than unreasonable to expect an insurer to pay out on the occurance of an insured event that it doesn't know about! It is more likely that this is about a duty on the insured to declare the event within a certain timescale. Nonetheless, it is for a translator to translate the source text, which is probably perfectly clear about this, but needs to be translated into English by a native speaker of English who is a competent translator of the source language.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2017-04-05 18:22:34 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
The above got a bit garbled in editing and should have read:
... Nonetheless, it is for a translator to translate the source text, which is probably perfectly clear about this, not to amend it. But that source text needs to be translated into English by a native speaker of English who is a competent translator of the source language.
Note from asker:
| one correction - I need a native "lawyer" speaker in this case; if I show you some texts written by absolutely native English lawyers - where one sentence is one page will be ROLF |
| by the way - can you still answer my initial answer about the preposition? |
| the "lack" is a nice hit however ;) what about this version in such a case? - 8.1.1. Failed to notify the Insurer about the occurrence of the insured event, unless it is proved that the Insurer promptly learned about the accident or that lack of such information on the part of the Insurer could not affect his duty to effect payment; |
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
magdadh
: native or competent ;) Either way, yes.
10 mins
|
|
Thanks magdadh
|
|
| agree |
philgoddard
: Another glaring error is that you don't refer to an insurance company as "he".
2 hrs
|
|
Thanks Phil. Indeed! One could even, at the risk of churlishness, note "the "lack" is a nice hit". ;)
|
|
| agree |
Tina Vonhof (X)
23 hrs
|
|
Thanks Tina
|
1 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank you very much for trying to help, the word "lack", as well as for sharing your valuable opinion on the subject what others should or should not do. You failed, however, as a native English speaker, to provide an answer to the initial grammar question - which prepositions can be used with "absence" and I had to google the answer by myself. "
Discussion
eur-lex.europa.eu › EUROPA › EU law and publications › EUR-Lex
On the other hand, the Commission cannot accept amendments 134 and 28 because tacit authorisation (in the absence of a reply from the authorities) is key to ...