akte op twintig julii tweeduizend voor dhr. Rijswijk, notaris te Groningen

15:19 Feb 3, 2015 

Thanks for explaining yourself more fully. I'll leave it at this. Let's say we agree on the patient's diagnosis, but not on his/her treatment :-) Rest assured though that your input may not always get the recognition it deserves, but it is definitely highly valued by me and I would be sorry to see you stop participating in this forum :-).

20:42 Feb 2, 2015 

"De druppel die de emmer..." is a concept I understand full well. I reached that stage some time ago, when feigned expertise and feigned nativeness became rule rather than exception; when the D-box started filling up with zillions of dico entries and seemingly endless discussions with hardly any linguistic input; and when deletion of posts became the only penalty for downright rude name-calling. For the forum to become ‘open’ and ‘alive’ (and professional) again, THAT should be addressed. Because that is what killed this language pair. Sarcasm and sneers (and the outflow of many native specialists) merely came as a result of it.

15:56 Jan 31, 2015 

True, no direct personal attacks in this one, just a few sneers and sarcasms, probably made in jest but this is always hard to tell because of the absence of non-verbal cues in written information.
As we have seen various examples of bashing in recent debates in this language pair, I guess these sneers and sarcasms worked as the proverbial "druppel die de emmer deed overlopen" for me. I don't mind people feeling strongly about their answer and defending it - particularly if they are specialists in the subject - and I understand the frustration if one's sound advice seems to be ignored (which wasn't really the case here). Still I think it's always best to keep a constructive or at least a neutral tone as this is the only way to keep a forum like this 'open' and alive :-)

21:32 Jan 30, 2015 

I so agree with you. But please show me 'personal' in this D-box, because I don't see any?

21:28 Jan 30, 2015 

I really regret the fact that the debate in this language pair tends to become more and personal these days....
I personally see no need for this. I would say: live and let live, without - figuratively speaking - chopping off the heads of those whose opinions or answers one doesn't agree with.
Or to put it differently, let's try to appreciate rather than deprecate.
Just a friendly piece of advice from a colleague who has always enjoyed the debate in this language pair until recently.

21:03 Jan 30, 2015 

Yes, as we all know from Eurlex and many other sources, there's plenty of cowboys out there who don't have a clue about translating legalese, so you'll probably find plenty of 'in the presence of' instead of 'before'. But from a Dutch law point of view it is simply not correct.

20:54 Jan 30, 2015 

No, in the case of 'verleden voor', voor can only be translated as 'before'. So, 'in the presence of' is not a possible (and never the best) translation for 'verleden voor'.

20:35 Jan 30, 2015 

I agree that “before a notary” is probably better here.
See, right after I posted it, I got a project with a tight deadline and left it as such, and just now I did some research: yes, legalese is a strange language, and it uses all sorts of turns of speech. These two phrases are about equal in use, but “before a notary” is indeed more “legalized”, because it is more colloquial or something. So, yes, in the end, I’d go with “before the notary” myself . Thanks everybody for support. Greatly appreciated and, on top of it, “in the presence of” is of course one of possible (sometimes even the best) translations for 'verleden voor' , but for a simple Dutch text like this Freekfluweel is perhaps right.

20:30 Jan 30, 2015 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?es_sm=93&q="executed in the ... (Google search for: "executed in the presence of notary" dutch)

20:28 Jan 30, 2015 

http://tinyurl.com/pxmzjjf => getuigen/twee notarissen (Belgian)/aandeelhouders...

20:22 Jan 30, 2015 

yes, you'll find plenty of sources for 'executed in the presence of' - but that's for common law, not Dutch law - which is exactly the point that I am trying to make.

20:21 Jan 30, 2015 

Thanks for showing them to me

20:18 Jan 30, 2015 

Although I'd probably translate this as "before" …

I can find quite a few instances online of "verleden in aanwezigheid van" that involve a "notaris" rather than the more common "getuige(n)"
+
I can also find quite a few sources that include stuff like "executed in the presence of a … notary"…

Just sayin'

19:49 Jan 30, 2015 

Which means we're not trying to turn Dutch law into common law, right? Because that would be a really big mistake.
The Dutch question reads "voor [...] verleden". Why turn it into 'in the presence of’ if Dutch law WANTS it to mean before? In the old days (and still), it might (have) read 'ten overstaan van' = in front of. http://tinyurl.com/orhwc9t : "Hoe aantrekkelijk [...] de handhaving van het zoo bij uitstek nederlandsch woord verlijden moge zijn, […] het kan toch alleen gebruikt worden van de handeling der partijen die eene akte voor den ambtenaar, of te zijnen overstaan, verlijden."
The notary plays an active role in het ‘verlijden’. Part of that role is to attest that parties have appeared before him and signed the document in front of him. That is much more than ‘being present’.
And finally: look up 'verleden in aanwezigheid van'; it will refer to witnesses only; not to the notary.

11:55 Jan 30, 2015 

"8. Do I need to sign in the presence of the notary?

In general, the answer to this question is yes. The first time we notarise a client’s signature on a document, it is preferable for us to meet the signatory in person, identify them by means of their identity documents and witness their signature.

It is particularly necessary that the document is executed in the presence of the notary where this is required either by English law or by the applicable foreign law for the formal validity of the document, such as for affidavits or statutory declarations or for certain public form powers of attorney. It is normally clear on the face of the document when the notary must be present, such as by the inclusion of the words “Before me”.

When the notary does not need to state expressly that the document has been signed before him/her and already has a record of the signature on file, the documents may be sent round to our office and the notary may certify the authenticity of a signature without witnessing it." (http://www.savillenotaries.com/scrivener-notary-public-servi... )

11:52 Jan 30, 2015 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?es_sm=93&q="executed in the ... (Google search for: "executed in the presence of the notary" About 24,500 results)

https://www.google.co.uk/search?es_sm=93&q="executed before ... (Google search for: "executed before the notary" … About 180,000 results)

Sure, "before" gets more hits, but "in the presence of" also gets quite a few, many on reputable UK/US sites.

16:34 Jan 27, 2015 

compared to many in this pair. Horse/water comes to mind.

16:32 Jan 27, 2015 

English uses a lot of euphemisms.
It could be that all these phrases I suggested belong to this category. That doesn't mean they are used less often than direct translations, or that they are in any way incorrect. Perhaps even more correct than any 'before'.
It is for sure up to the asker to decide what's more appropriate in this case.
I sign off.

16:24 Jan 27, 2015 

It is most definitely not splitting hairs. I changed my neutral to a disagree due to your instance that your answer is correct. The notary is not just 'present' and is certainly not a witness.

16:13 Jan 27, 2015 

Interesting - your consecutive actions.
I'd call it "splitting hairs".

21:44 Jan 26, 2015 

yes, this is a test. How did you know?

15:25 Jan 26, 2015 

obviously. With or without Jurlex.

14:55 Jan 26, 2015 

You should read "voor" in combination with "verleden".
JurLex: verleden voor notaris ABC te Driebergen
executed before civil-law notary ABC in Driebergen,
executed in the presence of civil-law notary ABC in Driebergen

12:00 Jan 26, 2015 

for a potential job?