The Uncle, the Men, and the Brother: Preserving Ambiguity in an Asylum Declaration
You are translating a three-page sworn declaration (Spanish into English) for an asylum filing due in 48 hours. The declarant, 19, from Guerrero, dictated her statement to a paralegal rather than writing it herself. One decisive sentence reads: «Mi tío me dijo que si no le pagaba a los señores, ellos se iban a llevar a mi hermano, y por eso me vine para acá antes de que se lo llevaran.» The attorney wants “clean, readable English a judge can follow” and no footnotes, because they “look defensive.” Her brother is still in Mexico. This is the only place in the file mentioning the payment demand. An earlier draft by another translator rendered «los señores» as “the gentlemen.”
1. Which two points in the sentence can a fluent English version accidentally over-resolve, and how will you render the sentence? Show your reasoning.
Read the worked answer
The two pressure points are the pronoun ellos and the clause antes de que se lo llevaran.
Ellos. Grammatically it points back to los señores, but a dictated statement from a frightened speaker often shifts referents. I do not decide; I keep the English pointing where the Spanish points.
Antes de que se lo llevaran. The subjunctive here is required by the conjunction antes de que, not a marker of non-occurrence. So I must not render it as “before they could take him” (that adds inability) or as “before they took him” with a completed-event reading. English “before they took him away” is genuinely ambiguous in the same way, which is the fidelity win.
Rendering: “My uncle told me that if I didn't pay the men, they were going to take my brother, and that's why I came here before they took him away.”
Note iban a llevar is future-in-the-past intent, so “were going to take,” not “would take.” I log both ambiguities as queries rather than smoothing them.
2. The previous translator's “the gentlemen” has already been circulated to the client. What is wrong with it, and what do you do about it?
Read the worked answer
“Gentlemen” imports courtesy and a faint irony that the source does not carry. Los señores is a deferential euphemism used for people one fears - an armed group, a local power - and its function in the sentence is to signal that the speaker will not name them. Rendering it as “the gentlemen” makes the threat incoherent (polite men do not take children) and invites a judge to read the declarant as flippant or unreliable. “The men” preserves both the vagueness and the register without inventing either.
Because the earlier version has been circulated, this is no longer a private drafting choice. If the draft was filed anywhere, the inaccuracy is in the record and the attorney needs to know in writing, today. I send a short note identifying the term, the reason it misstates the source, and my replacement. I also ask whether the declarant can be asked, through counsel, who los señores were - a one-line clarification from her would do more than any wording choice I can make alone.
3. The attorney has forbidden footnotes. How do you satisfy that instruction without either guessing or damaging the record?
Read the worked answer
The instruction addresses presentation, not accuracy, so I can honor the letter of it while protecting the content.
First, the sentence as drafted needs no note: the English is faithful and readable, and the ambiguity survives in English exactly as it does in Spanish. A footnote would add nothing except a flag the reader does not need.
Second, if a query to the declarant resolves the referent before filing, there is nothing to annotate. That is the preferred fix and 48 hours is enough to ask.
Third, if a genuine gap remains - say she confirms los señores were a named group - a bracketed clarification inside the text, clearly marked as the translator's, is preferable to a footnote and is standard practice in filed declarations. I would tell the attorney that in advance rather than surprising them.
What I will not do is choose a reading to keep the page clean. I put the options and the reasons in writing so the decision is theirs and is documented.