Two Translations of the Same Circular
A dzongkhag office must circulate a public notice about a new livestock movement restriction. The notice was drafted in English and translated into Dzongkha by two officers. Version A reads that animals may not be moved 'without a permit issued by the Dzongkhag Livestock Officer.' Version B reads that animals may not be moved 'until the Dzongkhag Livestock Officer has been informed.' Both are grammatically defensible Dzongkha renderings of the English sentence, but they impose very different duties. A third officer points out that the English original itself is ambiguous because it does not say whether the permit must be obtained before or after movement. Farmers in two chiwogs have already acted on the earlier verbal announcement, which followed Version B. The restriction takes effect in three days.
1. Explain why this is a language problem rather than a translation problem, and what the office should do before issuing the notice.
Read the worked answer
The ambiguity originates in the source text, not in the Dzongkha. 'Without a permit' can mean either 'unless you hold a permit' (a prior-condition reading) or 'in the absence of a permit being on record' (a looser reading). Version A chose the strict reading and Version B the loose one. Neither translator erred; they resolved an under-specified English sentence differently. Calling this a translation error would misdiagnose it and lead the office to 'fix' the Dzongkha while leaving the English vague.
The correct sequence is: (1) the substantive policy owner - the Dzongkha Livestock Officer and dzongkhag legal focal point - must decide which duty is intended; (2) the English source must be rewritten to state it unambiguously, for example 'animals may be moved only after a movement permit has been issued'; (3) only then should the Dzongkha be re-translated from the corrected source, not patched from Version A or B; (4) a back-translation check by a third officer should confirm that the Dzongkha reader would draw the same duty as the English reader.
Because farmers already acted on Version B, the office must also decide transitional treatment. Issuing the strict version with no grace period would penalise people who relied on an official verbal announcement. A short grace period, publicly stated, is the fairer course.
2. Draft the key content requirements the final Dzongkha notice must satisfy, and explain how you would verify them.
Read the worked answer
The notice must satisfy four content requirements, each verifiable:
- The duty is stated as a condition, not a suggestion. The Dzongkha must make clear that movement is prohibited until a specific act (permit issuance) has occurred, not merely that an officer should be told.
- The responsible office and how to reach it are named. A duty with no route to compliance is unenforceable. Include the office, hours, and a named contact.
- The effective date and any grace period are explicit, with the grace period described in the same sentence as the duty so the two cannot be read apart.
- Consequences are stated plainly, without threatening language that exceeds the actual legal penalty.
Verification method: a comprehension test with 5–8 Dzongkha-speaking farmers who were not involved in drafting. Ask each, 'May I move my cattle tomorrow if I have not yet obtained anything?' If any answer matches the loose reading, the notice fails and must be revised. This tests the reader's understanding, which is the only thing that matters, rather than testing the translator's confidence.