desk with a computer, coffee and glasses

Companies

Company structures and their requirements vary around the world, but many of the basic concepts are transferable. Even if direct equivalents don’t exist, translators need to know what they are talking about. In particular, the suffix for “limited” is often a false friend. In some countries it is a small private company (UK, Brazil, Portugal, Colombia, Ecuador) but in Australia it refers to the really big ones!

In general, a small private company would likely have the suffixes:

  • Pty Ltd in Australia
  • LLC in the United States of America
  • Srl in Italian or Spanish
  • Lda in Portuguese

Whereas large public companies traded on the stock exchange are more likely to have the suffixes:

  • Ltd in Australia
  • PLC in the United Kingdom
  • SpA in Italian
  • S.A. in Portuguese or Spanish

Knowing this, today’s question is whether to translate the company structure, or whether it should be left in the source language (is it part of the proper name)? There is no right or wrong answer that I know of – there are no rules or guidelines to follow. Not yet. Not in Australia.

From talking to many other translators I know that too often it is seen as part of the company name. End of story. A proper noun to be transliterated rather than translated. Yet that translation strategy results in meaning loss, and I would question the importance of knowing the suffix in Portuguese. In non-latin languages like Arabic or Chinese it would be translated – so why treat it differently in Spanish and Italian? Just because we can read the individual letters doesn’t mean that we understand their significance in the target language.

Individuals are identified with Mr/Mrs/Ms/Mx. Companies are identified with Ltd/Pty Ltd/Inc. Why are translators so keen to translate Sig. Rossi as Mr Rossi, or Sra Mendes as Ms Mendes – but not ABC S.r.l. as ABC Pty Ltd? In both cases the title or identifier is an addition to the name. I’m a member of AUSIT, not a member of AUSIT Inc (technically, yes, but here Inc. is a description of AUSIT’s legal status as an incorporated association and is not used in everyday speech).

Instead, why not consider the skopos of the translation? Is the information descriptive, such as a purchase on a bank statement, or is it legally binding, such as in a company contract? Of course in many official documents the legal name is very important. In Australia the full company name must be listed on all legal documents, including the Pty Ltd (or other) suffix. A joint venture between ABC Srl and DEF Ltd will definitely require full legal names to be used in the contract’s translation. But what about in an employment reference from Joe Bloggs Hairdressing Pty Ltd? Is it more important to know that the legal name includes the suffix S.r.l., or is it more important to know that it is a privately owned hairdressing salon?

A translator’s note can also be used to clarify the situation when it matters, but the jury is still out. What do you think?

Company structures in English

Company structures in Italian

Company structures in Portuguese

Company structures in Spanish

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts

×
+