This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
du secteur privé
un état de l’art
Apr 7, 2019 15:40
5 yrs ago
1 viewer *
French term

depuis moins de cinq ans

Non-PRO French to English Bus/Financial General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters contracts
I'm translating documents regarding contracts with the Tunisian Ministry of the Interior. Here's the original:

"Une déclaration sur l’honneur présentée par le soumissionnaire attestant qu’il n’était pas un employé public au sein de Ministère de l’Intérieur, ayant cessé son activité depuis moins de cinq ans pour les fournisseurs régis par le droit tunisien."

My translation:
For suppliers governed by Tunisian law, a sworn statement presented by the bidder attesting to the fact that they have not been a public employee of the Ministry of the Interior, having ceased their activity within the last five years.

I'm mystified by the phrase "depuis moins de cinq ans". I would have expected to see just the opposite... That is, asking that the bidder have NOT worked as an employee for at least five years.

Thanks for any insight you may have.
Proposed translations (English)
5 within the last five years

Discussion

Anna Sandstrom (asker) Apr 14, 2019:
I've come to the conclusion that the stray comma is the key to interpretation. I have taken the opinion that the punctuation was inserted in error. Thanks to all for your input, especially Charles David and Germaine from Canada.
Eliza Hall Apr 10, 2019:
@Ph_B "Within the last five years" (or "the past five years"), not just "within five years." But yes, I agree, that's the correct translation either way.
Ph_B (X) Apr 9, 2019:
I wouldn't know which is right - Tony's initial explanation was (still is?) correct but Eliza has a point too (and I don't think there's a typo here). Still, "within five years" is the correct answer to Anna's question in both cases. EDIT: within the last five years, of course. See Eliza's note below.
Charles Davis Apr 9, 2019:
But if you think it means Germaine's second option, and that the comma ought to be there, then (as Germaine puts it) it "doesn't make sense" — unless Eliza's exception applies. As I've said, I don't think this is likely, but it's possible.
Charles Davis Apr 9, 2019:
Ah, I see! To me, "as" would mean "because", and the person would be saying that s/he is not a public employee because s/he stopped being one less than five years ago.
Ph_B (X) Apr 9, 2019:
Charles, I've followed this discussion, of course, and I was referring to Germaine's 2nd option. I thought that using "as" was a way around the issue - but it appears I've failed!
Charles Davis Apr 9, 2019:
@Ph_B Anna's text seems to be formulated on the model of the statute you yourself quoted (from Décret n° 2002-3158 du 17 décembre 2002):

"Une déclaration sur l’honneur présentée par le soumissionnaire qu’il n’était pas un agent public [...] ayant cessé son activité depuis moins de cinq ans."

I would say that this means "a declaration that he/she was not a public agent [...] who had ceased his/her activity within the last five years", which is tantamount to saying that he she has not been a public agent [etc.] during the last five years. I thought that was how you were reading it. It is obscured in Anna's text (as Germaine has pointed out) by the addition of a comma before "ayant"; in the statute there is no comma; but the sense of "ayant cessé" must surely be the same in both.
Charles Davis Apr 9, 2019:
Ph_B If s/he stopped working for them [i.e., as a public employee] within the last five years, then s/he is ineligible, unless s/he falls within the exception identified by Eliza. I think that (the exception) is a possibility, but to me it's less likely than the alternative, the relative ("who stopped working for them"). It seems to me that if the declarant were claiming the "essaimage" exception to the normal disqualification of those who have been public employees within the last five years, s/he would say so.
Ph_B (X) Apr 9, 2019:
as? "The bidder certifies under the law governing... that he or she is not employed by… as he or she stopped working for them within the last five years". Obviously not legal English, but anything wrong with what it means?
Charles Davis Apr 9, 2019:
In other words, I (and others) disagree with this statement of yours:

"There is literally no other way to read "ayant cessé son activité." It means "having ceased his/her/its activity." It cannot mean anything else; there is no other way to translate "ayant cessé.""

There is another way; it could be a present participle used instead of a relative. This is common in French, as has already been said. For example, "Les gens ayant une voiture arrivent toujours en avance" means people who have a car always arrive earlier. The argument here is that this is such a case.
Charles Davis Apr 9, 2019:
@Eliza I carefully read that post of yours (16.45 my time) and the source you added to your answer before posting my first comment (at 17.40 my time), which is why I noted in that comment that if the "essaimage" exception applies, it could make sense to read "ayant cessé son activité" as you are reading it (and as several of us, Anna, Victoria and myself, read it at first): namely, as meaning "having ceased his activity".

However, it is not true that either the company falls within the "essaimage" exception or the phrase is an error. There is another alternative, which several of us have been discussing, namely that "un employé public [...] ayant cessé son activité depuis moins de cinq ans" means "a public employé [...] who has ceased his activity within the last five years". The declarant is stating that he is not such a public employee. The comma is intrusive in that case, and is probably an error; see the source Ph_B has cited in his post. I've tried to explain this already, but please see the posts by Tony M, Yvonne, Germaine and Ph_B.
Eliza Hall Apr 9, 2019:
@ Charles - please read My discussion post of 10:45AM, and the "PS" in my proposed answer, both explain why this could make sense as-is (with the comma). If you would glance at one or both of those before responding, that would be great.

You said: "reading 'ayant cessé son activité' as 'having ceased his activity' seems to be nonsense, since the person would... be declaring that they had been a public employee during the last five years, which should make them ineligible."

If they were a public employee within the last 5 years, BUT they left to create a business "dans le cadre de l’essaimage," then they WOULD be eligible to submit a bid. That's an exception to the ineligibility rules under Tunisian law (see my 10:45 post and my PS).

There is literally no other way to read "ayant cessé son activité." It means "having ceased his/her/its activity." It cannot mean anything else; there is no other way to translate "ayant cessé."

So either the document was submitted by a company that falls within the "essaimage" exception, in which case the comma is fine; or the comma is an error; or "ayant cessé son activité" is an error.
Germaine Apr 9, 2019:
En tout cas, voilà qui explique la virgule qui n’aurait pas dû se trouver là!
Ph_B (X) Apr 9, 2019:
Bit missing? Une déclaration sur l’honneur présentée par le soumissionnaire qu’il n’était pas un agent public au sein de l’administration, l’établissement ou l’entreprise publique qui va passer le marché de fourniture de biens ou de services ayant cessé son activité depuis moins de cinq ans.(https://legislation-securite.tn/fr/node/41766) This is from what looks like an official Tunisian government website.
Charles Davis Apr 9, 2019:
@Eliza By "seed company" I mean a kind of startup (strictly I think it's a pre-startup, that doesn't have a product yet). Something of that nature anyway. If that's what it is then apparently someone who stopped being a public employee less than five years ago could be eligible, according to your source.

But otherwise, reading "ayant cessé son activité" as "having ceased his activity" seems to be nonsense, since the person would effectively be declaring that they had been a public employee during the last five years, which should make them ineligible. This is exactly the problem that caused Anna to ask the question in the first place and that's been discussed here. But as Tony explained, if you could consider "ayant" as meaning "who has", it makes sense, because it means that the person has NOT been a public employee during the last five years. Germaine added that you could read it like that but without the comma. As far as I'm concerned that is almost certainly the solution, though I didn't see it until Tony pointed it out.
Eliza Hall Apr 9, 2019:
@ Charles Essaimage isn't literally seeds. It's like what we in the US call an incubator, but more specific:

"En France, le nombre d'entreprises créées par essaimage est estimé à 15 000 par an.... L’essaimage consiste à aider un ou plusieurs travailleurs à créer leur propre entreprise ou en reprendre une autre.... On parle d’essaimage quand une entreprise décide d’apporter son soutien à ses salariés pour la création d'une entreprise ou la reprise d'une entreprise."
https://www.petite-entreprise.net/P-2137-136-G1-definition-d...

As for the comma, I don't see it as a problem. It means the bidder attested "that he was not a public employee within the Ministry of the Interior, having ceased his activity within the last five years."

In other words, the reason he doesn't count as "a public employee within the Ministry of the Interior" -- a.k.a., the reason he's allowed to submit this bid (since a current public employee at the Ministry wouldn't be allowed to bid) -- is because although he used to be a public employee within the Ministry of the Interior, he left that position at some point, and he did so within the past 5 years.
Charles Davis Apr 9, 2019:
@Germaine Thank you for pointing that out. I agree that the comma is the problem and leads one to read the present participle as causal. If we remove the comma, it becomes a relative and makes sense: "was not a public employee who had ceased his/her activity [i.e., ceased to be a public employee] less than five years ago" or "within the last five years"; in other words, it means that the person had not been a public employee within the past five years.

This, to me, is the most likely explanation, unless it's a seed company (I think that's what "entreprise créée dans le cadre de l’essaimage" means), in which case Eliza's exception could apply.
Eliza Hall Apr 9, 2019:
Another possibility According to this Tunisian law link, most bidders have to be able to assert that they have not been employed within the past 5 years by the public service they're submitting their bid to. However, there's an exception for "propriétaires des entreprises créées dans le cadre de l’essaimage conformément à la législation et la réglementation en vigueur dans ce domaine."

https://www.jurisitetunisie.com/tunisie/codes/marches/2009-3... (Article 13 (paragraphe 2 nouveau)).

So I think that the text Anna is translating relates to a bidder who falls within that exception: they are not currently a public employee, but they only ceased that activity within the last 5 years.

But in Anna's shoes I would flag this for the client, and let them know that this might possibly be a typo in the French (presumably in most cases, the bidder has to have ceased AT LEAST 5 years ago; unless this text concerns someone who falls into the exception, it's likely a typo).

See the PS in my suggested translation...
Germaine Apr 8, 2019:
Anna, For a French native, the problem is the comma:

n’était pas un employé public ayant cessé son activité depuis moins de cinq ans
= who was not a public servant during/for the last 5 years
(employé is the subject of ayant = qui a)

n’était pas un employé public, ayant cessé son activité depuis moins de cinq ans
= was not a public servant, since/because he ceased its activity less than 5 years ago
(..., ayant = explanatory. There is no subject to "ayant")

Heureusement, la seconde option doesn’t make sense. Vous pouvez donc être rassurée sur votre logique.
Yvonne Gallagher Apr 8, 2019:
Agree with Tony and don't really see the difficulty. It's a very common construction in French and occurs in English too as Charles points out. Perhaps it's Hiberno English but I wouldn't see the construction "having stopped working" as that unusual either, though I'd rephrase.
Charles Davis Apr 7, 2019:
Thanks, Tony I didn't see it clearly before but thanks to you I do now. I would say that the obstacle to comprehension here is not so much the way "depuis" works in French, which is pretty straightforward once you've got the hang of it, but the prolific use in French of the present participle meaning a relative. We do it in English too, but the French do it in contexts where even we don't, such as this one: you can't say "an employee having stopped working" for "an employee who stopped working". That's what threw me.
Anna Sandstrom (asker) Apr 7, 2019:
Aha, Tony M. If I follow you... "un employé (...) ayant cessé son activité" refers all to the same person. I was taking it as "an employee" (or someone else) who "has stopped work"... That's where I went off track. This is a perfect answer.
Tony M Apr 7, 2019:
@ Asker Yes, you and Victoria are both correct — it's just a rather backwards way of expressing it, but typical in FR with a present particiaple construction like this.
Start by looking at it thus:

"Une déclaration sur l’honneur ... attestant qu’il n’était pas un employé public ... ayant cessé son activité depuis moins de cinq ans pour ..."

Now if you consider 'ayant' as meaning 'who has...', we get "that they are not a... who stopped work less than 5 years ago" — in other words, "...who stopped work more than 5 years ago"
Not really a double negative, just to do with the way we used 'depuis' in FR compared to EN.
Anna Sandstrom (asker) Apr 7, 2019:
I agree with you, Victoria, in what the meaning logically would be... that the person (or company) attest to the fact that they are not employed by the Ministry. Or, if they have been employed, that they have stopped being so LONGER than five years ago. (Not yelling, just emphasizing...)

I want confirmation that this (to my mind, logical) interpretation is held up grammatically.

I'm interested in native speakers' take... Anyone? Of course, not to imply that Victoria may not be a native speaker ;-)
Victoria Britten Apr 7, 2019:
Double negative? I think it may just be badly expressed: they are not employed and have not stopped being so within the last five years (ie it's been more than 5 years, if they ever were)

Proposed translations

22 hrs

within the last five years

Declined
Exactly as you said in your question, Anna: "a sworn statement presented by the bidder attesting to the fact that they have not been a public employee of the Ministry of the Interior, having ceased their activity **within the last five years**"

:)



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 23 hrs (2019-04-09 14:42:54 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

PS according to this Tunisian law link, most bidders have to be able to assert that they have not been employed within the past 5 years by the public service they're submitting their bid to. However, there's an exception for "propriétaires des entreprises créées dans le cadre de l’essaimage conformément à la législation et la réglementation en vigueur dans ce domaine." (See the first Note at Art. 13 of this link: https://www.jurisitetunisie.com/tunisie/codes/marches/marche...

So I think that the text Anna is translating relates to a bidder who falls within that exception: they are not currently a public employee, but they only ceased that activity within the last 5 years.

But in Anna's shoes I would flag this for the client, and let them know that this might possibly be a typo in the French (presumably in most cases, the bidder has to have ceased AT LEAST 5 years ago; unless this text concerns someone who falls into the exception, it's likely a typo).

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 23 hrs (2019-04-09 14:46:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Sorry, that link somehow doesn't work. Here's another -- see "Article 13 (paragraph 2 nouveau)": https://www.jurisitetunisie.com/tunisie/codes/marches/2009-3...
Peer comment(s):
disagree Victoria Britten : The "having" after the comma suggests a logical link: they have not been a public employee BECAUSE they have ceased..., which is incomprehensible.
16 hrs
They don't count as a public employee of the Ministry (i.e., they are allowed to submit a bid to the Ministry) because they ceased that activity. If they hadn't ceased it, they'd still be an employee & thus not allowed to bid. It makes perfect sense
agree Ph_B (X) : That's what the text says. A Tunisian lawyer would probably be able to explain all the fine points - and your explanation certainly makes sense here (typo -I don't really think it's the case- and/or applicable exception under...).
1 day 2 hrs
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search