The entitlement to a partner's pension is conditional upon being unmarried ...

UrsulaB

New Member
Canada & CH / English, (French & Swiss-German)
Hello,

I've had to translate:( from the french and am not sure how my english sounds, this is the result:

The entitlement to a partner's pension is conditional upon being unmarried, not being related, and of the two partners having lived together without interruption during the last five years preceding the death of the insured person or the surviving partner being financially responsible for one or more children from their union.


I would appreciate a native english speaker's feedback as to the clarity and grammar of the whole sentence.

Edit: I've decided the sentence above sounds horrible and have written this instead:

A partner's pension is due if upon his/her death, the insured person is not married, is not related to his/her partner and the two partners have lived together without interruption during the last five years preceding the death of the insured person or the surviving partner is financially responsible for one or more children from their union.

OK, what would you prefer to read ;) if you had to sign a formal document

I would still like to hear from someboday about the use of "conditional upon."

(This is for a formal insurance document)


Thanks,
Ursula
 
  • elroy

    Imperfect Mod
    US English, Palestinian Arabic bilingual
    UrsulaB said:
    Hello,

    I've had to translate:( from the french and am not sure how my english sounds, this is the result:

    The entitlement to a partner's pension is conditional upon being unmarried, not being related, and of the two partners having lived together without interruption during the last five years preceding the death of the insured person or the surviving partner being financially responsible for one or more children from their union.


    I would appreciate a native english speaker's feedback as to the clarity and grammar of the whole sentence.

    Edit: I've decided the sentence above sounds horrible and have written this instead:

    A partner's pension is due if upon his/her death, the insured person is not married, is not related to his/her partner and the two partners have lived together without interruption during the last five years preceding the death of the insured person or the surviving partner is financially responsible for one or more children from their union.

    OK, what would you prefer to read ;) if you had to sign a formal document

    I would still like to hear from someboday about the use of "conditional upon."

    (This is for a formal insurance document)


    Thanks,
    Ursula
    Here is my suggestion:

    Entitlement to a partner's pension requires the following conditions: no marital ties, no blood relations, and uninterrupted cohabitation for the duration of the five years directly preceding the death of the insured partner or financial responsibility on the part of the surviving partner for at least one of the children from their union.

    "Conditional upon" is too vague for a formal document. Also, the structure "noun + participle" is grammatically incorrect.
     

    UrsulaB

    New Member
    Canada & CH / English, (French & Swiss-German)
    Thank you Elroy.

    I have decided to use the first part of your sentence but keep the rest:

    Entitlement to a partner's pension requires the following conditions: the insured person is not married, is not related to his partner and the two partners have lived together without interruption during the last five years preceding the death of the insured person or the surviving partner is financially responsible for one or more children from their union.

    The stress is on the insured person not being married (to someone else for instance)

    [CODE]
    [font=JTI][color=blue]Also, the structure "noun + participle" is grammatically incorrect.[/color][/font]
    [/CODE]
    I do not understand :confused: what part of my original sentence was grammatically incorrect.

     

    foxfirebrand

    Senior Member
    Southern AE greatly modified by a 1st-generation Scottish-American mother, and growing up abroad.
    Setting aside grammar for a minute, I don't understand the logic of this. It seems to be saying that when an insured person dies, surviving partners who are not married or related can qualify for benefits if they have lived together long enough or if the survivor has responsibility for the deceased's children.

    If that's so, it's misleading to say that being unmarried or related is a necessary condition of receiving benefits-- I should think if they were married, a problem wouldn't exist.

    Does this list of conditions say benefits can be received even though a surviving partner was not a legal spouse, provided certain conditions are met?

    I know this is the English-only forum, but how about sneaking in some of the original you are translating from?
     

    UrsulaB

    New Member
    Canada & CH / English, (French & Swiss-German)
    You wrote: [CODE]I should think if they were married, a problem wouldn't exist.[/CODE]

    Yes, you are right because if the persons in question were married, then the surviving spouse would receive a spouse's pension and not a partner's pension. It's a legal technicality.

    To give some background: A partner's pension is relatively recent here in the pension fund business in Switzerland. People living in common-law relationships are disadvantaged if their partner dies. Now, pension fund law has been amended to permit insured persons' (long-term) partners to receive a pension if their insured partner dies (partner of either sex).

    This is the original french which I was asked to comment on and translate:

    Le droit à une rente de partenaire existe si lors du décès la personne assurée n’est pas mariée, n’a aucun lien de parenté avec son partenaire et lorsque les deux partenaires ont fait ménage commun sans interruption pendant les cinq dernières années précédant le décès de la personne assurée ou lorsque le partenaire survivant doit subvenir à l’entretien d’un ou plusieurs enfants communs.

     

    foxfirebrand

    Senior Member
    Southern AE greatly modified by a 1st-generation Scottish-American mother, and growing up abroad.
    Exactly as I thought. Your original translation made it sound like being unmarried was a condition of receiving a (deceased) insured partner's benefit-- whereas this rule establishes criteria for common-law marital status. It spells out under what circumstances unmarried partners may be beneficiaries in the same manner as spouses-- not because they are not legally married, but in spite of that.
    I think you'll want to come up with a translation that conveys that meaning at all, and then we can see if it does so effectively.
     

    UrsulaB

    New Member
    Canada & CH / English, (French & Swiss-German)
    Dear ffb,

    Let's forget my horrible first attempt:eek: . But don't you like what I ended up with :

    Entitlement to a partner's pension requires the following conditions: the insured person is not married, is not related to his partner and the two partners have lived together without interruption during the last five years preceding the death of the insured person or the surviving partner is financially responsible for one or more children from their union


    Here is more or less the whole text from the form entitled "Confirmation of partnership" translation of "confirmation du ménage commun" :

    The insured person hereby confirms that
    he/she has shared a household together with his/her partner since ____
    and/or
    that he/she is financially responsible for one or more children from their union

    Entitlement to a partner's pension requires the following conditions: the insured person is not married, is not related to his partner and the two partners have lived together without interruption during the last five years preceding the death of the insured person or the surviving partner is financially responsible for one or more children from their union.

    In the event of death, the insured person acknowledges that his/her partner is entitled to the XXXXX Pension benefits in accordance with the Pension Fund rules in force at the time of death.

    There is no entitlement to benefits if the partner already receives a spouse's pension.

    In order to determine the entitlement to benefits of the surviving partner, the Foundation can require the following documents as proof of the joint household and its duration:
    (xxxxxxxx)

    I'd like to point out that it is not just heterosexual common-law partners that we are dealing with but also established gay couples. (Gay marriage does not legally exist in CH (unlike Holland), but special legislation came into effect recently in CH (we had a referendum) giving gay couples more legal rights (succession, etc).

    We're getting off topic here. Do you think I should post a new thread with the French text and get input on my translation ?
     

    foxfirebrand

    Senior Member
    Southern AE greatly modified by a 1st-generation Scottish-American mother, and growing up abroad.
    UrsulaB said:
    Entitlement to a partner's pension requires the following conditions: the insured person is not married, is not related to his partner and the two partners have lived together without interruption during the last five years preceding the death of the insured person or the surviving partner is financially responsible for one or more children from their union
    Much better for sure, but the confusion still exists-- you're saying:

    entitlement (in general) --> requires --> not being married

    But married people are entitled to benefits! What you want to make clear is:

    entitlement (for unmarried partners) --> requires --> (the other criteria)

    "Entitlement to benefits, for unmarried partners, is possible/allowed under the following conditions..." Something like that.

    I think you're okay in this forum. People with translation needs are welcome here, and it is your English version you're looking for help with. Posting the French version might raise some moderator hackles, but you weren't just breaking into another language and leaving non-speakers in the dark.
     

    elroy

    Imperfect Mod
    US English, Palestinian Arabic bilingual
    In light of the new information (thanks, FFB, for your perspicaciousness!), here is my updated attempt:

    Entitlement to a deceased partner's pension is possible if at the time of death the insured persion is not married, does not have any blood relations with his/her partner, and if the two partners have lived together without interruption for the five years preceding the death of the insured person or the surviving partner is financially responsible for at least one of the children from their union.
     

    UrsulaB

    New Member
    Canada & CH / English, (French & Swiss-German)
    Elroy,

    Thank you very much for you input. I like your solution. However, my last version has already gone out to the client and is awaiting approval.

    FFB:
    thank you for you further input as well. I would just like to point out that there can be no confusion because of course, as you mentioned, marrried people are entitled to benefits but those benefits fall under the heading "spouse's pension". The people to whom this document (of which my much discussed translation is part) is addressed are the "unmarried" and who are living in an officially recognized partnership. The whole situation is about a "partner's pension" as opposed to a "spouse's pension". There is a whole 25 page rules booklet going into detail about all the pension plan benefits, explaining who is entitled to what benefits. (not very exciting reading ;) )

    Once again thanks for all the help. I'm glad to have discovered this forum and will surely make use of it again in future.
     

    elroy

    Imperfect Mod
    US English, Palestinian Arabic bilingual
    UrsulaB said:
    Elroy,

    Thank you very much for you input. I like your solution. However, my last version has already gone out to the client and is awaiting approval.

    FFB:
    thank you for you further input as well. I would just like to point out that there can be no confusion because of course, as you mentioned, marrried people are entitled to benefits but those benefits fall under the heading "spouse's pension". The people to whom this document (of which my much discussed translation is part) is addressed are the "unmarried" and who are living in an officially recognized partnership. The whole situation is about a "partner's pension" as opposed to a "spouse's pension". There is a whole 25 page rules booklet going into detail about all the pension plan benefits, explaining who is entitled to what benefits. (not very exciting reading ;) )

    Once again thanks for all the help. I'm glad to have discovered this forum and will surely make use of it again in future.
    Well, if this document is specifically and exclusively addressed to that specific demographic, isn't the "not married" clause redundant?

    Entitlement to reading this post requires an Internet connection. :)
     

    UrsulaB

    New Member
    Canada & CH / English, (French & Swiss-German)
    Well, if this document is specifically and exclusively addressed to that specific demographic, isn't the "not married" clause redundant?

    Point taken, but I have to stress that all the bases have to be covered. Take for instance, the situation where a married man has another partner with whom he has children. Now if he dies, his wife (even if they are separated and not living together at the time of his death) will receive a widow's (spouse's) pension. Unfortunately, his "girlfriend" will NOT be entitled to a partner's pension (Their children will receive orphans' pensions, though.)

    (I haven't made this example up)
     

    elroy

    Imperfect Mod
    US English, Palestinian Arabic bilingual
    UrsulaB said:
    Point taken, but I have to stress that all the bases have to be covered. Take for instance, the situation where a married man has another partner with whom he has children. Now if he dies, his wife (even if they are separated and not living together at the time of his death) will receive a widow's (spouse's) pension. Unfortunately, his "girlfriend" will NOT be entitled to a partner's pension (Their children will receive orphans' pensions, though.)

    (I haven't made this example up)
    Oh, I see! So the person can't be married to somebody else, either!

    As clear as these official documents try to sound, there are always hazy areas! :)
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top