Re: *certified* translators [comment]

Subject: Re: *certified* translators [comment]
From: Richard Higgins/リチャード・ヒギンズ <r -dot- e -dot- h -at- IX -dot- NETCOM -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 12:35:28 -0700

> than others. It is my understanding that in Arizona, for
> example, translators don't *have* to be certified as long
> as a notary public authenticates their signature on a
> translation... but that California has strict requirements
> about translators being certified (through a written and
> oral exam).

Just a quick comment:
I think you are speaking of different circumstances. California
certifies medical and court interpreters, but no state, to my
knowledge certifies translators. To certify a translated document
in California requires a notary public. Embassies are also authorized
to produce certified translations, but they [as far as I know] do
not usually certify a translation not done by their own staff. In
other words, the original document must be brought to them and translated
in house. Of course, there is a [usually hefty] fee for this service.

Regarding certifying translators: The American Translators Association
[ATA] is one organization that has a certificate-system which many
translation agencies and clients recognize, but has no legal status.


Richard Higgins
technical translator
Redwood City, CA

Next by Author: RE: Writing for translation [comment]
Previous by Thread: Technical Writing Position
Next by Thread: Creating Answer Wizards

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads