José Crespo (asker) Jun 7, 2010:

Well, I stand corrected. Maybe it isn't such great english after all. Anyway, you saved my day, and right on the deadline. If only I had found the french text before... Good job John Detre. Thanks very much indeed, everyone. You've been all very helpful!

John Detre Jun 7, 2010:

Pity the employees without balance. What can they do but leave?

It's curious because, as Asker says, most of the text seems to be in perfectly good English. I think the clauses in question must have been plugged in afterwards.

Sheila Wilson Jun 7, 2010:

Now I'm convinced! The answers saying "it's this" and "it's that" were worrying me - we need to understand the source to translate it correctly, not invent new copy. However, with these Bizreef links it becomes clear what the English version OUGHT to say. Oh dear! To think people are USING this rubbish!

Tony M Jun 7, 2010:

Well found, John, and Polangmar! That extra text certainly confirms the FR origins (and appalling translation!): 'a leave' and of course 'leave without balance' is 'congès sans solde' (unpaid leave)!!!

John Detre Jun 6, 2010:

yes, conjoint(e) means spouse "son conjoint" = his or her spouse (masculine)
"sa cojointe" would be his or her spouse (feminine)
but clearly the masculine here is being used to cover both male and female spouses

Polangmar Jun 6, 2010:

And "conjoint" means "spouse" in French ("son" = her?) - I didn't know it earlier (I just compared English texts of French origin and tried to find legal sense in the original sentence).

John Detre Jun 6, 2010:

Tony and Polangmar are correct The English text is a translation of the French document at http://tinyurl.com/23wrh7c which does in fact say "conjoint"

Polangmar Jun 6, 2010:

In the sentence provided:
a child other that those of = a child other than that of

Polangmar Jun 6, 2010:

prevail himself of = take?
without balance = without pay?

Polangmar Jun 6, 2010:

"the book seems error-free and in good english"

Let's see:
"...of paternity) other that those of joint sound. Moreover, the employee can prevail himself of a leave without balance of three (3) days."
http://tinyurl.com/2erpz86

The words "prevail" and "balance" don't look like good English and the sentence is hardly understandable.

José Crespo (asker) Jun 6, 2010:

Other than this, the book seems error-free and in good english. I suspect that the book comes from http://www.biztree.com/, as I've just found a few references, in hidden text, to biztree.

Polangmar Jun 6, 2010:

An employee may take 1 day leave of absence for the marriage of a parent, brother, sister or child of his/her spouse [when for example the employee is married for the second time and his/her present spouse has got a child from the previous marriage].
Does the text say anything about the number of days of leave the employee may take for the marriage of his/her own child?

Tony M Jun 6, 2010:

Wild guess you have... ... but it would certainly help to know if the document has ever been in FR — or if you don't actually know, are there at least any possible clues (like other translation errors or style issues)?

José Crespo (asker) Jun 6, 2010:

This is the 'marriage, maternity and parental leave' subsection of the 'employee benefit programs' section of an employee handbook. The book is just a template that is going to be adapted to specific companies. I'm affaid I can't get much help from my client, and I have absolutely no clue as to what 'joint sound' can possibly mean. Any help, or even a wild guess, is welcome. Thanks.

Tony M Jun 6, 2010:

Could it possibly be...? A mistranslation of a misheard FR expression!

Supposing it was originally 'conjoint' in FR, and someone for some reason ended up with that as 'son joint', which then got translated as 'joint sound'? I know it's far-fetched, but stranger things have happened! Doesn't really explain why the same mistake would occur twice, unless of course it was a 'change all' spell-checker situation...

Certainly the sense of it seems to be the FR word 'conjoint' — is there any reason to think that at some point this might have been a FR document? I could see how, for example, it might have started out as 'son conjoint', and how things could have gone downhill from there!

Sheila Wilson Jun 6, 2010:

What are the other entitlements? Could it perhaps be that these entitlements refer to the family of your partner (husband, wife, "pacsé partner"), rather than to your own family?

Sheila Wilson Jun 6, 2010:

Have you tried asking the client? It makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm trying to think of a possible voice-recognition error but I haven't come up with anything yet.