Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tim Drayton]

This is a long shot I know, but it would help me if I could locate such a person. Certification officers in the Republic of Cyprus can certify a statement made a translator to the effect that a translation between any two languages is a true and accurate representation of the original. In this case, the certification officer is only certifying the translator's ID and the fact that he/she signed in his/her presence. There is another procedure known as authentication where the certification officer knows the two languages involved and actually checks and vouches for the accuracy of the translation. For example, the certification officer that I generally use in Limassol is authorised to authenticate translations in any direction between Greek - English - Armenian because he is fluent and literate in all three languages. Given that Turkish is an official language in the RoC and there are some Turkish speakers living in the government-controlled areas, I wonder if anybody knows of a certification officer who is authorised to authenticate translations between Turkish and English. I am not talking about officials in the de-facto northern state because their certification is not valid in other EU countries. As I said, this is a long shot, but if I knew of the existence of such a person, I would be able to offer to supply officially authenticated translations to clients if they wish this - in fact, I have received just such a request today from another EU country.

[Get Real!]

You should ask at the Minister of Justice and Public Order, and specifically at this section:

http://www.mjpo.gov.cy/mjpo/mjpo.nsf/Al ... BA00521E4E

[GreekIslandGirl]

.... talking about officials in the de-facto northern state ....

It is a de facto occupied zone.

[erolz66]

It is a de facto occupied zone.

LOL

So the north is not legally (de jure) an occupied zone, according to you GiG. If it is both an occupied zone in law and in fact (de jure and de facto) there is no need to use either term, you just say occupied zone. You only need use the term de facto or de jure when you are differentiating one status from the other. So by stating the north is a de facto occupied zone you imply by any logical extension that it is not therefore an occupied zone in law (de jure).

Does it even register with you GiG when you try and be clever and end up just being publically stupid, or is such such a common occurrence for you these days that it has no impact at all ?

[GreekIslandGirl]

It is a de facto occupied zone.

LOL

So the north is not legally (de jure) an occupied zone, according to you GiG. If it is both an occupied zone in law and in fact (de jure and de facto) there is no need to use either term, you just say occupied zone. You only need use the term de facto or de jure when you are differentiating one status from the other. So by stating the north is a de facto occupied zone you imply by any logical extension that it is not therefore an occupied zone in law (de jure).

Does it even register with you GiG when you try and be clever and end up just being publically stupid, or is such such a common occurrence for you these days that it has no impact at all ?

One doesn't preclude the other. It is de facto and de jure occupied - only, the correction necessary in this context was for de facto. Of course, in your mind it cannot be both because you cannot hold two concepts simultaneously in your tiny mind!

[erolz66]

One doesn't preclude the other. It is de facto and de jure occupied - only, the correction necessary in this context was for de facto. Of course, in your mind it cannot be both because you cannot hold two concepts simultaneously in your tiny mind!

If it is both then the correct term is just occupied, as I already pointed out for your benefit. They only reason to use the description of de facto is to differentiate from de jure. To use it when you do not wish to differentiate between de facto and de jure is the sort of thing only a total idiot would do. Only an total idiot of supreme arrogance would do so and then claim they were right to do so. Still if the cap fits.

Bankers are crooks.

Bankers are de facto crooks.

Banker are de jure crooks.

If you think bankers are crooks in law and in fact which of the above do you think is the correct term to use ? If you think they are crooks in law and in fact which do you think is NOT the right term to use ? (I will give you a clue - it does not have 'de' in it).

Here is the shovel GiG - please do keep digging. Oh and by the way the north is in fact a state

[GreekIslandGirl]

One doesn't preclude the other. It is de facto and de jure occupied - only, the correction necessary in this context was for de facto. Of course, in your mind it cannot be both because you cannot hold two concepts simultaneously in your tiny mind!

If it is both then the correct term is just occupied, as I already pointed out for your benefit. They only reason to use the description of de facto is to differentiate from de jure. To use it when you do not wish to differentiate between de facto and de jure is the sort of thing only a total idiot would do. Only an total idiot of supreme arrogance would do so and then claim they were right to do so. Still if the cap fits.

Bankers are crooks.

Bankers are de facto crooks.

Banker are de jure crooks.

If you think bankers are crooks in law and in fact which of the above do you think is the correct term to use ? If you think they are crooks in law and in fact which do you think is NOT the right term to use ? (I will give you a clue - it does not have 'de' in it).

Here is the shovel GiG - please do keep digging.

Go back to school!

[erolz66]

Go back to school!

I would suggest the same for you but I have heard you can not teach an old bitch a new trick so probably not much point.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Thank you - we have all the proof we need of your breeding.

[B25]

.... talking about officials in the de-facto northern state ....

It is a de facto occupied zone.

The correct term would have been 'de facto illegally occupied zone.

This would have made more clear what you were trying to say (although understood by all law abiding nations and people) instead of feeding more shit to that moron that is trying to cover up the real status of the illegally occupied north.

N.B. Apologies to TIM for a slight derailment of your thread, I hope you find your certifying officer.