Translation articles

A single trademark definition from a commercial agreement is enough to show how a translation can go wrong in three unrelated ways. Its Indonesian version picks the wrong sense of title, a weaker equivalent for service mark, and an ungrammatical conjunction in including without limitation. The article explains each error and argues that legal translations should be evaluated clause by clause rather than word by word.

The article explains how to choose the right verb when translating references to “business” in legal English. Use "carry on" for operating a business, "conduct" for how it is run, "perform" for obligations or services, "carry out" for tasks or resolutions, and "transact" for agenda items at meetings. When translating Indonesian verbs such as 'melakukan' and 'melaksanakan', focus on the object rather than translating the verb mechanically. Always check the target jurisdiction’s statutes and standard contracts for established usage.

A grammatically correct translation can still change agency, action, commitment, or interpersonal force. Using Korean-to-English examples, this article proposes a practical four-part QA check for identifying functional accuracy problems that ordinary linguistic review can miss.

How should omission to act be rendered in Indonesian? This article tests four common candidates, namely kelalaian bertindak, keengganan bertindak, kegagalan bertindak, and ketiadaan tindakan, against the term's dictionary meaning and its role in the common law doctrine of the duty to act. It argues that omission denotes only the absence of an act, without implying reluctance, fault, or a breached duty. A bilingual indemnity clause shows how kelalaian bertindak can narrow the scope of a contract under Indonesian law. The article concludes that ketiadaan tindakan is the safest terminological equivalent and offers practical guidelines for choosing the right rendering in context.

This article examines how the English verb *provide* can require different Indonesian equivalents depending on its contractual function. Using an anonymized English–Indonesian contract example, it explains why *menyediakan* may be more accurate than *memberikan* when the clause concerns the availability of a service rather than its actual delivery. The discussion highlights the importance of contextual reading, semantic analysis, and event sequencing in legal translation, showing that precise translation depends not only on dictionary meaning but also on preserving the logic and relationships expressed in the source text.