jarry (X) Jul 7, 2010:

Sorry, missed Phil's suggested answer; will post my 'agree' immediately.

Lianne van de Ven Jul 7, 2010:

Why not... Waiving a right (zich het recht ontzeggen) is stronger than 'shall not', possibly, as I pointed out above, with legal implications. I would not paraphrase but stay close to the source.

Textpertise Jul 7, 2010:

I think Olly's suggestion is rather good "The employee explicitly agrees not to use the vehicle to participate in car races or other competitions." I think that conveys the idea of waiving or forgoing the right without getting us hung up on the whole idea of having the right in the first place and achieves the objective of not imposing a prohibition on the employee by emphasising the element of consent.

jarry (X) Jul 7, 2010:

Why not simply paraphrase it and say: The employee shall not ...

Lianne van de Ven Jul 7, 2010:

I don't get it I don't get at all what the issue is with this translation. It is/seems very straightforward to me. It says 'ontzeggen' meaning 'afzien van' which translates as waive/forgo. This is not about a 'right to forgo' but 'forgoing a right', by the way. Yes, employees are prohibited to use the vehicles, but that is not how this is (usually) stated. Why? Usually it is meant to avoid that individuals will seek legal action to challenge the regulation (and claim such rights - it is not said that they 'have' them). We don't have all that much context to understand/evaluate the details of this statement, and I don't think it's necessary.

philgoddard Jul 6, 2010:

Lianne - it's nothing to do with marketing competitions or lotteries. It's about racing their company cars, and they're being told (in a rather oddly expressed way) that they're not allowed to.

Lianne van de Ven Jul 6, 2010:

Recht... Employees zijn normaalgesproken uitgesloten van deelname aan door een bedrijf georganiseerde wedstrijden/loterijen (bedoeld ter werving van klanten, natuurlijk). Dus moeten ze zich uitdrukkelijk het recht op deelname ontzeggen.

Textpertise Jul 6, 2010:

In line with my answer The employee explicitly forgoes the right to use the vehicle to participate in car races or other competitions.

philgoddard Jul 6, 2010:

Writeaway - you're quite right, and I didn't read the question properly.

Michael Beijer (asker) Jul 6, 2010:

Perhaps something like this would sound less odd: 'The employee is explicitly prohibited to use the company vehicle to participate in car races or other competitions.' (Although the question would then arise as to whether it is in fact a correct translation of 'De werknemer ontzegt zich uitdrukkelijk het recht om met het voertuig deel te nemen aan autoraces, of andere wedstrijden.' Suggestions welcome.

Michael Beijer (asker) Jul 6, 2010:

Geen plichten maar rechten. Yes, these days, instead of being prohibited to do something or being responsible for it, we have the right not to do it, or the right to be responsible for it, apparently. ;-]

writeaway Jul 6, 2010:

it's a right? so employees basically have 'the right' to race company cars. And they are being required to give it up? strange.....

Michael Beijer (asker) Jul 6, 2010:

Thanks Phil. By preferred, I meant to ascertain whether for example 'The employee explicitly rejects the right to ...' is incorrect, or frowned upon; basically, to see what those in the know think and feel about it.

philgoddard Jul 6, 2010:

What do you mean by " one preferred translation" - preferred by whom? " Waives" and "renounces" are both fine, but I don't think "rejects" or "dismisses" work.