Further this Affiant saith not

¿Cómo traducen esta expresión con la que termina una Declaración Jurada? :confused:

No será "further affiant sayeth not"?

Podría ser algo como "el declarante afirma no tener nada más que decir"

I agree with Santiago. It is saying the person under oath has nothing further to add to the statement.


Edit:

Translation: Otrosí: El declarante no agrega más


Explanation:

Otrosí is the legal term used for further or moreover


This translation was provided by Monica Colangelo
Argentina
Native speaker in Spanish
with degree in Legal and Literary Translation

¡Muchas gracias a ambos! Realmente se trata de inglés muy antiguo, imagino que es de la época de Shakespeare. Por eso es que la gramática es distinta, también.

Sería algo así como el antónimo del Plain English. Les dejo comentarios al respecto (muy al grano) del Colegio de Abogados de Michigan:

Nuts to Further Affiant Sayeth Naught

Exacto. Supongo que esas declaraciones juradas, al ser notas legales, se mantienen con un inglés antiguo para darle mayor formalismo.

En el mundo hispanohablante ocurre exactamente lo mismo.

I completely agree with Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage:

"American lawyers frequently end affidavits with some variation of this sentence: ‘Further affiant sayeth not.’ This sentence gives rise to three stylistic dilemmas: first, is it sayeth or saith; second, is it not or naught; and third, is the sentence necessary at all?... Among American lawyers who use the phrase, sayeth predominates; among American lawyers who rightly pride themselves on their style, the phrase does not appear at all... The predominant form [between not and naught] is Further affiant sayeth not. But this is nonsense, because it is literally translatable as, ‘The affiant says not further’... The form with naught, by contrast, makes literal sense... [But t]he best choice, stylistically speaking, is to use these phrases not."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reminder

En el mundo hispanohablante ocurre exactamente lo mismo.

I completely agree with Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage:

"American lawyers frequently end affidavits with some variation of this sentence: ‘Further affiant sayeth not.’ This sentence gives rise to three stylistic dilemmas: first, is it sayeth or saith; second, is it not or naught; and third, is the sentence necessary at all?... Among American lawyers who use the phrase, sayeth predominates; among American lawyers who rightly pride themselves on their style, the phrase does not appear at all... The predominant form [between not and naught] is Further affiant sayeth not. But this is nonsense, because it is literally translatable as, ‘The affiant says not further’... The form with naught, by contrast, makes literal sense... [But t]he best choice, stylistically speaking, is to use these phrases not."

---

Lawyers, like doctors, have their own form of writing, which sets them apart from the rest of us peones.;);)

Hi, Vicente. It's always a great pleasure to talk to you.

Many attorneys do break every single grammar rule learned (or not) at elementary school. As you know, basic writing skills are the foundations of communication. If attorneys cannot communicate effectively, they could certainly try their skills as farmers, why not?

Please see below a short list of cases with the penalties assigned to the attorneys for poor writing skills.

Penn State Law