| |
| 22 Februar 2008 17:50 |
| 3rd is a bad translation and the last one should be: BID TENDERER AND PARTICIPATER TURN OUT TO BE FAMILY |
| 22 Februar 2008 17:53 |
| 3rd: CANCELLED SPECS CONTAINED CHANGE IN VIOLATION WITH THE LAW IN TENDERS
last one:TENDERER AND PARTICIPATOR TURN OUT TO BE RELATED |
| 23 Februar 2008 11:17 |
smyAntal indlæg: 2481 | 3rd line is not correctly translated, it means:
"illegal changes in cancelled specs"
and "akraba çıkmak" is a statement meaning "turn out to be relatives" so
İHALEYİ VERENLE KATILAN AKRABA ÇIKTI = IT TURNED OUT THAT BID TENDERER AND PARTICIPATOR ARE RELATIVES
CC: kafetzou |
| 23 Februar 2008 16:04 |
| Thanks about "akraba çıkmak", smy - I didn't know that!
But I don't understand how the 3rd line could be "illegal changes in cancelled specs" - could you explain? Here's how I understood it:
Ä°PTAL EDÄ°LEN ÅžARTNAMEDE = IN CANCELLED SPECS
Ä°HALE KANUNA AYKIRI = THE BID IS AGAINST THE LAW
DEĞİŞİKLİK = CHANGE |
| 23 Februar 2008 16:45 |
smyAntal indlæg: 2481 | Ä°HALE KANUNA! sorry, I haven't noticed the typo , it's "ihale kanununa" |
| 23 Februar 2008 16:56 |
| But that's not what it says - the requester clearly copied these headlines directly from the sources. Is there another possible interpretation? |
| 23 Februar 2008 16:59 |
smyAntal indlæg: 2481 | Well, "Ä°HALE KANUNA" is meaningless ,
Bernando could check your source again and edit tell us if you had copied the 3rd line correctly? |
| 23 Februar 2008 17:03 |
| I'm sorry to be so slow to understand, but doesn't "Ä°HALE KANUNA AYKIRI" mean "the bid is against the law?" |
| 23 Februar 2008 17:14 |
smyAntal indlæg: 2481 | yes, that's true, "Ä°HALE KANUNA AYKIRI" means "the bid is against the law" but
when we put "Değişiklik" at the end of the sentence, it's impossible to mean anything other than "ihale kanununa aykırı değişiklik"
CC: kafetzou |
| 23 Februar 2008 17:54 |
| OK - I've made the change, but I still don't understand that sentence - it was the bid that was cancelled, not the specifications, right? |
| 23 Februar 2008 17:59 |
smyAntal indlæg: 2481 | Yes, that's what the first line says but 3rd line says "iptal edilen ÅŸartnamede" which means the specifications was (also ?) cancelled |
| 23 Februar 2008 18:01 |
smyAntal indlæg: 2481 | ok, here I found the whole article , it seems the specifications was changed and also was cancelled before the bid CC: kafetzou |
| 23 Februar 2008 18:15 |
smyAntal indlæg: 2481 | but now the source is correct, it's "Ä°HALE KANUNA", then "ihale" maybe the object of the sentence that --> "IN CANCELLED SPECS THE BID IS THE CHANGE THAT IS ILLEGAL" CC: kafetzou |
| 23 Februar 2008 21:01 |
| Hey smy and kafetzou,
I've checked the source again, and it does say "kanuna".
http://www.spothaber.com/haber.asp?id=72529
But as I understand from your conversation, kanuna vs kanununas only has to do with grammar? Or have I misinterpreted you? |
| 23 Februar 2008 21:21 |
smyAntal indlæg: 2481 | yes Bernando, it says "kanuna" (I've found the original source ) but it's a bit complicated that it may mean both things:
1. IN CANCELLED SPECS CHANGE RUNS COUNTER TO BID LAW (I think this is the correct translation)
or
2. IN CANCELLED SPECS THE BID IS THE CHANGE THAT IS ILLEGAL (this is the questionable meaning )
|
| 23 Februar 2008 23:11 |
| My God this one is difficult! I guess this is the key part:
Söz konusu değişiklik ihaleden 4 gün önce firmalara bildirildi. Ancak değişiklik zaten iptal edilen ihale şartnamesi üzerinde yapılmıştı. İtirazcı firma şartnamenin ihaleden 4 gün önce değiştirildiğini, üstelik iptal edilenin değiştirildiğini ortaya çıkardı.
The issue is that the change was announced to the companies 4 days before the bid(s). However, the change was made to the bid specifications that were already to be retracted. The objecting company revealed that the specifications had been changed 4 days before, and furthermore that the one that was to be retracted had been changed. |
| 23 Februar 2008 23:15 |
| |
| 23 Februar 2008 23:15 |
| Bernando, the grammar makes all the difference here in terms of meaning. |
| 24 Februar 2008 00:13 |
| Haha, yeah, I noticed that you had already found it smy. =)
But kafetzou, I got a bit confused by "the change was made to the bid specifications that were already to be retracted"? Does it actually say that in the part of the article that you pasted? Sounds very wierd. So they had first decided to retract the specifications, and then later on they changed the specifications?
Or should I interpret it as: they changed the specifications during the bidding round (by accepting late tenders), which is illegal, and therefore they had to retract (and re-do) the whole bidding round? |
| 24 Februar 2008 00:44 |
| Bernando, I translated the section I excerpted above - you can see the translation right below it.
My interpretation is that they changed the specifications after it had already been decided that the first bid was going to be retracted, and that the way they changed the specifications might have affected whether or not the bid was retracted, but it was too late, so that was illegal (I guess). |