Käännös - Turkki-Englanti - MAYIN TEMÄ°ZLEME

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

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

Ä°HALE KANUNA! sorry, I haven't noticed the typo , it's "ihale kanununa"

But that's not what it says - the requester clearly copied these headlines directly from the sources. Is there another possible interpretation?

Well, "Ä°HALE KANUNA" is meaningless ,

Bernando could check your source again and edit tell us if you had copied the 3rd line correctly?

I'm sorry to be so slow to understand, but doesn't "Ä°HALE KANUNA AYKIRI" mean "the bid is against the law?"

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

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?

Yes, that's what the first line says but 3rd line says "iptal edilen ÅŸartnamede" which means the specifications was (also ?) cancelled

ok, here I found the whole article , it seems the specifications was changed and also was cancelled before the bid

CC: kafetzou

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

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?

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 )

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.

I've changed it again.

Bernando, the grammar makes all the difference here in terms of meaning.

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?

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).

Alright. It's just that the order of events seems a bit strange to me. Why change the specifications if they had already decided to retract the round??? Strange... However, retracting the round due to a (illegal) change in specifications would make sense. Anyhow, I'm going to have the rest of the article translated as well, maybe it will be clearer then.

Thanks!

OK - I did the best I could. Let's see what another translator can do with the whole article.