“Alcohol consumption is prohibited by persons under the age of 17.”
This sentence appears on a sign I photographed while in Greece. It’s meant to inform customers that minors cannot be served alcohol.
The Greek reads: “Απαγορεύεται η κατανάλωση οινοπνευματωδών ποτών από άτομα κάτω των 17 ετών.”
Legal language slip-up: a sign that says minors forbid alcohol
The translation may look serviceable at first glance, but read it again.
What it actually says in English is that minors are the ones doing the prohibiting. That the act of prohibiting alcohol consumption is being carried out by persons under 17.
Which, of course, is nonsense.
The error is grammatical, but the consequences are legal.
Legal language needs to express the correct legal relationship.
Who is being restricted?
What conduct is being prohibited?
By whom?
In this case, the intention was to say that minors may not consume alcohol. That the law forbids it. A clearer version would be: “Persons under the age of 17 are prohibited from consuming alcohol.”
This is a minor example. But it shows how even short phrases can go wrong when you rely on automatic or inattentive translation.
The result can be incorrect, even misleading.
And in legal or quasi-legal contexts, that matters.
legaltranslation greeklaw ambiguity clarity commonsense nonsense
