Questões de Inglês - Tradução | Translation para Concurso

Instruction: Answer questions 36 to 40 based on the following text.

Klingon to Dothraki: Invented languages gain popularity

1. The idea of invented languages is not new. People have been trying to create new tongues
2. for a long time. One of the most famous examples is Esperanto, created by Ludwik Zamenhof
3. in 1887 which he hoped would become __ globally spoken unifying language. The fact that it
4. is based on 16 very simple rules and took words from languages already present makes it very
5. easy to learn. This was a conscious decision by Zamenhof who hoped that if everyone spoke
6. one language, there would be fewer wars and conflicts.
7. So far, none of the existing constructed languages has achieved a large number of
8. speakers. Klingon, the invented language of Star Trek has around 20-30 speakers. Na’vi, the
9. language created for the movie “Avatar” has one fluent speaker, 10 intermediate speakers,
10. and over forty novices. Dothraki, which was crafted specifically for __ series Game of Thrones,
11. boasts seven intermediate speakers and around a hundred novices. For now, Garadálava has
12. exactly one speaker: Fynn Schlemminger himself.
13. However Esperanto is a notable exception: it’s estimated that the language has around
14. some 1,000 native speakers, and many parents teach it to their children. TV series, movies,
15. books, and especially the Internet have given invented languages a chance like never before.
16. According to the BBC, Esperanto, which was created almost exactly 100 years ago, is currently
17. experiencing a boost, mostly thanks to the language learning app Duolingo, and a highly
18. engaged online community. Wikipedia is also available in this language.
19. With the amount of time and effort it takes to learn a new language, it is rather unlikely
20. that __ invented tongue will achieve world domination in the same way English has. But it is
21. clear that there is rising interest in creating new languages. “Yes, there might be more of them
22. in the future, or more people will try their hand at it,” said Carpenter.

Fonte: adaptado de http://www.euronews.com/2018/04/25/from-klingon-to-dothraki-is-inventing-your-own-language-that-hard-

Atenção: As questões de números 26 a 28 referem-se ao texto abaixo.

Judges Push Brevity in Briefs, and Get a Torrent of Arguments

By ELIZABETH OLSON

OCT. 3, 2016

The Constitution of the United States clocks in at 4,543 words. Yet a number of lawyers contend that 14,000 words are barely enough to lay out their legal arguments.

That’s the maximum word count for briefs filed in federal appellate courts. For years, judges have complained that too many briefs are repetitive and full of outmoded legal jargon, and that they take up too much of their time.

A recent proposal to bring the limit down by 1,500 words unleashed an outcry among lawyers.

Lawyers in criminal, environmental and securities law insisted that briefs’ lengths should not be shortened because legal issues and statutes are more complex than ever.

As a result, the new word limit − which takes effect on Dec. 1 − will be 13,500 words, a reduction of only 500 words. And appellate judges will have the freedom to opt out of the limits.

The new limit may not provide much relief for judges deluged with verbose briefs.

While workloads vary, according to federal court data, the average federal appeals court judge, for example, might need to read filings for around 1,200 cases annually.

That amount of reading − especially bad reading − can thin the patience of even the most diligent judge.

Briefs “are too long to be persuasive,” said Laurence H. Silberman, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In arguing against a reduction of words, the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers urged singling out “bad briefs” rather than only lengthy ones. It advised courts to “post on their court websites short videos outlining how to write a decent brief.”

Robert N. Markle, a federal appellate lawyer, has argued − in his own personal view, not the government’s − that the limit should be reduced to 10,000 words. In a typical case, he said, “nothing justifies even approaching, much less reaching or exceeding 14,000 words.”

Still, he acknowledged that the cut of 500 words “was at least a start.”

(Adapted from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/business/dealbook/judges-push-brevity-in-briefs-and-get-a-torrent-of-arguments. html?_r=0)