Customs Form: Who is 'someone else'?

[Taro Toporific]

The People's Republic of Freedonia wants me to "clarify" their Customs Form I Yeah, yeah, I know it's an Anal-Retentive issue).

1. Are you bringing the following into Freedonia?...
...(4) Any items you have been requested from someone else to bring into Freedonia

[wagyl]

I haven't responded yet, because in an outbreak of irony, I need some clarification of the reason for your poll.

Have you been asked to edit a document to provide more clarity? If that is the case, and there is enough space allocated for it, I would combine the first two items.
However, first I would say that I tend to use "requested by someone else." I might say "Have you received a request from someone else," but not the expression in the example. I am fully aware that there are different flavours of English, and the current example may ruffle no feathers in somebody else.

If this is an editing request for that document, and the aim is clarity, my preferred text would be:

Any items you have been requested by someone else to bring into Freedonia ---"Someone else" means anyone besides yourself. Your spouse, parent, or child is also included as "someone else."

If, however, this poll is just to ask what a government means when it says "someone else" on a customs form, my answer would be that they mean it as broad as they can get away with: anyone else.

[Taro Toporific]

...If, however, this poll is just to ask what a government means when it says "someone else" on a customs form, my answer would be that they mean it as broad as they can get away with: anyone else.

"(4) Any items you have been requested from SOMEONE ELSE to bring into Jipangu"

The goal of the poll was that I poo-pooed the entire question of a Poobah of Jipangu asking:
"Does/can 'someone else' include person(s) you are traveling with on the same trip (like a family, partner, friend, as a group)?"

The Poobah thinks that the current Jipangu Customs wording in English could somehow vaguely allow 'someone else' be construed as only a stranger outside your travel group.

Whereas: I contend that 'someone else' is anyone else besides yourself.

(4) Any items you have been requested from someone else to bring into Jipangu

jipangu.png

____________________________

The Poobahs in Jipangu Customs get a lot of Asian (and Japanese) customs scrufflaws who claim 'someone else' does not include family or their travel group.

[wagyl]

I agree that in this case a person with a firm grasp of the English language and experience in international movement of goods and understanding the underlying reasons behind these regulations would not think that a member of the same travel group asking you to carry something in your suitcase would get a tick in that "No" box.

I also know that there are plenty of scumbags who, when they get caught out, will try to argue that the wording is poor and ambiguous.

I now know that you are not being asked any more than "is the ambiguous reading of our form supportable?" but surely the correct response from the authority preparing these documents is to:

1. clarify what they actually want to ask, what the regulations are, and what it is that they want to control, and

2. create a document which as far as possible removes the opportunity for ambiguity.

I don't really see the reason for the question which was put to you. Do they just want to complain to the creator of the current version of the document that their tame gaijin on a leash says that it doesn't include the ambiguity they want? Or even worse, complain to the scumbags they caught out that they have a tame gaijin on a leach who disagrees with the scumbags?

[Taro Toporific]

I don't really see the reason for the question which was put to you. Do they just want to complain to the creator of the current version of the document that their tame gaijin on a leash says that it doesn't include the ambiguity they want?

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

As you know, Japanese generally have nothing to do all day but argue about the placement of a coma in a contract. When I worked at Hitachi once or twice a year I would get a request to comment on the software name GRABASs®. Every time I would say that calling the software product Grab Ass® was unwise---Those request-for-comments continued for more than 15 years!

"the reason for the question"...Or even worse, complain to the scumbags they caught out that they have a tame gaijin on a leash who disagrees with the scumbags?

What is worse, is when the Powers-that-Be go to a second or third "tame gaijin on a leash" for their opinion. A few times, the second opinion has come from somebody good and a real expert like Mulboyne. The funniest "tame gaijin" opinion I run up against is MYSELF. Two tribes of bureaucrats both pay me for my opinion and the whole process becomes a sockpuppet war.

sockpuppet-war.gif

[wagyl]

I feel for you Taro. There are reasons why I was happy that I had the freedom and opportunity to escape that role of comma adjudicator. But I must say that a product name of Grabas (I beg your pardon, obligatory capital letter string GRABAS) would these days be regarded as positively Presidential!

I also now understand your feelings that you should have a bit of a reality check from other people. You also very properly kept your own bias out of the question.

And lastly, I note that you have corrected a typo in your second quote there, and thank you for that effort.

[matsuki]

Taro, the lack of a proper "y'all" conjugation in English and the fact that these forms are submitted 1 per family would lead me to interpret this as anyone outside your current travel group.

[Russell]

Rather than focusing on who asked to place something in your luggage, it may be better to ask if you are aware of all the contents in your luggage.

[Taro Toporific]

Customs Form: Who is 'someone else'?
(4) Any items you have been requested from someone else to bring into Jipangu

FOLLOW UP

Always a day late and a dollar short...
A week after I wasted days arguing about "someone else," I finally got the reason why the question was asked. I am sure this happens all the time to you guys---A Japanese person asks you what "X" means without context and steadfastly refuses to give full context (context dribbles out painfully drop by drop as though you were squeezing their last drops of blood out of them).

> Why the "someone else" question was asked:
> The client is the defense for an American tourist who is charged with
> violating the Customs Law (for false declaration: she ticked No to Question
> (4) while she had souvenirs in her suitcase that had been put by a friend
> traveling with her)
>
> Customs: She should have ticked Yes;
>
> Defense: She did not tick falsely because "a friend traveling with" is not
> "someone else"
>

[wagyl]

Scumbag.

What is more, scumbag

with a firm grasp of the English language and experience in international movement of goods and understanding the underlying reasons behind these regulations.

You have my sympathy regarding the context vacuum situation. They don't want to taint the answer by providing unnecessary context. But by doing that, they provide insufficient context to get a meaningful answer.

I am guessing that your answer means that they will choose not to call you as a witness. Wrong tame gaijin on a leash!