neilmac Feb 26, 2012:

I rest my case: "No se puede garantizar las traducciones de abreviaciones y/o acrónimos que no hayan sido definidos en el texto original, excepto los más comunes." It would be interesting to know what it did actually mean, but if it were my job, on a "need-to-know" basis I wouldn't spend more than a minute or two pondering it myself.

Charles Davis Feb 24, 2012:

Thanks very much, Liz. Have a good weekend yourself, and you too, Emma. :)

Your instincts were sound here, Liz. Sometimes you just have to leave it, but it's hard to let go when you've set your mind to something. You keep telling yourself the answer could be just around the corner!

Emma Goldsmith (asker) Feb 24, 2012:

It could be initials... I've checked out your excellent ref, Charles, and can't make head or tail of these abbreviations. All the documents are littered with initials in the left-hand margin, but unfortunately I can't decipher any that would appear to match the abbreviation at the end.
Oh well, I hope you manage to enjoy your weekend; please don't let this riddle bug you any further :)
Liz, enjoy yours too.

liz askew Feb 24, 2012:

@Charles. Regarding things "bugging" you, for once in my life I managed to walk away from this one early on. Unusual for me:) But I sure know the feeling. Have a good weekend!

Charles Davis Feb 24, 2012:

@Emma and Liz This thing bugged me, and I couldn't resist having one more look. There are a very large number of ANMAT disposiciones on the Internet, and all of them from April 2010 onwards are in the ANMAT Boletín de Disposiciones here:
http://www.anmat.gov.ar/boletin_anmat/index.asp

I've just been dipping into this, and in the place where Ld. or ejb appears in Liz's examples, other "disposiciones" have different letters, usually two, sometimes three. There are many, many different combinations, even between consecutive disposiciones. I can't see any pattern to it at all. All this makes the initials theory seem more likely. Why else should it vary so much?

Emma Goldsmith (asker) Feb 24, 2012:

Ld. left as a query Thanks Charles and Liz for your time on this. My document is v. similar to Liz's first reference. I've just delivered it with Ld. as a query, but unfortunately I won't get any feedback from the client, so I won't be able to come back and enlighten you :)
Thanks again for your help.

If anyone else sees this and can chip in, please feel free.

liz askew Feb 24, 2012:

Well at least you tried Charles:)

Charles Davis Feb 24, 2012:

I've spent some time on this but have given up as well. I've been puzzling over the same sort of ANMAT "disposiciones" that Liz has drawn attention to, where "Ld." appears bottom left, or in other cases "ejb". It seems likely that "ejb" are personal initials, so maybe the same is true of "Ld.", but it's not very convincing: only two letters, the first capitalised but not the second, and full point.

My first reaction to the question was that you'd expect "Fdo." here, for "firmado", but I doubt it's a typo, mainly because it occurs in other ANMAT docs.

It also seems unlikely that it's an abbreviation of "Leído" or any other participle such as "Legalizado" or "Legitimado", for example. Abbreviations of such words virtually always have an "o" at the end (Ldo.).

In principle, if it's not a person's initials, you'd think it would stand for some word beginning with L and ending with d, such as "Licitud" or "Legitimidad", for example, but I can't see any plausible solution along those lines either.

This is a roundabout way of saying that I agree: have to admit defeat on this one.