Language desk
< May 22	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 23

Napoleon Bonaparte quotation: request for translation

[Question moved from Miscellaneous Reference Desk]

Hello, I found this Napoleon Bonaparte quotation on a sachet of coffee: "Sans cafe la politique sent car elle perd son essence", but I'm not sure what it means. I was hoping a wikipedian with a better grasp of French than me could help!

I used Google translate which gave "Without coffee, politics feels because it loses its essence" and a yahoo answers page (http://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120226033257AA6X0FP) discusses this (in French).

Does anyone know the context of this quotation? Is it just saying politics is very dull unless one is riding a caffeine high? Thank you, 87.102.81.28 (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idiomatic translation may be better as "Without coffee, politics loses its soul." However, with any idiomatic translation, there will be some disagreement as to how to correctly translate a passage. I don't know if dullness is being conveyed here, so much as heartlessness. The meaning (to me atleast) is that sharing a cup of coffee with someone while discussing politics is a gentil act, something people do with an air of civility, while politics may otherwise be a heartless battle between bitter enemies. Remember that Napoleon was the product of the French Revolution, which saw politics rise from french Salon culture, where people met to discuss the matters of the day over coffee, to the Reign of Terror, where people met to discuss the matters of the day over severed heads. At least, that's my reading of the quote, given the historical context. --Jayron32 19:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The primary meaning of "sentir" is "smell", rather than "feel" - but meaning what a nose does, not what something smelly does. I take it to mean something like "Without coffee politics is looking for something to smell, because it has lost its favourite odour". --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without coffee politics stinks because it loses its essence. 192.124.26.250 (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that for sure, 192.124? My reading of the dictionary is that sentir means "experience a smell" not "emit a smell": if so, then "stink" is not a possible translation of it. --ColinFine (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into this a bit. Sentir can be used intransitively, but its intransitive senses do not include "to give off a bad smell", unlike the English intransitive verb to smell. It can mean "to give off a smell" but there is no implication that the smell is bad. However, according to Le Dictionnaire, another intransitive meaning of sentir is "être affecté" or "to be false, phony, or affected". I think this expression clearly refers to this meaning of sentir. Marco polo (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, now I have to correct myself. According to Larousse, intransitive sentir can mean "to stink". However, I am going to move this question to the Language Reference Desk, where it might get the attention of a native speaker or at least someone more fluent in French than myself. Marco polo (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentir can indeed be used intransitively to refer to a bad odor: "Cette viande, ce poisson commence à sentir."[1] But I wonder if the quotation is authentic. A search reveals little other than that Yahoo Answers page, and food packages are not known for being reliable when it comes to quotes. Lesgles (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your responses! I'm not sure of the quotation's authenticity either Lesgles. 87.102.81.28 (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax

Are the following four versions (of the same sentence) - equally acceptable, in the colloquial language - as well as in the written standard language?

An important agreement between them has been signed.
An important agreement has been signed between them.
There has been signed an important agreement between them.
There has been signed between them an important agreement.

77.127.25.43 (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that number 3 is fairly non-standard; it is not the word order I would expect from a native speaker of English. I think #2 is most "acceptable", and I think #1 and 4 work okay as well, but do not sound quite as natural to my ears. As far as I am aware, however, none of the phrases that you have suggested break any "rules" of grammar. Are they acceptable in the written standard language? Well, prescriptivists sometimes contend that one should avoid the passive voice. I however don't find the passive voice to be particularly problematic, and sometimes I think it's the clearest way to express something. Other than that, I don't see a problem (expect the nonstandard word order in #3). Falconus^{p t c} 07:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Falconus that #2 is the best of the bunch, though "best" here is generous. I do not see #3 or #4 as in any way "colloquial," if by that you mean "something a native speaker would say in ordinary speech." Their fogginess makes it difficult to grasp what's going on. "There has been signed" is not technically ungrammatical, but it's clumsy.

The difference in emphasis I see between #1 and #2: #1 stresses that the parties have reached an agreement; #2 stresses that the agreement has been made official.

Not that the OP asked, but a more straightforward version might be "They signed an important agreement." In context, the "between them" is understood, I think, or can be inferred from previous text: "The French and Chinese governments had been negotiating the trade dispute for months. Yesterday, they signed an important agreement."

I don't think I'm especially prescriptivist. On the other hand, the passive voice often has the effect of clouding (and sometimes deliberately concealing) the actors, as in Ron Ziegler's immortal non-apology during Watergate, "Mistakes were made." It can make sense to use the passive voice--for example, when the actor is unknown or unimportant -- e.g., "Christine was promoted to vice-president," in which we don't care who did the promoting because what's important is Christine's new status. Here, though, I'd say we probably do care about who's agreeing to what. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree with Falconus that #4 is better than #3 ?

As a non-native speaker, I can't think of any formal reason for preferring #4 to #3 - whereas #4 is not more acceptable than #1. Btw, some languages - do permit all of the four versions. 77.127.25.43 (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Acceptable" is a relative term. As with the passive voice, it doesn't specify who's doing the accepting. All four versions are understandable, I suppose, and none violates a rule like subject-verb agreement. If you want to think of them as permissible, feel free. I'd suggest that "coherent" and "easily understood" are more useful criteria. (For what it's worth, I'm a native speaker and a former teacher of high-school English.)

I can't think of a circumstance in which I'd choose either #3 or #4. To me both sound like paraphrases from another language, rather than typical English constructions. It's like insisting on "a book of Peter's" rather than "Peter's book" because the original was "un livre de Pierre."

The faint virtue that I see in #4 is that "between them" is closer to "signed." To say that this makes #4 better than #3, though, is like saying an ice cream sundae topped with diced onions is better than one topped with peanut shells: possibly true but not all that great a difference. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up, you wouldn't adopt Falconus' claim that:

"I would say that number 3 is fairly non-standard; it is not the word order I would expect from a native speaker of English. I think #2 is most "acceptable", and I think #1 and 4 work okay as well, but do not sound quite as natural to my ears".

Would you?

Btw, which variety of English do you speak? (Admittedly, I don't think this has much to do with my original question). 77.127.25.43 (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting this later in the day, #4 does sound quite unnatural, and I still definitely prefer #2 to #1. And I speak American English, from the southeast USA. Falconus^{p t c} 14:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a native speaker of (Northeastern) American English and a professional editor and published writer (not just on Wikipedia). Numbers 3 and 4 are not acceptable in colloquial English and in fact would probably be incomprehensible to less educated native speakers. Numbers 3 and 4 are barely acceptable but stilted and awkwardly formal in written English. I disagree with the previous comments that "signed between them" is preferable to "agreement between them". To my ears, "signed between them" is not idiomatic, and I'm not really sure what exactly it means. By contrast, "agreement between them" makes clear that the agreement is between the signers. So, my first preference, in all contexts, would be #1. Numbers 2 and 3 are awkward in different ways, but I suppose 2 is the less awkward. Number 4 is awkward and barely comprehensible. Marco polo (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] OP: I speak American English, mostly with the not-quite-midwestern accent of someone who grew up in Detroit. I can read, write, and converse in French, though not as well as I'd like. I also regularly edit text written in English by a native speaker of Finnish, so I often see awkward, non-native constructions (as I'm sure my francophone friends seen in my French).

In terms of spoken language, going back to your query about "colloquial," I don't think the average native speaker in ordinary conversation makes much use of the passive voice, and certainly not much in contexts like your examples. (I realize this isn't what you were asking about; it's just more tangential musing.) Much more likely to be spoken: "They reached an important agreement," "they signed an important agreement," that sort of thing. A news report (spoken, but more formal than ordinary conversation) might have "an agreement was reached [or signed] between X and Y," but I believe "X and Y reached" is at least as likely in the news as well.

I see Marco Polo's point about #1. If forced to write one of these, I'd still go with #2, but #1 could be the backup. As someone editing possible versions, I'd drop #3 and #4 completely and try to get the author to see the shimmering virtue of the briefer, clearer active construction. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All four are bad. "They have signed an important agreement" is better in every way. Looie496 (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been looking for the best version of all possible versions, but rather for the best passive voice. 77.127.25.43 (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, assuming that the subject is the important agreement. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think it works to illustrate it with a more common example, to bear. Susan bore (or more often, a different verb, "had") her son John in 1983; the emphasis is clearly on Susan. John was born in 1983 to Susan; the emphasis is on John. I don't think that that permissible use of the passive is an exception. Both are correct in the right contexts, and both are incorrect in the wrong contexts. Would "to sign" not be the same? Falconus^{p t c} 10:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentences do not normally exist in isolation (except in grammar texts, assignments, slogans - "Just do it" - etc). There's always some context. I'm sure if we tried hard enuf we could come up with a context for each of the 4 options, for which that option would be the best choice. So, in that sense, they're all "equally acceptable". Problem is, those contexts will not be equally likely (and in the case of #3 and #4, most unlikely, but still possible - see below). There are different varieties of English and we've already seen some difference of opinion as to which version is preferred.
The passive voice exists for a reason and should be used where appropriate (such as a second ago). Some sentences, though, really don't lend themselves to the passive, such as your examples. Oh, we can passivise pretty much any transitive active sentence to make a point, but some sound clunky and horrible and unnatural ("He had sex with his wife" sounds a whole lot better than "Sex was had with his wife by him", don't you agree?). Looie496 makes this point when he says "all four are bad". We would not naturally choose to use the passive when talking about some parties signing an important agreement. Or, if we did, we'd limit it to "the agreement was/has been signed". The "between them" seems to be redundant, as all agreements are between at least two parties. And the fact that the agreement is important does not naturally fit with a sentence about the signing of such an agreement. That would be taken as a given.
So, there are many issues with all these sentences. However, we have to ignore all that and answer your question. Given these 4 choices, and in the absence of any context to guide us, which is preferred? For me, it's definitely #2. I'd accept #1 grudgingly. I would not accept #3 or #4 at all, as no native Englisher would say these things (except in a contrived context), even though they don't violate any of the rules of grammar. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me, #1 is the best (what was between them, the agreement or the signing? The agreement was between them, not the signing, so "between them" should go as close as possible to "agreement"). I'd say they're all grammatical, but #3 and #4 are distinctly odd-sounding. --Trovatore (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All 4 of them are probably grammatically valid, and they all suck. Passive voice. Ugh! Go with, "They have signed an important agreement," and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so dismissive of the passive voice, Bugs. You yourself have used it at least twice on this very page:

* ... where both the "r" and the "l" are so rounded off ...

* ... suspect the nuance or humor of it would be lost in translation.

* "Be done with it" is probably passive, too. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I do lapse into it sometimes. That doesn't change the fact that it's poor usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that at all. Style guides do recommend it be used sparingly, and for good reason, but people often take that to mean it must never be used unless there's literally no alternative. That's an extreme interpretation. I've already used it twice in this post, and I don't consider it to be poor usage at all. Now, if I had just said "It has already been used twice by me in this post", that would indeed have been poor. There are times when the passive is completely natural, particularly where there's an indefinite doer - like "the humor of it would be lost in translation". Make that active and you have "<something> would lose its humor in translation", which is clunky and unnatural, but also misleading because it blames the something for losing its own humour, when the real blame should go to the impossibility of truly translating many passages into another language. So, the active voice doesn't belong there at all, and the passive does beautifully, thanks very much. Avoid overusing the passive, by all means, but go easy on it. It does have a place. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But the 4 examples at the top of this section are not good usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was thought by me that what was being said by you was that it's always poor usage for the passive to be used. I'll lie back and let whatever punishment is chosen by you be inflicted on me. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sabse Himmat Wala Kon?

Hi, does anybody have a clue about the meaning of the above, somebody has requested translation of it for Living on the Edge: Sabse Himmat Wala Kon? and I'm stuck on it. I believe it's romanised urdu or maybe hindi, apparently in Urdu "Kon" means "who", and "Himmat" is hindi for "Courage/Nerve/Daring/etc" , so may it's something like "Who dares blah blah?" or "Who has the Nerve?" Would appreciate some help on this, thanks--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it's a Pakistani TV-show, I'd guess it's Urdu, though I have no proof of that. I don't have any info on this, but you could try asking at the Hindi/Urdu version of Wikipedia? Even though you only have the romanisation, I'm sure they'd be able to read and translate it. You can contact their embassies here: Urdu and Hindi. V85 (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A translation has been added by User:Ankit Maity, turns out it is Hindi, and it was "Who is the most brave?"--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]