Discussion:Amanda Filipacchi
- Admissibilité
- Neutralité
- Droit d'auteur
- Article de qualité
- Bon article
- Lumière sur
- À faire
- Archives
- Commons
La phrase en anglais est : "lovely comic surrealist."
La traduction que je propose est : lovely => "adorable" Vous proposez : lovely => "merveilleuse"
"merveilleuse" se dit "wondeful" en anglais.
De plus," merveilleux" implique un qualificatif bien plus fort qu'"adorable".
Cette phrase est simple, et ne devrait pas poser de probleme à être traduite. Il y a un POV à chercher à renforcer la signification de la critique reçue. Il n'y a pas de difficulté de traduction ici, aucune necessite que l'ont mette la phrase en anglais.
à la rigueur, l'ordre peut etre dicutable, à savoir si c'est une comique surréaliste ou une suréaliste comique, mais franchement c'est chipoter. Le point de désaccord est dans l'adjectif, le choix préférentiel de "wonderful" à la place "lovely", ne me semble pas neutre.Lilyu (Répondre) 6 janvier 2008 à 07:21 (CET)
- J'ais ajouté la phrase en anglais en note/référence Lilyu (Répondre) 6 janvier 2008 à 07:24 (CET)
- My reason for not agreeing with your choice of the word "adorable" in this context is that the NY Times quote was in reference to her writing (as you can verify if you read the article). I am afraid the translation "adorable comique surréaliste" will mislead readers into thinking those words were written in reference to something other than her writing, such as her appearance or God knows what. And that is because I do not think the word "adorable" is ever used in reference to someone's writing (whereas the words "lovely" and "merveilleux" are), which is why I am against "adorable" in this case. I agree that "merveilleux" is not exactly the same as "lovely", but I think it's much closer than "adorable" (in the context of the article, which was about literature). That is why I thought that if you still disagreed with me, the best solution might be to just keep the quote in English. In my opinion, it's a less simple translation issue than you feel it is, and I just think it's a shame if the quote becomes distorted to this degree (by the use of "adorable"). Nevertheless, I respect your opinion and I do not want to antagonize you, so I will let it stand if you feel very strongly about it. But it will be with regret. ( TRG22 (d) 6 janvier 2008 à 08:25 (CET) )
- I'm sorry, i really disagree with the sentence kept in english or the use of "merveilleux". "adorable" is the correct translation for "lovely" as you can check it in any french-english dictionary. However, I'm still open to any other proposal as a translation of "lovely". "jolie" is the other french word usually used to translate "lovely". I dont know your level in french, but "merveilleux" got a really powerfull meaning in french that is far away from what the journalist was trying to say. As far as the gap between "nice" and "wondeful".Lilyu (Répondre) 6 janvier 2008 à 09:29 (CET)
- But "jolie" might be understood as saying that Amanda is pretty. I dont think a french reader might make the mistake with "adorable", but with "jolie" he would. In french "adorable" is used for cute things, as kids and all. That's why i choose it rather than "jolie", i think it's the closest to what the journalist mean.
- You say : "I am afraid the translation "adorable comique surréaliste" will mislead readers into thinking those words were written in reference to something other than her writing, such as her appearance or God knows what."
- Well ok, you'r afraid... so maybe we should ask french people what they do understand when reading this sentence ?Lilyu (Répondre) 6 janvier 2008 à 09:36 (CET)
- Yes, adorable is a better translation, truer to the original. The phrase could also be reordered: "une comique surréaliste adorable". Having the footnote quoting the original is a good idea. --Jérôme Potts (d) 8 janvier 2008 à 00:58 (CET) (tu m'as pris en filature, alors je te suis aussi, comme ça, pour voir)
- My reason for not agreeing with your choice of the word "adorable" in this context is that the NY Times quote was in reference to her writing (as you can verify if you read the article). I am afraid the translation "adorable comique surréaliste" will mislead readers into thinking those words were written in reference to something other than her writing, such as her appearance or God knows what. And that is because I do not think the word "adorable" is ever used in reference to someone's writing (whereas the words "lovely" and "merveilleux" are), which is why I am against "adorable" in this case. I agree that "merveilleux" is not exactly the same as "lovely", but I think it's much closer than "adorable" (in the context of the article, which was about literature). That is why I thought that if you still disagreed with me, the best solution might be to just keep the quote in English. In my opinion, it's a less simple translation issue than you feel it is, and I just think it's a shame if the quote becomes distorted to this degree (by the use of "adorable"). Nevertheless, I respect your opinion and I do not want to antagonize you, so I will let it stand if you feel very strongly about it. But it will be with regret. ( TRG22 (d) 6 janvier 2008 à 08:25 (CET) )