Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jonathan L Cunningham)
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:37:03 +0100
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1ife4h9.1ofmr651xzuqf4N%spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jonathan L Cunningham <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
These days, "vous" in the singular is becoming less and less used among
the younger generation anyway for casual conversation; I'd be rather
surprised even by "Vous aimer? Je ne te connais même pas!"(1)
Is that a typo for "vous aimez" (unlikely) or "vous aime" (missing
subject)?
I'm not being picky, it's just that I don't know if that is correct
idiom or a typo, and I'm interested because:
It's an infinitive, I believe.
Ok, thanx. I've learned another idiom. (How long before I forget it
again, is a separate question, although it might stick.)
"To love you? The very concept of loving you? It is to laugh!"
My current insane writing exercise is trying to translate an 18th
century French novel into English (well, as much as I can unless/until I
lose interest). And idiomatic, literary French is turning out to be a
challenge -- particularly since I don't read French!!
Ooooh. Ouch. Do you relax in your spare time by hitting
yoursdelf on the head with a hammer?
No, that's my day job.
One of the problems with learning languages at school is getting things
wrong. I **hate** making mistakes (I don't mind admitting them - it's
making them that I hate.) And schoolteachers do have a habit of pointing
them out.
But doing it for "fun" means that there is no one to tell me I've got it
wrong ... and I can always says it's a "loose translation" and a "modern
retelling". So I'm not judging myself on accuracy - merely whether the
result makes a good story. It significantly alters the nature of the
task.
I've actually gone through the first five pages and rewritten it into
something closer to my own style (whatever that is) -- and that's a very
different experience from polishing a first draft of something that's
come straight out of my imagination. (Yes, this really is aimed at
improving my own writing, although if it improves my French at all,
that's not a problem!) I think it will take several more drafts before
I'm comfortable that it reads "smoothly" though - because I don't tend
to make too many changes per revision.
My first guess was that "fusil" was an obsolete word for "match":
He struck a match and lit a candle.
But a bit of Wikipedia research reveals that matches hadn't been
invented yet. I guessed it was flint, as in a tinderbox, flint-and-steel
etc. (And then a *fourth* dictionary revealed that "fusil" also meant
"steel" - although the modern word for steel is different.)
I'm not sure how to phrase that in modern English though, anyway, so
I've left "struck a match" in as an anachronism for the moment. It reads
better: but it's bugging me still <g>.
He struck a light. That's the way they would've phrased it in
English, anyway,
Is it? It feels like a loss of information (/How/ did he strike a
light?) That's one of the problems I'm having, of course: it's
frequently impossible to avoid loss of information and detail without
paraphrasing the story to death. Makes me think about what details
matter.
I was going to (and still might) have a look at some English fairytales,
to see how it's worded in those.
Last night's big new word was "pourpoint". I can't remember how I solved
I expect a lot of francophones here already knew the word, given the
general level of interest in history and pseudo-medieval costume.
Not so much francophones as people who are interested in medieval
clothing. I don't know where you get the "pseudo", unless you
mean "reconstructed in modern times." A pourpoint, as you
I meant that lots of people write fantasy stories set in pseudo-medieval
settings. I'd tend to call it a historical romance if it is set in a
real medieval setting. I'm not sure how much magic, or how many elves,
you could add to a historical romance before I'd say it was a
pseudo-medieval setting: I guess it depends how much magic, and how many
elves, really existed and really lived then!
presumably have found out, is like a cross between an undershirt
and a garter belt: it has tapes to tie, or hooks to hook, the
I think this one might be more like a jacket, or tunic, worn by a page
(and one of the last garments donned). If you put just the word
"pourpoint" into a google image search (an ordinary one - doesn't have
to be the french google) there's quite a variety on the first page that
comes up.
Are any of them what you are describing?
From memory, (I'm not going to look it up in the French Wiktionaryagain, it's not fun to do it a second time) it was a garment worn from
the neck to just below the belt, although the pictures from the google
search look as if it is longer than the impression this partial
definition gave me. I think I translated it as "jacket" but I'm
wondering whether "tunic" would be better...
(My imaginary target audience is somebody who doesn't know all these
words, only modern English, so I don't want to use "pourpoint".)
Hmmm. Another question: how to translate "valet de chambre"? A *female*
"femme de chambre" is a chamber-maid. This is the male equivalent. The
phrase still exists in modern French for hotel staff: what do you call a
male chamber-maid in English?
In the period you're translating? I'd try chamber-man, since
"man" for a male servant" went hand-in-hand with either "woman"
or "maid" for a female servant.
In much more recent English it would be "houseboy," but that's
probably non-PC by now. For a contemporary setting, such as you
are not doing, I'd just say "hotel staff."
[goes and checks - phew, just frightened myself: opened the wrong file
and thought it had all vanished!]
I've used just "valet" on its own (more of the dreaded "loss of
information") although I'm considering "batman". (The protag is a
military officer.) But that sounds a bit dated to my ears, as well as
not being strictly accurate. How would Bertie Wooster describe Jeeves? A
manservant? He's not really a butler. [googles] Ah, Wikipedia uses
"gentleman's personal gentleman" - which is too long for my style of
writing. I'll probably stick with "valet" as a single-word choice.
Jonathan
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Catja Pafort
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Jonathan L Cunningham
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Dorothy J Heydt
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- References:
- The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: CharlesRCaplan
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Bill Swears
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Alma Hromic Deckert
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Patricia C. Wrede
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Nicky
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: J.Pascal
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Alma Hromic Deckert
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Catja Pafort
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Dorothy J Heydt
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Peter Knutsen
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Catja Pafort
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Peter Knutsen
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Jonathan L Cunningham
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Dorothy J Heydt
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Jonathan L Cunningham
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Zeborah
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Jonathan L Cunningham
- Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- From: Dorothy J Heydt
- The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- Prev by Date: Re: Pixel-Stained Technopeasant Wretches, Unite!
- Next by Date: Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- Previous by thread: Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- Next by thread: Re: The Future of Young Adult Fiction?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|