# ce n'est pas parce que



## kate123

Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils sont nombreux à avoir tort qu'ils ont raison

-it's not because there are many who are wrong that they are right????

what's the correct translation?
what does this mean


----------



## radjane dessama

_it's not that they are too many to be wrong that they are right_

An indirect way of saying that the majority view is not necessarily the right one, nor is it a criterion to distinguish right from wrong


----------



## Cath.S.

It's similar to _two wrongs don't make a right_.

Therefore both Radjane Dessama and I could be wrong and...ok, I'll stop! )


----------



## kate123

thank you ~~~


----------



## Truffula

I just ran across this quote.  Would you say this is the meaning too:

They aren't necessarily right, if the only reason is that there are too many of them to believe they could all be wrong.

?

Or more like:

"There are too many of them to be wrong" is not a reason they are right.


----------



## Kelly B

My try - 
The fact that there are so many who are wrong does not make them right.


----------



## Angela Thomas

Beautiful, KellyB, as far as English goes, I'm not bilingual (disclosure), but it seems spot-on to me!


----------



## Truffula

Thank you, Kelly and Angela


----------



## catheng06

peut être peut-on jouer avec l'expression consacrée : (too) many wrong don't make a right

(French native)


----------



## Truffula

My  understanding of "two wrongs don't make a right" is that it's about revenge being wrong (it's not OK for me to harm you just because you harmed me).   

 I've never seen "many wrongs don't make a right" but - while it seems like a reasonable translation - I don't think it would convey to English speakers the meaning of the quote because of the similarity.

 The quote seems to be more about majorities not automatically being right.


----------



## Kelly B

Yes, sounds like we both agree with Radjane Dessama's interpretation in post 2.


----------



## Truffula

But the posts from France both disagree (agree with each other, disagree with Kelly and me) ?  So it's hard to be sure.


----------



## OLN

You would expect someone to say _Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils sont nombreux qu'ils ont raison_ = the fact that there are many of them doesn't mean they are right; the majority view is not necessarily the right one_.

Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils sont nombreux *à avoir tort *qu'ils ont raison_ is absurd and definitely a humorous and tongue-in-cheek way of making the point.

I just found out that this is a quote from the late Coluche.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

This _ce n'est pas parce que ..._ is a simple idiomatic phrase and we shouldn't try and read any convoluted subtext into it.

The fact that a lot of people are wrong doesn't make them right.
(Just) because a lot of people are wrong, it doesn't mean they are right.

_Ce n'est pas parce que c'est comme ça que ça ne changera jamais._
(Just) because that's how it is/things are, it doesn't mean it'll/they'll never change. (Or "the fact that" ....)

_Ce n'est pas parce que ce que tu vois ou entends ne te plaît pas que c'est faux._
(Just) because you don't like what you see or hear, it doesn't mean it's wrong. (Or "the fact that" ....)

_Ce n'est pas parce que je suis paranoïaque qu'ils ne sont pas tous après moi._
(Just) because I'm paranoid it doesn't mean they're not (all) out to get me. (Or "the fact that" ....)

_Ce n'est pas parce que tu as une personnalité que tu as de la personnalité !_
(Just) because you have a personality, it doesn't mean you have personality! (Or "the fact that" ....)


----------



## Angela Thomas

For what it's worth -- 
Talk:Coluche - Wikiquote AND Tribute to Coluche have:
Just because there are so many of them being wrong doesn't mean they're right.


----------



## Truffula

What about the assertion by two people (especially the one in 2006) that the meaning of the quote is similar to the English saying "two wrongs don't make a right" - a saying which is not about _being_ wrong but about _doing_ wrong (bad acts, not incorrect facts).

Is that only an incorrect understanding by French speakers of the English saying?  Two wrongs don't make a right  says that a French version of that saying is "On ne répare pas une injustice par une autre" which sounds right to me.

Could "Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils sont nombreux à avoir tort qu'ils ont raison" mean "On ne répare pas une injustice par une autre" ?


----------



## eno2

Kelly B said:


> My try -
> The fact that there are so many who are wrong does not make them right.



Very nice English indeed.  For that, you added 'the fact'. And the negation in the first sentence disappeared, only to resurge at the end. 

More literally translated with unaltered  structure and with almost the same words:

It is not because of them being so numerous to be wrong that makes them  right.
Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils sont nombreux à avoir tort qu'ils ont raison

It's not/ Ce n'est pas
because of/parce que
them/ils
being/sont
numerous/nombreux
to be wrong/ à avoir tort
that makes them right/ qu'ils ont raison

Not so fluent English perhaps.

Let's omit 'because of'

It is not  them being so numerous to be wrong that makes them right.

Better so?


----------



## Truffula

It doesn't quite make sense in English with that structure, though it's close to the French structure.  The languages use different structures to construct meaning, I suppose.

I still have my question from #16 above.


----------



## DrChen

Truffula said:


> Is that only an incorrect understanding by French speakers of the English saying?


I would say the answer to that is: Yes.
Therefore:
Could "Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils sont nombreux à avoir tort qu'ils ont raison" mean "On ne répare pas une injustice par une autre" ?

no


----------



## eno2

Truffula said:


> It doesn't quite make sense in English with that structure, though it's close to the French structure.  The languages use different structures to construct meaning, I suppose.


"It is not them being so numerous
to be wrong that makes them right" is not too bad . It does make sense.

Or: Them being so numerous to be wrong doesn't make them right.

Anyhow: I like the version of Kelly B. I didn't look much further in the thread..


Truffula said:


> Could "Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils sont nombreux à avoir tort qu'ils ont raison" mean "On ne répare pas une injustice par une autre" ?


 No.


kate123 said:


> Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils sont nombreux à avoir tort qu'ils ont raison


Of course they can't be right because they are declared wrong already  the middle of the sentence. It's a self- fulfilling argument.
Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils sont nombreux qu'ils ont raison'
makes at least some sense as a criticism on (the 'tyranny' of) majorities, on democracy.


----------



## OLN

Pourquoi ai-je l'impression que nombre d'entre vous passent à côté de l'humour par l'absurde que rajoute "à avoir tort" ?

Pour en revenir à la proposition de Kelly :
_The fact that there are so many [of them] does not make them right._
_→ The fact that there are so many *who are wrong* does not make them right._​
et à la traduction trouvée par Angela :
_Just because there are so many of them doesn't mean they're right. _
_→ Just because there are so many of them *being wrong* doesn't mean they're right._​
Peut-être que ça tombe à plat en anglais, mais "two wrongs don't make a right" n'a en tout cas absolument rien de drôle.


----------



## eno2

Absurde n'est-il pas?
Je l'avais remarqué. 

Being so numerously wrong doesn't make them right. 

Quite aphoristic.


----------



## Truffula

If you want a humorous thing we way in English to convey the same general idea, you could use

If All Your Friends Jumped Off A Bridge

It's still about doing wrong rather than being wrong, though.  But it's definitely humorous and also definitely about majorities who are wrong... 

It's difficult to convey this same meaning in English.  To me, something like "Just because there are so many of them being wrong doesn't mean they're right" isn't funny, it's just vaguely incorrect due to internal contradiction.

"No matter how many people are wrong about something, they're still wrong."  That's... got a tiny amount of humor in it in English, and makes more sense as English than the versions that include "doesn't make them right"...


----------



## eno2

Truffula said:


> "Just because there are so many of them being wrong doesn't mean they're right" isn't funny, it's just vaguely incorrect due to internal contradiction.


What's that: vaguely incorrect? Something like vaguely pregnant?
There's no internal contradiction, only repetition that the majority is wrong.


----------



## Truffula

The construction "just because... doesn't mean... " in English has a meaning which is incompatible with direct contradiction.

Here are some threads that explain "just because... doesn't mean..." and how it operates:

Just because...doesn't mean...
rephrase "just because...doesn't mean"
How to express "just because ... doesn't mean ..." in colloquial French ?


The first thing has to be something that usually implies the second, or connotes it, or at the very least isn't directly contradictory.  Then the overall structure is asserting that the thing isn't necessarily true.

But "being wrong" is directly contradictory to "being right" so it is vaguely incorrect (nothing like vaguely pregnant, but a lot like vaguely nauseated  )

It's like, to use the example from the first thread above, "Just because we live in Berkeley doesn't mean we're left-wing radicals" works, but "Just because we live in Berkeley doesn't mean we live in Paris" doesn't.


----------



## eno2

OK vaguely nauseated, that's feasible. I feel it coming.

I wouldn't apply intricate connotation rules for constructing arguments to an absurd self- fulfilling argument, constructed around the pattern of:

It's not because they (the many)  are wrong that they are right.



Truffula said:


> The construction "just because... doesn't mean... " in English has a meaning which is incompatible with direct contradiction.



It's not contradiction, it's self fulfilling argumentation.Or auto-defined if you will.
I said that already in #20 and then I got  diagnosed with  a lack of sense of humour.
Of course it's just a joke.
The French original is also incompatible with something:  signification.


----------



## Truffula

It's a joke in French, we're trying to figure out how to make the same joke in English.  But failing.


----------



## eno2

Failing no. Do you consider all the proposals here to be failures?

In  <Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils sont/ ont ...qu'ils sont/ ont> one should not use what you call a direct contradiction either.

That would be a semantic bomb that blows up any significance, as happened in this joke.



kate123 said:


> Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils sont nombreux à avoir tort qu'ils ont raison
> 
> what does this mean


 Nothing. It's an absurdity. A joke.


----------



## Truffula

They're all failures in that none of them both actually a, mean the same thing as the original and b, have the humorous overtones of the original.  Several have managed to give the meaning by losing the joke, and several have managed to keep the literal part of the joke, without actually conveying the humor or quite preserving the meaning.


----------



## eno2

Well that's your evaluation. I beg to differ.


----------



## Truffula

I think for it to be funny in English you'd have to go with a structure that usually admitted contradiction, and deny it.  For example.. in English, people often say things like "it's so bad it's good" 

So bad it's good

So in English you could say something like... "It's not possible for something to be 'so wrong, it's right'"  or "Just because it's so wrong, doesn't make it right" and *that* would be humorous absurdity in English.  But without that precedent, you don't set up the necessary mental state for people to find it funny _if they're not_ also _fluent in a language where that structure would be humorous.  _


----------



## eno2

All translations auto-define the many as wrong before concluding they can't be right.. Just like the French original. That's what provokes the  semantic liquidation of the sentence as well as the comic effect. Now, some are from native speakers and  in fluent English.


----------



## Kelza

Truffula said:


> What about the assertion by two people (especially the one in 2006) that the meaning of the quote is similar to the English saying "two wrongs don't make a right" - a saying which is not about _being_ wrong but about _doing_ wrong (bad acts, not incorrect facts).
> 
> Is that only an incorrect understanding by French speakers of the English saying?  Two wrongs don't make a right  says that a French version of that saying is "On ne répare pas une injustice par une autre" which sounds right to me.
> 
> Could "Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils sont nombreux à avoir tort qu'ils ont raison" mean "On ne répare pas une injustice par une autre" ?


Yes, indeed, it is clearly an incorrect understanding of the English saying "Two wrongs dont make a right". It means nothing like the expression of the OP.

No, "on ne répare pas une injustice par une autre" ("you dont repair an injustice with another")

doesnt mean

"Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils sont nombreux à avoir tort qu'ils ont raison" ("~people being wrong, but in large numbers, doesnt make them right ").

Please note that the latter is relatively incorrect (on purpose) in both the original French and in English.


----------



## tswsots

Maybe something like, "Just because they're all wrong _together_ doesn't mean they're right."


----------



## Lauretess

kate123 said:


> Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils sont nombreux à avoir tort qu'ils ont raison
> 
> -it's not because there are many who are wrong that they are right????
> 
> what's the correct translation?
> what does this mean


Your translation is correct. This sentence comes from the French humorist Coluche


----------

