# theoretical gorilla in the room



## Forbane

Bonjour,

Y a-t-il moyen d'améliorer cette traduction ?
J'en suis certaine...  mais n'y parviens pas.
Merci pour vos suggestions !

"This theoretical view about the lesser value of animal life is the 800-pound theoretical gorilla in the room."

"Cette opinion théorique sur la moindre valeur de la vie animale est un gorille théorique de 400 kg dans la pièce."


----------



## Iznogoud

The 800-pound gorilla in the room is something obvious that everybody willfully ignores.

En français, on parle parfois de "l'éléphant au milieu de la pièce/dans la pièce", quoique ça me semble être un anglicisme.


----------



## Glasguensis

Please look at the elephant in the room


----------



## whims

un éléphant au milieu du couloir ?


----------



## Jasmine tea

"Le nez au milieu de la figure"


----------



## Iznogoud

C'est différent, on utilise l'image de l'éléphant dans un couloir pour parler de quelqu'un qui ne sait pas utiliser une arme à feu. Voir: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1160035&langid=6


----------



## whims

Jasmine Tea : le nez au milieu de la figure matches totally but the Elephant is a cross-reference to the animal life.


----------



## Forbane

Oui, mais si je traduis par "le nez au milieu de la figure", comment l'agencer avec le reste de la phrase ?...


----------



## Glasguensis

C'est inutile de traduire la phrase comme "le nez au milieu de la figure". La raison entière pour l'expression en anglais est le lien avec le domaine animal. En laissant tomber l'idée d'éléphant/gorille, il faut mieux dire "le sujet tabou", ce qui est le sens voulu de la phrase originale.


----------



## Chris' Spokesperson

Faut vous rappeler qu'en anglais l'expression est bien aussi "the elephant in the room" et donc il doit y avoir un rapport spécifique qui fait que l'on a substitué pour un gorille... rapport qu'il faudra probablement retenir dans la traduction. Donc, tu prends l'expression correspondante francaise et tu substitues éléphant avec "gorille théorique".


----------



## Forbane

"Tabou", c'est ce qu'on cache.
"Le nez au milieu de la figure", l'éléphant ou le gorille, c'est ce qui s'impose à l'esprit de par son énormité.

Je ne pense donc pas que les 2 soient synonymes...


----------



## Glasguensis

Chris, aux EU ils disent aussi "gorille" dans cette expression, souvent "xxx lb gorille".


----------



## Glasguensis

Forbane said:


> "Tabou", c'est ce qu'on cache.
> "Le nez au milieu de la figure", l'éléphant ou le gorille, c'est ce qui s'impose à l'esprit de par son énormité.
> 
> Je ne pense donc pas que les 2 soient synonymes...


 
You're right - "le nez au milieu de la figure" is not synonymous with "the elephant/gorilla in the room". The main point about the elephant/gorilla is that everybody *pretends not to notice it*, in other words it's taboo - a fact which is all the more noticable/surprising given how big it is. The essential point is that it's taboo, which "le nez au milieu de la figure" doesn't convey to me at all.


----------



## Chris' Spokesperson

En fait, le Webster fait une distinction ; 800 pound gorilla, one that is dominating or uncontrollable because of great size or power.

In this case the original meaning is shifted completely.  It's not at all the thing in the room that nobody is talking about, it is in fact the thing in the room which is dominating the direction of the conversation.  EVERYONE thinks that animals' lives are less important, as a theory it has great size and power.  

So it's not taboo and it's not an elephant that people are pretending not to notice.  It's a big, powerful gorilla and everyone, openly or tacitly, is following its point of view.


----------



## Forbane

Chris' Spokesperson said:


> En fait, le Webster fait une distinction ; 800 pound gorilla, one that is dominating or uncontrollable because of great size or power.
> 
> In this case the original meaning is shifted completely.  It's not at all the thing in the room that nobody is talking about, it is in fact the thing in the room which is dominating the direction of the conversation.  EVERYONE thinks that animals' lives are less important, as a theory it has great size and power.
> 
> So it's not taboo and it's not an elephant that people are pretending not to notice.  It's a big, powerful gorilla and everyone, openly or tacitly, is following its point of view.



Thank you, you are totally right I think!


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Chris' Spokesperson said:


> En fait, le Webster fait une distinction ; 800 pound gorilla, one that is dominating or uncontrollable because of great size or power.


Un gorille de 400 kg serait, de par sa taille ou sa force, plus incontrôlable qu'un éléphant de 5 tonnes ?
La langue anglaise est décidément pleine de mystères  !...


----------



## burkina

Un éléphant ça trompe énormément, c'est pour ça qu'on ne le voit pas  Et puis il n'a pas la place de bouger...


----------



## Chris' Spokesperson

JeanDeSponde said:


> Un gorille de 400 kg serait, de par sa taille ou sa force, plus incontrôlable qu'un éléphant de 5 tonnes ?
> La langue anglaise est décidément pleine de mystères  !...



C'est plutôt une question de comportement ; le gorille est connu pour être imprévisible et souvent violent, enragé - comme l'homme ! On ne se fait pas la même image de l'éléphant.


----------



## Glasguensis

Chris' Spokesperson said:


> En fait, le Webster fait une distinction ; 800 pound gorilla, one that is dominating or uncontrollable because of great size or power.
> 
> In this case the original meaning is shifted completely. It's not at all the thing in the room that nobody is talking about, it is in fact the thing in the room which is dominating the direction of the conversation. EVERYONE thinks that animals' lives are less important, as a theory it has great size and power.
> 
> So it's not taboo and it's not an elephant that people are pretending not to notice. It's a big, powerful gorilla and everyone, openly or tacitly, is following its point of view.


 
Webster has a separate entry for "800lb gorilla" as distinct from "gorilla". It does not have an entry for an expression about either of them being in a room. It does however have an entry for "elephant in the room", which is "an obvious major problem or issue that people avoid discussing or acknowledging". As I mentioned previously, I am completely convinced that "[800lb] gorilla in the room" is simply a variant of "elephant in the room". I have found the passage from which the original question is taken, and I find that just before the quoted sentence, and referring to the same theory, the author says "...this theoretical view that is so pervasive that *no one even recognizes how much it shapes our view* of the human-animal relationship"
I believe this confirms that the intended meaning of the gorilla reference is that the theory is enormously influential but that its influence is not acknowledged.


----------



## Jasmine tea

But there is the word "theoretical" in the sentence.

This is how I understand the sentence:
"Cette opinion théorique sur la moindre valeur de la vie animale *a autant de poids que* le gorille théorique de 400 kilos dans la chambre"

Because this theory, here, is not promoted (from what I understand). And a 800 pound gorilla, normally, can not be in a room!
The word "Le Gorille" can be kept as it is in the translation. Even if we don't have this 800-pound gorilla expression in French, the idea is still vehicled. Plus, personally "Le Gorille" makes me think of G. Bressens' song "Le Gorille"....!!!


----------



## Glasguensis

The author's opinion is that this theory is already very important in influencing the animal rights movement. He is not promoting the theory, in fact he is opposed to the theory. His view is that many animal rights campaigners pretend that the theory doesn't matter, because they are all "on the same side". His view is that approval or disapproval of this theory is crucial because it changes what they should be campaigning for, but that nobody wants to face up to having to make this choice (on acceptance or not).


----------



## Chris' Spokesperson

What an odd gambit to play to suggest that I would simply invent an entry in a dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/800-pound+gorilla

The usage given in the quote following the expression makes the opinion of the author and those in charge of giving context to expressions at Webster quite, quite clear.


----------



## Glasguensis

Nobody suggested that you invented an entry - in fact I clearly acknowledged that your entry existed. What I am disputing is your interpretation of the overall sentence. Please read the full article and let me know if you still believe that the author is trying to say that the theory is dominating the conversation in animal rights circles. http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-necessity-of-theory/


----------



## Chris' Spokesperson

Yes, completely.  It is the theoretical theory of how we turn animals into products instead of whether we should turn them into products.  The animal rights movement, and this is the important bit, _in the wider public eye_ cowtows to this theory that animal life is less important and so their approach is treat animals we are going to consume in one way or another _better, they don't risk the 100% vegan approach of saying; don't use them at all.  This is empirically evident all over the place; chickens from farms where chickens are in the open air, beef from cows that graze in fields, yadda yadda yadda.  All of these approaches are counted as being animal rights theories but all of them take their cues from one large, 800lb underlying theory; we have the right to kill animals because their life is less important than ours._


----------



## wildan1

From an AE perspective I believe that, mistakenly or on purpose, the author here has mixed his metaphors:

_an 800-pound gorilla_ refers to an overpowering influence or undisputed opponent

_the elephant in the room_ refers to a topic that is considered taboo but it is on everyone's mind who is present

_theoretical _here is a specific addition to the mixed metaphor--it does not usually accompany either expression


----------



## WillHelpIfICan

Chris' Spokesperson said:


> ...
> So it's *not taboo* and it's *not an elephant that people are pretending not to notice*.





Glasguensis said:


> I am completely convinced that "[800lb]  gorilla in the room" *is simply a variant of* "elephant in the room"...
> I believe this confirms that the intended meaning of the gorilla  reference is that the theory is enormously influential but that *its  influence is not acknowledged*.




My two cents' worth will certainly not unravel the conundrum about how *"an elephant in the room" *evolved into*"an 800 lb. gorilla"*.
Still, I feel compelled to posit that the two phrases, similar but different, later evolved into the hybrid idiom "*an 800 lb. gorilla **in the room"*.

As is often the case with _mongrel_ expressions, this deliberate or inadvertent mixed-metaphor will forever keep us guessing and is probably not worth going to the stake over its intent. 

Back to the issue at hand:
How about "un rouleau compresseur incontournable" or a similar fixture with mastodonte / léviathan / béhémoth ?


----------



## JeanDeSponde

A veeery long thread (already cited) _on an elephant in the room_ failed to find a corresponding, established idiom in French.
Searching Google, one will also find "whale in the room", "rhinoceros in the room", "gorilla in the room", "500 lb gorilla ITR", "800 lb GITR", etc.
The various interpretations given by our US / IR / SCO friends show that there is no consensus (or, alternatively, that each one has its own consensus).
Are you sure that the species and the weight of the animal are really relevant?...


----------



## Chris' Spokesperson

Well, a lot obviously depends on the adeptness of the author with his/her own language and how deftly they are able to employ imagery appropriate to the subject.  In this case I would have thought it was done quite well and, to be honest, had the elephant never been mentioned the discussion would have stayed on track a lot better.  It's quite simply not the same expression and when you read the article it is clear that it is not the meaning implied - whoever is correct after that we'll leave open to debate but it is very clearly not a situation to be matched with the "elephant in the room".


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Yet Wildan seems to disagree, seeing here a mixed metaphor.
I wish I can translate it - but I wish I can understand it first.


----------



## Musael

On peut avoir une opinion sur une théorie mais on ne peut pas avoir une opinion théorique.


----------



## burkina

To sum up: the 800-lb theoretical view is dominant to the point it affects everybody's actions. But it's currently not challenged (whether it's because nobody sees it as if he was an elephant in the room, or because nobody has dared face up to this powerful and convincing gorilla is up for debate, but in the end it doesn't really matter), and the author is trying to build up an opposing force.

Taking a few liberties with the text, you could translate it this way:

_Ce postulat théorique d'une moindre valeur de la vie animale domine le débat au point de l'étouffer._


----------



## Glasguensis

Chris' Spokesperson said:


> Yes, completely.


I simply don't understand how you can read the article and come to that view. The central point of the article is that *there is currently no debate* but that in the author's opinion *there should be*. He repeatedly points out how animal rights activists *unconsciously* subscribe to the theory.

According to wikipedia (which obviously is not as authoritative a source as others), "gorilla in the room" is indeed a variant of the expression "elephant in the room", the difference being that it's something large or powerful which dominates *even if people choose to ignore it*. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room

Having conducted a short google search, the references I found all appear to be using it in this way - something which is extremely powerful but not discussed.


----------



## WillHelpIfICan

JeanDeSponde said:


> Yet Wildan seems to disagree, seeing here a mixed metaphor.
> I wish I can translate it - but I wish I could understand it first.



Here's the gist:
*The stance that  animal life has less value is THE dominant and all-pervasive opinion that literally controls** or at least influences all other views in this arena*.

The validity of this stance and whether or not its impact on other views is overlooked falls outside the purview of the sentence to translate.


----------



## Chris' Spokesperson

Glasguensis said:


> I simply don't understand how you can read the article and come to that view. The central point of the article is that *there is currently no debate* but that in the author's opinion *there should be*. He repeatedly points out how animal rights activists *unconsciously* subscribe to the theory.
> 
> According to wikipedia (which obviously is not as authoritative a source as others), "gorilla in the room" is indeed a variant of the expression "elephant in the room", the difference being that it's something large or powerful which dominates *even if people choose to ignore it*. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room
> 
> Having conducted a short google search, the references I found all appear to be using it in this way - something which is extremely powerful but not discussed.



I just read it that there is debate but that the debate is all centred around this one theory and that the author wants new debate centred around a new theory but this is rendered impossible by the gorilla.  Goddamn gorillas! 

Incidentally (not directed at Glasguensis) the reason the gorilla is referred to as "theoretical" is because it is representative of a specific theory, not because it is in someway ethereal.


----------



## Moon Palace

Chris' Spokesperson said:


> I just read it that there is debate but that the debate is all centred around this one theory and that the author wants new debate centred around a new theory but this is rendered impossible by the gorilla.  Goddamn gorillas!
> 
> Incidentally (not directed at Glasguensis) the reason the gorilla is referred to as "theoretical" is because it is representative of a specific theory, not because it is in someway ethereal.



Maybe then we could say: _
Cette vue de l'esprit selon laquelle la vie animale a une moindre valeur équivaut à la théorie qui voudrait qu'on puisse déplacer les montagnes? 

_Edit: I admit it doesn't convey the idea that the author would like to alter the debate, but the English sentence does not seem to make it explicit either, yet trying to move mountains (literal meaning) is a common phrase that directly refers to something that is so overwhelming it cannot be changed.


----------



## Chris' Spokesperson

C'est un peu lourd quand même, non ? Par rapport à l'original qui est assez accrocheur.

Cette opinion théorique qui rabaisse la valeur de la vie animale est une grosse brute sauvage et théorique en surplomb dans la pièce.

Euh... c'est aussi lourd que ta proposition à toi ! 

In fact the original author should be shot ; who the hell uses "theoretical" twice in the one sentence ?


----------



## Moon Palace

How about rewording it then, to make it somewhat more striking: 
_Dire que la vie animale a une moindre valeur, c'est comme dire qu'on peut déplacer les montagnes?_


----------



## Chris' Spokesperson

Mais ce n'est pas le sens. Dire que la vie animale a une moindre valeur est dire ce que les montagnes, pour ainsi dire, dictent que l'on dit. C'est la théorie gravée à l'esprit de tout le monde, consciemment ou non. C'est l'opinion du gorille et chacun suit cette opinion. Dire que la vie animale équivaut la vie humaine c'est s'attaquer au gorille. Mauvaise idée !


----------



## zita beretta

Funny thread!
My attempt : (far from the gorilla, but following the trail of an idiom to convey an idea)
Cette vision théorique de la moindre valeur de la vie animale est l'arbre théorique qui cache la forêt.


----------



## Moon Palace

I understand your point Chris, my choice was due to common wisdom that claims that if one believes, then one can move mountains, even though everybody knows that it is rationally impossible. 
Maybe it could be turned the other way around and thus the author's opinion would be more explicit: 
_Remettre en cause la vue de l'esprit selon laquelle la vie animale a une moindre valeur, c'est déplacer les montagnes. 
_Another one I have just thought of: _Remettre en cause la vue de l'esprit selon laquelle la vie animale a une moindre valeur, c'est s'attaquer à un mythe (établi). 

_Edit: _la vue de l'esprit selon laquelle la vie animale a une moindre valeur, c'est la montagne de Sisyphe. _(you can always try to climb it, you will never reach the other side)?


----------



## wildan1

Since the original is mixing metaphors (yes, I do think this is the case, whether or not it was the author's intention, and I believe most well educated AE-speakers would recognize it as such) why not do so in the French translation?:

_...c'est oublier qu'un arbre qui empêche de voir la forêt peut en cacher un autre._


----------



## Glasguensis

To summarise very briefly (with apologies to the author) the article, the author says that the animal rights movement generally avoids debating theory, but in fact the implicit acceptance of this theory of the lesser value of animal life underpins a great deal of the activity. To paraphrase one of his examples, if you campaign for better treatment of hens, then you are implicitly accepting that it's okay to exploit hens for their eggs in the first place, in other words hens are inferior to humans. The author's intent is to get people to acknowledge that this theory is in fact shaping their actions so that he can then engage them in a debate about whether this theory is morally acceptable (and in case you hadn't worked it out, the author believes that it isn't). 

The reason I've been continuing to plug my view that the "in the room" changes the sense of the "800lb gorilla" is because I believe that the author is deliberately alluding to the fact that this theory which is so dominant in determining practice is rarely explicitly acknowledged (to the point that many animal rights campaigners would even deny that they agree with it, despite undertaking actions which logically clearly depend on it).

As for a translation, essentially we're looking for something which we first have to see in order to combat. *le géant qui se cache dans l'ombre*, or something along those lines, perhaps?


----------



## Chris' Spokesperson

C'est génial Glasguensis, j'adore.


----------



## Jasmine tea

This thread has been very interesting to follow, thanks to your explanations, and your moving forward step by step, analyzing every word, trying to figure out the true meaning of the sentence....

Wouldn't the word "épouvantail" work out here?

l'épouvantail qui nous éloigne des champs

Just a suggestion. Ça me turlupinait, alors je vous le soumets....


----------



## Glasguensis

Yes, it could work - I'm not sure it captures the power and dominance of the gorilla, but I suppose it depends how you construct the full sentence.


----------



## Jasmine tea

Thank you for your reply Glasguensis. 

You are right about "the power and dominance of the gorilla", the power and dominance of the épouvantail are fake!


----------



## Forbane

Je n'avais pas vu que ce fil était aussi long... merci pour toutes vos propositions !

En fait il faut faire ressortir l'idée selon laquelle... cette idée (que la vie animale serait de valeur moindre) est en fait monstrueuse.
Donc j'ai décidé de traduire par : "le Léviathan tapi dans l'ombre", "Léviathan" exprimant bien en français cette idée de monstruosité ainsi que de caducité.


----------



## Quantz

le sujet qui fâche 
le sujet-tabou


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

I agree that "the 800-pound gorilla in the room" means "the underpinning idea which is considered apodictic but intentionally, tacitly, and consensually ignored". Once you start arguing about the most humane way to raise animals to exploit (for eggs, milk, honey, wool, leather, silk, etc.) or to kill (pigs, cows, sheep, goats, etc.) them to eat, you've bought into the anthropocentric principle that it's OK to do so because they're "lower life forms"/"inferior species", even if you don't want to admit this. I think the combination of the "800-pound gorilla" and the "elephant in the room" is a neat neologism! (And elephants are killed for their ivory, and some tribes poach gorillas.) As for the French, _la bête noire invisible_, maybe?


----------



## Quantz

hélas, bête noire invisible n'est pas idiomatique en français


Forbane said:


> "Tabou", c'est ce qu'on cache.
> "Le nez au milieu de la figure", l'éléphant ou le gorille, c'est ce qui s'impose à l'esprit de par son énormité.
> 
> Je ne pense donc pas que les 2 soient synonymes...



Non, un tabou n'est pas ce qu'on cache.
L'américain emploie des images que le français, plus abstrait, ne peut utiliser.
Et la bête noire invisible n'est pas idiomatique. C'est la bête noire tout court, malheureusement.

TABOU : Définition de TABOU
A. − _ANTHROPOLOGIE_
1. Personne, animal, chose qu'il n'est pas permis de toucher parce qu'il (elle) est investi(e) momentanément ou non d'une puissance sacrée jugée dangereuse ou impure.
2. Interdiction de caractère sacré qui pèse sur une personne, un animal, une chose.

1. Interdit d'ordre culturel et/ou religieux qui pèse sur le comportement, le langage, les mœurs.
2. Règle d'interdiction respectée par une collectivité.

2.
a) Qui est interdit par une crainte sacrée, surnaturelle.
b) Qui ne peut être fait, prononcé, touché par crainte, par respect, par pudeur.


----------



## Glasguensis

Le sujet qui fâche doesn't seem right to me, and le sujet tabou doesn't capture all of the original. It's a subject which isn't even recognised - people don't talk about it because they overlook its very existence, not merely because it's taboo.


----------

