# s'asseoir en indien



## MurdochPhoenix16

Bonjour, j'écris présentement mon premier roman en anglais et j'aimerais trouver une expression qui se rapproche de celle qu'on emplois en français, "s'asseoir en indien".
ex: Anneliese lui fait face, assise en indien.

Hello, I'm currently writing my first novel in english and I would like to find an expression that would mean the same thing as in french, "s'asseoir en indien".
ex: Anneliese faces him, *assise en indien.*

I'd be very thankful to receive some advices ...


----------



## sholby

Isn't it "crouching"?


----------



## GEmatt

Is it the same as sitting down _les jambes croisées_? Or more like this?


----------



## MurdochPhoenix16

Could it be cross-legged? I think it makes sense. I like it! 

Thank you so much to both of you


----------



## janpol

il existe "s'sseoir en tailleur" mais est-ce vraiment la même position ?


----------



## MurdochPhoenix16

Auriez-vous l'amabilité de me décrire un peu cette position? Je n'ai jamais entendu parlé de "s'asseoir en tailleur" auparavant ... J'ignore si c'est vraiment ce que je tente de trouver.

Merci


----------



## itka

Je ne connais pas non plus _"s'asseoir en indien"_, seulement _"s'asseoir en tailleur"_, c'est à dire assis sur le sol, les jambes croisées, un peu comme la position "en lotus" du yoga, mais les jambes sont moins pliées...Regarde ici.

Aucune idée de la traduction en anglais !


----------



## Arrius

*Assise, les jambes croisées.*
Je crois qu'il s'agit des peaux-rouges (Native Americans) ici et ne fait pas allusion aux indiens de l'Inde (AE Eastindians).


----------



## MurdochPhoenix16

Merci beaucoup Itka!


----------



## janpol

Plutôt que d'employer l'expression, tu peux dire qu'"elle est assise à la manière des Indiens".


----------



## alisonp

Cross-legged.


----------



## nouvellerin

In English you can say "sitting cross-legged" or "sittng Indian style"


----------



## MurdochPhoenix16

That's great! That exactlyyyy what I was looking for. Thanks nouvellerin!


----------



## nouvellerin

De rien


----------



## Nicomon

Arrius said:


> *Assise, les jambes croisées.*
> Je crois qu'il s'agit des peaux-rouges (Native Americans) ici et ne fait pas allusion aux indiens de l'Inde (AE Eastindians).


 
Et tu as tout à fait raison. Enfin pour un québécois, c'est que cela signifie 
Comme un amérindien / indien d'Amérique.  L'appellation peaux-rouges est vieillie. 
Assis en tailleur serait le meilleur équivalent, comme le confirme cette liste

Et aussi cet extrait :


> In addition to _Indian style_ and _cross-legged_, this sitting style also is known as _tailor-fashion_ (presumably after the way a tailor might sit to sew). Source


----------



## funnyhat

Arrius said:


> *Assise, les jambes croisées.*
> Je crois qu'il s'agit des peaux-rouges (Native Americans) ici et ne fait pas allusion aux indiens de l'Inde (AE Eastindians).


 
We don't normally say "East Indians."  Usually we say "Asian Indians" or just "Indians".  

As for the seating style, I've always heard it as "Indian-style."  "Cross-legged," to me, can mean something else, like sitting in a chair with your legs crossed.  There is no ambiguity with "Indian-style."


----------



## gillyfr

funnyhat said:


> We don't normally say "East Indians."  Usually we say "Asian Indians" or just "Indians".
> 
> As for the seating style, I've always heard it as "Indian-style."  "Cross-legged," to me, can mean something else, like sitting in a chair with your legs crossed.  There is no ambiguity with "Indian-style."



No ambiguity perhaps, but it is a glaring stereotype. Not only Amerindians sit "Indian-style".

However, I found this which would seem to indicate that ambiguity there is: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cross-legged


----------



## Nicomon

funnyhat said:


> As for the seating style, I've always heard it as "Indian-style." "Cross-legged," to me, can mean something else, like sitting in a chair with your legs crossed. There is no ambiguity with "Indian-style."


 
I agree that cross-legged can be misinterpreted and is not specific enough. So I'd say _sitting_ _Indian-style_ for AE, and for those who are not familiar with _s'asseoir en indien_, or who would rather not use a stereotype, then _sitting tailor fashion_ (see post #15) might be more appropriate for international reading. Besides, it would appear that among Natives/Amerindians only the men sit that way.

Extrait d'un article sur la vie des Sioux Lakotas (p. 11) Source


> ... les hommes doivent s’asseoir en tailleur et les femmes les jambes sur le côté


----------



## Teafrog

MurdochPhoenix16 said:


> Could it be *cross-legged*? …


That's the one 


itka said:


> Je ne connais pas non plus _"s'asseoir en indien"_, seulement _"s'asseoir en tailleur"_, c'est à dire assis sur le sol, les jambes croisées, un peu comme la position "en lotus" du yoga, mais les jambes sont moins pliées...Regarde ici.
> 
> Aucune idée de la traduction en anglais !


Cross legged, as per your link, half lotus (one leg on thigh, the other bent under) or full lotus (both legs crossed over thighs)


gillyfr said:


> No ambiguity perhaps, but it is a glaring stereotype. Not only Amerindians sit "Indian-style".…


I fully agree, it is a stereotype  which should be avoided, imo.
It make no difference whatsoever, when referring to the _cross legged_ position (which is very universal when sitting on the floor) to call it either “American Indian” or "Indian" (from the sub-continent of India) or anything else . Any 'adjective' is completely superfluous…


----------



## alisonp

I'm not sure to what extent "cross-legged" is really ambiguous.  The visual picture it conjures up for me would, I think, always be one of someone sitting in a rather-more-relaxed-than-lotus position.  I suppose it could also be used to describe someone sitting in a chair with one leg crossed over the other, but I think I would always phrase that as "sitting with legs crossed/crossed legs".


----------



## MurdochPhoenix16

After all the information I got, I couldn't agree more with you. That's what I'll use in the story. Thanks lolll


----------



## funnyhat

gillyfr said:


> No ambiguity perhaps, but it is a glaring stereotype. Not only Amerindians sit "Indian-style".
> 
> However, I found this which would seem to indicate that ambiguity there is: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cross-legged


 
Stereotype or not, "Indian-style" is very commonly used and more specific than "cross-legged." I also frankly find it hard to believe that anyone would actually take offense to this term.  It is not in any way a pejorative term; it's just a name to describe a manner of seating.


----------



## laurent_atl

whether you consider this an offending stereotype or not the french author uses 'en indien' which is stereotype or a metaphor instead of the more neutral 'en tailleur' so i think 'indian style' would be closer to the original than çross legged', as stereotypical as it sounds.


----------



## Nicomon

laurent_atl said:


> whether you consider this an offending stereotype or not the french author uses 'en indien' which is stereotype or a metaphor instead of the more neutral 'en tailleur' so i think 'indian style' would be closer to the original than çross legged', as stereotypical as it sounds.


 
I agree entirely. And I don't find the so called stereotype offending. 
Here's a young moman sitting indian style. And here's one (top left) that says assis en indien. This is what the Quebec French expression means to me. Legs are "bent", but they are not really "crossed".


----------



## janpol

Si "assis en Indien" était offensant pour les Indiens, on pourrait tout aussi bien dire que "assis en tailleur" est offensant pour les tailleurs.


----------



## Tresley

Hello MurdochPhoenix16,

As soon as I saw this thread I immediately thought of 'sitting on the ground in the butterfly position'. People in India like to sit on the ground with the soles of their feet together (i.e. in the butterfly position).

I don't understand why people have suggested 'cross-legged', as it isn't that at all!

I hope this helps.


----------



## Kelly B

Now I'm confused. The images Nicomon posted match Tresley's suggested butterfly position, but that isn't what I was picturing at all. The American phrase _Indian style_ instead matches the image that Itka posted in #7. The legs are crossed at the ankles, with the knees bent and feet drawn up close to the body under the knees. It's the way groups of American schoolchildren sit on the floor when they're not using chairs.


----------



## gillyfr

A quick aside on stereotypes:
1) Unless you are of the group that is being referred to, you are not qualified to state that it is not offensive.
2) Whether there exist equally offensive stereotypes towards other groups of people does not lessen the offensiveness of any given stereotype.
3) "Just a name" is no justification for a stereotype. "It's a description" is no justification for a stereotype. Here are a few more "descriptions": slant-eyed; thick-lipped; curry-eater... When was the last time you saw an Amerindian sitting cross-legged on the ground?
4) Stereotypes, as I'm sure you are aware, do not reflect reality. Therefore, it is not a good idea to perpetuate them.


----------



## Nicomon

Kelly B said:


> Now I'm confused. The images Nicomon posted match Tresley's suggested butterfly position, but that isn't what I was picturing at all. The American phrase _Indian style_ instead matches the image that Itka posted in #7.


 
It is indeed confusing. If you look at the pictures on this page (the one I linked to previously is in the last row), it appears that not everyone defines Indian style the exact same way. And the same goes for assis en tailleur (see the man with the read vest, in second row) which is the closestequivalent to assis en indien. Hence my reluctance to translate it as "cross-legged", although I agree that it is common usage. 



gillyfr said:


> A quick aside on stereotypes


 
Without quoting all points, I'll just say that as translators, we're not there to judge the author's choice of words. Political correctness is one thing... translation another. If the original is "_assise en indien_", then I don't see any reason why we should change it to "_assise les jambes croisées_", to then translate it as "_cross-legged_".


----------



## Philip(pe)

A related question: does it have to be "en indien" in French? Is it incorrect to say "à 'indienne"?


----------



## Nicomon

Hi Philip(pe)

Excellent question... just have a look on this page
Entry # 10 is this : 





> Cinq cents vieillards et chefs, *assis à l'indienne*, se pressaient autour du Jésuite.


 So yes, it can be said. And in my opinion, it is an ever closer match to "Indian style"


----------



## papamac

Je veux juste ajouter que je n'ai jamais entendu "indian-style" de ma vie.  C'est peut-être une locution qui s'emploie en Amérique du nord.  "Cross-legged" va très bien aux Antipodes.


----------



## Teafrog

It’s interesting how this thread is still rumbling on , so allow me to add another little grain of salt.

OK, I admit that we have to translate as close as the original, in this case “assis en indien” = “sitting Indian style”; I’ll eat my humble pie on this one (for the purists). However…

Should you use the “Indian style” expression in the UK, I’m almost certain nobody will understand (straight away) what is meant by it, and will end up confused; it is not a term commonly used.
We would only say “Indian” (meaning from sub-continent), whereas Americans might have to use "Asian Indians". Likewise we would need to clarify and say Red Indian / American Indian, West--Indian (Jamaica), etc.

Britons would have to figure out if the person using the term "sitting Indian style" meant “Indian from the sub-continent” (we have a lot of people from that region, due to the British Raj) or “American Red Indian” (as opposed to Inuit Indians). They would then have to work out what is meant…

In the UK, sitting “Indian style” would be mostly understood either as a _lotus_ or a simple _cross-legged_ position (understood in terms of a yogic posture).

This seems to be another of these AE-BE differences; we have more Indians from India and Americans have more, er, Red Indians…
This reflect on some of the posts we've been having … 

Here's a tedious part, so skip it if you wish  .
There are only several ways humanly possible of sitting on the floor, excluding the positions with the legs outstretched in front (Dandasana) or folded back with the feet on the side of the bum (Virasana). The names in brackets are the Yoga Sanskrit names, recognised the world over by yoga practitioners, in case you are curious.

Starting from the top (the most complicated):
Lotus position (Padmasana): legs crossed, back of feet on thighs (straight back…)
Half lotus (half Padmasana): one leg folded on the floor, the other above it, in lotus position
Cross-legged (Sukhasana): legs are simply crossed in front (your “Indian sitting” position)
Cobbler pose / bound angle pose (Baddha Konasana): legs bent in front with soles of the feet touching and hand clasped around feet for stability (see here for a demo).
This is NOT “être assis en tailleur” nor “à l’indienne”, see here (lifted from CNRTL): *S'asseoir en tailleur*: S'asseoir à plat, les jambes repliées et les genoux écartés.
See any of the 10 links further down, for clarification.

The *only* position that can be sustained for any length of time by the average (non-yogic) person is the cross-legged pose, imo, which is the reason it is fairly universal term the world over (including India…)

There is also sitting, if you can call it that, with your soles of the feet flat on the ground and next to your bum, shins almost vertical and knees next to you chest; this is not an official yoga pose, but you can see a lot of people using this posture around the world (“assis à la turque”, I believe ^^)
See here, the man on the left (blowing!); "ouch!" says the other 

Judging from the Googled links of people sitting “à l’indienne” or “en tailleur”, it is very clear that the _captions for these photos vary enormously_. In each sections of googled photos, you will notice the whole gamut of sitting positions I mentioned above; they are mostly cross-legged, lotus or the angle pose (feet touching).

This is what “_assis à l’indienne_” conjures up for me, at any rate; every link is a winner, so take your pick. (aren't you glad you asked ?)
No 1, No 2, No 3, No 4, No 5, No 6, No 7, No 8, No 9, No 10, … Phew 




Tresley said:


> …People in India like to sit on the ground with the soles of their feet together (i.e. in the butterfly position).
> 
> I don't understand why people have suggested 'cross-legged', as it isn't that at all!…


I beg to differ strongly. Indian people sit in cross-leg position. It is best to check this by either going  to India or, much cheaper, by going to an Indian wedding . A butterfly position takes too much space in a crowded place and cannot be sustained for a long time; it is only used as physical exercise… (try it, you'll see what I mean - don't forget to do it with a straight back to get the full benefit…)


Kelly B said:


> Now I'm confused. The images Nicomon posted match Tresley's suggested butterfly position, but that isn't what I was picturing at all. The American phrase _Indian style_ instead matches the image that Itka posted in #7. The legs are crossed at the ankles, with the knees bent and feet drawn up close to the body under the knees. It's the way groups of American schoolchildren sit on the floor when they're not using chairs.


I fully agree and, imo, sitting _Indian style, "en tailleur" or cross-legged" _are one-and-the-same.


nouvellerin said:


> In English you can say "sitting cross-legged" or "sitting Indian style"


Yes, however "sitting cross-legged" is far more common. See 'notes' above.


funnyhat said:


> Stereotype or not, "Indian-style" is very commonly used and more specific than "cross-legged." I also frankly find it hard to believe that anyone would actually take offense to this term.  It is not in any way a pejorative term; it's just a name to describe a manner of seating.


I agree, but I don't think, unless I'm mistaken, that anyone is taking offence. It's just that the term can be confusing to some and somewhat restricting, imo.
I agree with the statement (post #17), that "sitting “_Indian style_” is a glaring stereotype. Not only Amerindians sit _Indian-style_".

I would have preferred to use ‘metaphor’ instead! Sitting “cross legged” (like this) is universally understood.


laurent_atl said:


> whether you consider this an offending stereotype or not the french author uses 'en indien' which is stereotype or a metaphor instead of the more neutral 'en tailleur' so i think 'indian style' would be closer to the original than cross legged', as stereotypical as it sounds.


I'll go along with that, for the sake of the translation's purity, even though some people might be confused by this term (see my 'notes' above).


janpol said:


> Si "assis en Indien" était offensant pour les Indiens, on pourrait tout aussi bien dire que "assis en tailleur" est offensant pour les tailleurs.


Personne n'a dit que c'était un terme offensant , mais que cela peu porter à confusion dans certains pays.
*
End of grain of salt* (hurray!). I apologise if it turned out to be a large rock, rather than a grain 

*PS*: I reckon the same applies to” nage indienne, à l'indienne”, “à la file indienne, en file indienne”, etc.

What do you think? I'm only joking


----------



## janpol

Bravo, Teafrog ! Je crois que ton grain de sel a traité la question de manière quasi exhaustive...
Tu dis qu'il n'a jamais été question de trouver offensant le terme "en Indien". Il me semble pourtant que ce point a été évoqué, sans doute de manière plus implicite qu'explicite, il est vrai ("I also find it hard to believe that anyone would actually take offense to this term", "it's not a pejorative term", "whether you consider this an offending stereotype"). Dire que le mot n'est pas offensant, c'est un peu reconnaître que la question peut se poser...


----------



## gillyfr

Teafrog, thank you for an edifying post that clarifies many things.  Clarity is, IMO, the most important aspect of word usage.

Translation, also IMO, is one of the gamut of communications professions and, as such, should aim to get a clear message across to the target audience.

Since Murdoch is writing a book which will probably be aimed at the North American general public, I believe it is necessary to remember that that general public is composed of many different peoples of different origins who may not all have the same definition of "Indian" or "Indian-style", some of whom may indeed be offended by the stereotypical implications of the use of this word.  "Cross-legged" is apparently understood broadly in North America, as evidenced by the primary definition in dictionaries and a Google search, and should therefore be the phrase of choice.

As for purity of translation, IMO translators are interpretors of the written word (as opposed to the spoken). Purity is not a consideration in interpreting, but rather *meaning *conveyed appropriately according to the cultural norms of the target.


----------



## Nicomon

Thank you teafrog for this most interesting reading. 

gillyfr, I'm just curious to know... since you mentioned clarity. What should Murdoch have written in French, if he were to publish in both languages? Wouldn't the book be aimed at the same public? 

Granted, _à l'indienne/en indien_ may not be understood - or interpreted the same way - universally. But would _en tailleur_ be? I'm not sure either. _Assis(e) les jambes croisées?_ Crystal clear... but it sort of lacks in colour, in my opinion. 

Of course, it's important to render the *meaning*, and to adapt the expression to the targeted readers.I never denied that, and said so in post #18. But this thread also showed that most Americans would understand _Indian style_. My main point was that avoiding a "stereotype" shouldn't be the reason for chosing a solution rather than another. If _Indian style_ isn't common knowledge, then *that* is a good reason not to use it. In which case cross-legged it is (although I personally prefer _tailor fashion_). But it still wouldn't be my number 1 choice - not if the original says « _à l'indienne_ ». There is no such thing as a book that could be read and understood by all publics. Try reading Michel Tremblay, for instance. 

For the record ... the Robert & Collins translates "cross-legged" as _en tailleur_. In any event, I think it's good to mention that cross-leg-ged is pronounced with *3* syllables. Or so people say in this thread.


----------



## Kelly B

While we're being curious, gillyfr's post forcefully reminded me that MurdochPhoenix16 is *writing this book. *So please, MurdochPhoenix16, will you choose an image from the links that matches what _you _had in mind? (it would have been good to include that for context in post #1, actually. )

Edit: by the way, Nicomon, I agree that _cross-leg-ged is pronounced with *3* syllables._


----------



## Arrius

*Edit: by the way, Nicomon, I agree that cross-leg-ged is pronounced with 3 syllables. Kelly B.*
Not anywhere in Britain, as far as I know. Neither is bow-legged (/bo:legd/), but strangely the British pronunciation of _four-legged_, as in Roy Rogers' old song about his equine pal Trigger ("A _*Four-leg-ged*_ Friend"), is trisyllabic even in prose.


----------



## Llewelyn86

I think that in French we use more "assis en tailleur" than "assis à l'indienne", but I've never heard of "assis en indien"


----------



## alisonp

Arrius said:


> *Edit: by the way, Nicomon, I agree that cross-leg-ged is pronounced with 3 syllables. Kelly B.*
> Not anywhere in Britain, as far as I know. Neither is bow-legged (/bo:legd/), but strangely the British pronunciation of _four-legged_, as in Roy Rogers' old song about his equine pal Trigger ("A _*Four-leg-ged*_ Friend"), is trisyllabic even in prose.


I think it's still used, but probably starting to die out a bit.  I'm not even sure whether I'd use the 2- or 3-syllable version now.


----------



## Spleen

I have only heard "sitting Indian-style" up until now but I'm all for changing it to "sitting in the lotus position" (actually a pretty image, is it not?) to avoid the "American Indian" stereotype... "Sitting cross-legged" can ultimately be imagined but it does take time to see it visually. 
When you say "more relaxed" alison p, does that mean that the back has to be straight in the lotus position?


----------



## nouvellerin

My opinion in this whole matter after reading 40 posts on the subjects, is that the author should translate his original text--disregarding all political factors--directly:

Sitting Indian-style

In literature and translation, people aren't always neutral, and aren't always universally understood.


----------



## alisonp

Spleen said:


> When you say "more relaxed" alison p, does that mean that the back has to be straight in the lotus position?


 
That wasn't me, but please note that, as discussed above, the lotus position is actually very different from sitting cross-legged.  It involves having the feet on top of the thighs, doesn't it?


----------



## Spleen

Thank you, alisonp!


----------



## Teafrog

alisonp said:


> That wasn't me, but please note that, as discussed above, the lotus position is actually very different from sitting cross-legged.  It involves having the feet on top of the thighs, doesn't it?


You are correct, the two are different positions. Any yoga positions demands a good alignment, which means among others, a straight back. A proper Lotus is not easy to achieve; it takes years of practice!
When a person sits cross legged in a casual environment (i.e. non-yoga), a curved back is almost inevitable. The main thing is to be as comfy as possible


----------



## janpol

Qui aurait parié, quand ce fil a été créé, qu'une manière de s'asseoir par terre provoquerait une telle avalanche de posts ?


----------



## MurdochPhoenix16

C'est drôle, c'est ce que je me dit depuis les 10 derniers messages


----------

