# strutting sweep



## Quantz

The scene is this : a family get attacked in the street by two thugs.

"Both men suddenly rushed the family, not a run, but a strutting sweep."

"Tout à coup les deux hommes se ruèrent sur la petite famille, sans courir, juste un mouvement vif," *… ??
strutting sweep gives* me pause (je ne peux utiliser se pavaner car *strut* est déjà présent dans une description des deux hommes 15 lignes plus haut).


----------



## clairet

It's going to be difficult without using "se pavaner".  Using it: "juste une ratissage en se pavanant"?


----------



## Jasmine tea

une vive indolence....?


----------



## AudeS

Tout d'abord, je pense qu'ici "rush" signifie attaquer (se ruer sur = to rush *at*", et qu'il faut lui enlever son sens de vitesse (cf "not running"), et que cela rendra le reste de la phrase plus facile à traduire, par exemple:

"Les deux hommes attaquèrent la petite famille de façon soudaine mais sans sans courir, d'un mouvement crâneur et majestueux".


----------



## archijacq

un rapide encerclement conquérant ?
(conquérant, crâneur etc.)


----------



## clairet

I can't really see "un mouvement crâneur et majestueux".  En anglais, "to strut" invokes an image of soldiers goose-stepping (does "crâneur" cover this?).  Perhaps the nearest image I have for this particular text of a strutting sweep is that bending run-up that high-jumpers make in great bounds - very deliberate, controlled movement (compared to running) but I think it would be wrong to say all speed is taken out it.


----------



## Quantz

AudeS said:


> Tout d'abord, je pense qu'ici "rush" signifie attaquer (se ruer sur = to rush *at*", et qu'il faut lui enlever son sens de vitesse (cf "not running"), et que cela rendra le reste de la phrase plus facile à traduire, par exemple:
> 
> "Les deux hommes *attaquèrent* longue scène, _attaquer_ déjà utilisé… la petite famille *de façon soudaine *ce sont ces lourdeurs qui rendent le français maladroit dans les scènes d'action  mais sans sans courir, _sweep_ signifie pourtant bien le mouvement rapide [verb ( past swept |swept|)2 [ intrans. ] move swiftly and smoothly] d'un mouvement crâneur et majestueux". deux petits énervés à capuche  _majestueux_ ?


----------



## Jasmine tea

en surgissant d'un bond


----------



## AudeS

clairet said:


> I can't really see "un mouvement crâneur et majestueux".  En anglais, "to strut" invokes an image of soldiers goose-stepping (does "crâneur" cover this?).  Perhaps the nearest image I have for this particular text of a strutting sweep is that bending run-up that high-jumpers make in great bounds - very deliberate, controlled movement (compared to running) but I think it would be wrong to say all speed is taken out it.



I see your point, but you said yourself that it was a shame we couldn't use "se pavaner". "Crâner", "frimer" covers the problem (just like "se pavaner", they infer the notion of conceit), and I added "majestueux" for "sweep", because I thought the author almost found the movement admirable...

If you think the closest image is "that bending run-up that high-jumpers make in great bounds", and that we should keep the speed somewhere, I'd say "juste quelques vives enjambées crâneuses", or if you really don't like crâneuses, maybe "nonchalantes".


----------



## Quantz

les deux hommes se ruèrent sur la petite famille, sans courir, un encerclement d’une agilité dominatrice.


----------



## clairet

AudeS - I must take your word as a francophone for the appropriateness of "crâneur", "majestueux" and "nonchalantes" as the meanings given in the WR dico for these words don't seem to me to apply at all from an English viewpoint. 

Quantz's suggestion at #10 seems to me the best suggestion so far to cover the essential meaning if not the specific image.


----------



## hampton.mc

"Both men suddenly rushed the family, not a run, but a strutting sweep.
Just stepping in...
Se ruer sans courir ?
Les deux hommes assaillirent la famille, sans se presser, (sûrs d'eux, presque élégants)


----------



## clairet

hampton.mc said:


> "Both men suddenly rushed the family, not a run, but a strutting sweep.
> Just stepping in...
> Se ruer sans courir ?
> Les deux hommes assaillirent la famille, sans se presser, (sûrs d'eux, presque élégants)



Sorry to repeat myself but I don't think many English speakers would think of strutting as elegant, majestic or anything positive (pretentious maybe, but that doesn't work in this context) - except in the case of horses ("the horse strutted forward rather elegantly") and maybe the high-jumpers I mentioned.  The normal image in the case of people is of a jerky, inelegant, rather martial and aggressive movement (one reason I liked "dominatrice").  "The politician strutted about as if he owned the world".


----------



## Jasmine tea

Soudain les trois hommes les ont assailli, non pas d'un pas de course mais en les acculant d'un revers de main.


----------



## AudeS

clairet said:


> AudeS - I must take your word as a francophone for the appropriateness of "crâneur", "majestueux" and "nonchalantes" as the meanings given in the WR dico for these words don't seem to me to apply at all from an English viewpoint.
> 
> Quantz's suggestion at #10 seems to me the best suggestion so far to cover the essential meaning if not the specific image.



I see your point clairet, and it's indeed better to have the point of view of a native speaker like you  ... 

But really, in french, you don't 'se ruer sur' without 'courir'...


----------



## AudeS

Je n'avais pas vu le post n°7. Effectivement, tu peux remplacer attaquer par assaillir. Pour la fin de la phrase, je rappellerais la notion de rapidité, et je crois que crâneur correspond bien à strut. Par exemple: "un mouvement d'une vivacité crâneuse"


----------



## Jasmine tea

c'est pour cela que j'avais mis "en les acculant d'un revers de main" même si revers de main ne me plaisait pas trop (post #14).


----------



## AudeS

Jasmine tea said:


> c'est pour cela que j'avais mis "en les acculant d'un revers de main" même si revers de main ne me plaisait pas trop (post #14).



Mais là c'est de l'extrapolation! Être acculé signifie être dos à un mur et avoir face à soi un assaillant qui t'empêche de t'enfuir. 

Quant au revers de la main, je ne vois pas bien où dans la phrase d'origine on fait mention d'un revers de main. Certes, il s'agit d'un mouvement rapide, mais la a priori c'est leur corps tout entier qui se déplace avec rapidité.

Enfin, l'action d'acculer d'un revers de main me semble complètement impossible.


----------



## Quantz

AudeS said:


> But really, in french, you don't 'se ruer sur' without 'courir'...



Ce n'est pas le même mouvement.
Aucune antinomie avec la course :
*2.* _Empl. pronom._ *Se ruer (sur, contre, à, vers qqc., pour faire qqc.).* *a)* [Le suj. désigne un animé] −  Se jeter avec impétuosité, brusquerie sur, vers quelqu'un, quelque chose; se précipiter. _Ces hommes ennemis, qui s'étaient rués les uns à la gorge des autres, gisaient maintenant côte à côte_ (Zola _Débâcle_, 1892, p. 500).  ♦ _Absol._ _Gervaise,  brusquement, hurla. Virginie venait de l'atteindre à toute volée (...).  Alors, elle se rua. On crut qu'elle voulait assommer l'autre_ (Zola, _Assommoir_, 1877, p. 400).


----------



## AudeS

J'entends bien Quantz, mais le choix est à faire à partir de la configuration de la scène. Si, quand ils 'rush the family', les types sont déjà à moins d'un mètre d'eux effectivement. 

Mais j'avais cru comprendre qu'ils se trouvaient à quelques pas, étant donné que l'auteur précise 'sans courir'. J'essaye de visualiser la scène, et je pense qu'en français, le mot 'se ruer' implique forcément une course s'il y a distance.


----------



## Quantz

Non, en anglais, ils sont à "_ten feet_", puis ils se rapprochent, puis ils s'emparent d'eux.
Il n'y a pas vraiment de course, ils se placent, un devant, un dans leur dos.
Quand ils se "ruent", ils ne sont pas à distance de bras tendu, mais à deux pas maximum.


----------



## AudeS

Alors je crois que tu as ta réponse, bien joué


----------



## Quantz

Oui et non, car l'anglais reste plus nerveux.


----------



## mgarizona

As this is an American author I'd just throw in here that clairet's objections, while certainly valid as to the literal and it would seem BE usage of the word 'strut,' don't really apply in AE. Pretty much any sort of movement at all can be considered a 'strut' if it's done with the proper attitude.

To my ears, "a sweeping strut" implies that they approached from the sides with something of an arc in their trajectory, and they did so with plainly cocky looks on their faces.


----------



## clairet

mgarizona said:


> As this is an American author I'd just throw in here that clairet's objections, while certainly valid as to the literal and it would seem BE usage of the word 'strut,' don't really apply in AE. Pretty much any sort of movement at all can be considered a 'strut' if it's done with the proper attitude.
> 
> To my ears, "a sweeping strut" implies that they approached from the sides with something of an arc in their trajectory, and they did so with plainly cocky looks on their faces.



I can happily agree with that as another aspect of "strut" (the attitude) which I was overlooking and which maybe applies here (though it's not obvious in the quoted text if it is the physical movement or the attitude which is (mainly) referred to - the contrast with running still leads me to think it is the physical movement.  The use to describe an attitude embodied in a physical movement is captured in the common phrase "strutting his stuff" to refer to e.g. Mick Jagger's stage movements; it also has a wider meaning refering particularly to an attitude and manner.

On the "rush" debate, everything in the original text suggests to me that it is describing movement from several metres. Anyway, you can as well speak of "a rush" from 2 metres (but probably not from much nearer) as from 5 or more.  The contrast with running suggests greater rather than lesser distance. Would "se précipiter" be a possible verb?  (The WR dico has "to rush (someone)" as a possible meaning.)


----------



## Quantz

clairet said:


> Mick Jagger's stage movements.
> 
> Obviously.  [Read : R.-S. lick]
> 
> Would "se précipiter" be a possible verb?  (The WR dico has "to rush (someone)" as a possible meaning.)
> 
> No. Used it in the same page. French prohibits repetitions. I choosed "_se ruer_" also for this purpose.


----------



## mgarizona

You do know English prose frowns upon repetitions too, right? Unless one is being litaneutical. So funny to think that the translation of this book is going to have to pass such more rigorous muster than the original clearly did.


----------



## pointvirgule

"Both men suddenly rushed the family, not a run, but a strutting sweep."
_
Les deux hommes fondirent soudainement sur la famille, d'une démarche leste et crâneuse._


----------



## AudeS

À ce moment-là: 
Soudain, sans courir mais à toute vitesse, les deux hommes se jetèrent sur la petite famille d'un mouvement crâneur.


----------



## Jasmine tea

ils leurs sont tombés dessus telle la panthère sur sa proie, sans précipitation et dénués de scrupules.


----------



## Keith Bradford

"French prohibits repetitions?" Poor French! How on earth do you translate D.H. Lawrence? Is a distance of ten lines really too short for you to repeat "pavaner"? 

(Where can I find these rules? Who writes them?)

Remember that sweep means "balayer" - it's a long smooth movement (of the arm, I presume).


----------



## Jasmine tea

I agree with you, Keith Bradford. 
Milan Kundera, once he started writing his books in french, decided to personaly go through all his previous books translated from tchek to french. In his book "les testaments trahis" he gives an example of a Kafka's sentence where the translater wiped off all repetitions, whereas in the original wording the verb "to be" had been used 3 or 4 times in the sentence!


----------



## Keith Bradford

Jasmine tea said:


> I agree with you, Keith Bradford.
> ...


 
Oh no, please don't agree with me! I asked several real questions - do they have answers?

Because in the 17th century this prohibition didn't seem to exist.  "Rome, l'unique objet de mon ressentiment ! Rome, à qui ...etc."


----------



## AudeS

Keith Bradford said:


> "French prohibits repetitions?" Poor French! How on earth do you translate D.H. Lawrence? Is a distance of ten lines really too short for you to repeat "pavaner"?
> 
> (Where can I find these rules? Who writes them?)
> 
> Remember that sweep means "balayer" - it's a long smooth movement (of the arm, I presume).



As far as DH Lawrence is concerned, I can ask M. Topia for you if you want 

Not sure you can find the rules anywhere, but a repetition can be considered beautiful (the anaphora on Rome is a good example)...

The problem with a verb like "se pavaner" is that it is not very commonly used, so a repetition of it would sound heavy... I guess...


----------



## Quantz

Keith Bradford said:


> Oh no, please don't agree with me! I asked several real questions - do they have answers?
> 
> Because in the 17th century this prohibition didn't seem to exist.  "Rome, l'unique objet de mon ressentiment ! Rome, à qui ...etc."



These are "licence poétique", or rhetorical repetitions. If you read debates inside the Académie, at the time, you'll see that Racine or Corneille were often blamed for these and other "licences poétiques". The reason why Racine is today considered a genius of french language and Corneille just a good playwriter, is because the former disobeyed many rules of the time.
We learn about his in high school (those of us who had good teachers, like me, at least…)



Jasmine tea said:


> I agree with you, Keith Bradford.
> Milan Kundera, once he started writing his books in french, decided to personaly go through all his previous books translated from tchek to french. In his book "les testaments trahis" he gives an example of a Kafka's sentence where the translater wiped off all repetitions, whereas in the original wording the verb "to be" had been used 3 or 4 times in the sentence!



Yes, I know, and Kafka, like Thomas Bernhard after him, had many of those repetitions which are magnificent and should be respected as such.



Keith Bradford said:


> "French prohibits repetitions?" Poor French! How on earth do you translate D.H. Lawrence? Is a distance of ten lines really too short for you to repeat "pavaner"?
> 
> (Where can I find these rules? Who writes them?)
> 
> Remember that sweep means "balayer" - it's a long smooth movement (of the arm, I presume).



You cannot imagine how many times I struggle with these. For some works, I spend almost as much time tracking unnecessary repetitions than just editing my text. 
Plus I recently had a publisher who told me (though she's a very nice woman, and very talented) :
"Oh, please, don't use the verb "faire", I hate it !"
You must realize many french publishers apply strict rules which are utter nonsense for any sound english native speaker. English has much more liberty in its usage. Reason why your langage rules the world, and not ours.


----------



## pointvirgule

Quantz said:


> English has much more liberty in its usage. Reason why your langage rules the world, and not ours.


Yeah, that must be the reason. Economics have nothing to do with it.


----------



## Quantz

pointvirgule said:


> Yeah, that must be the reason. Economics have nothing to do with it.



_Language_ economics does, of course.


----------



## clairet

The rules do seem really extreme.  Th only reason I got for not using "se précipiter" was that it had been used before _*on the same page*_.  This seems as arcane as foot-binding and almost as painful.  

And surely great writers make the rules, not follow them?


----------



## Quantz

clairet said:


> The rules do seem really extreme.  Th only reason I got for not using "se précipiter" was that it had been used before _*on the same page*_.  This seems as arcane as foot-binding and almost as painful.
> 
> And surely great writers make the rules, not follow them?



Dear Clairet,
I work for some of the best french publishers.
Some would take exception if, in the same page, you'd have these words :
- précipite
- précipitamment
- précipitation
- précipité

because of their common radical, creating all but a _partial_ repetition.
This is french academy at its best. And you don't break these
rules as a translator.
As a writer (which I am too), I break it everyday of course,
and gladly so.


----------



## Jasmine tea

A l'école en France on apprend à varier l'emploi des mots afin de tirer bénéfice de la richesse de la langue et de l'éventail de mots similaires offerts dans le vocabulaire qui se distinguent chacun par une certaine nuance propre au mot en question. 
Un mot bien trouvé et précis ne devra donc pas être répété, en revanche des termes imprécis tels que faire, aller, être pourront (et devront) être à chaque fois remplacés par un autre mot. Si un écrivain décide de répéter plusieurs fois le même mot, qu'il soit recherché, précis ou très courant comme "faire", cela veut dire qu'il cherche à exprimer quelque chose par là. Les éditeurs en général attendent de l'écrivain (et même un petit peu des traducteurs) qu'il sachent défendre le pourquoi du choix du mot. Si l'on peut apporter une justification raisonnable, ça passe. Parce que encore une fois, c'est comme à l'école, l'élève qui aura correctement justifié sa réponse aura le 5 sur 5 des points attribués à cet exercice, à cette question. Et parfois le prof aura mis dans la marge "ce n'était pas la bonne réponse (la réponse attendue), mais j'accepte parce que ça se tient, ça se pourrait, ça se défend etc." La France attend de son interlocuteur qu'il puisse argumenter... c'est tout!!! Stupide peut-être, culturel certes.... (et "the french academy" reflète cet état culturel des choses)...
et si prends cela en compte, alors... "se pavaner" ne devra pas etre répété si cela ne se justifie pas par le désir manifeste de l'écrivain d'insister sur cette attitude et seule celle de se pavaner.
Tout ce laïus, parce que effectivement ce que dit Quantz sur la démarche de l'éditeur m'a interloqué et j'ai cherché à comprendre la raison de cette disposition des éditeurs. If it can be of any help....


----------



## Quantz

Jasmine tea said:


> Tout ce laïus, parce que effectivement ce que dit Quantz sur la démarche de l'éditeur m'a interloqué et j'ai cherché à comprendre la raison de cette disposition des éditeurs. If it can be of any help....



5 auteurs littéraires anglo-saxons sur dix (et 9 auteurs de thrillers anglo-saxons sur 10) ne surveillent guère les répétitions. Si l'on ajoute à cela la pauvreté du français en verbes de mouvement ou d'expression que l'anglais crée à partir d'onomatopées, swish, woosh, et d'autres, la chasse aux répétitions devient vite un casse-tête dans certains textes, et je consacre à cette tâche ingrate une bonne vingtaine d'heures sur un texte moyen.
Symptôme amusant, le dictionnaire et correcteur (très bien fait) de Pro Lexis comporte une fonction "répétitions" encore plus sévère…


----------



## Jasmine tea

J'imagine le casse-tête!
Néanmoins, j'ai un faible pour la langue française (pauvre idiote que je suis). Et je pense qu'elle est sublime pour exprimer à sa manière tout absolument tout, et si joliment pour peu qu'on cherche à l'aimer et s'en délecter comme un délicieux mets qu'on savourerait longtemps et longuement en bouche!
Aussi je suis vraiment désolée d'etre parfois, souvent, une emmerdeuse....(!)


----------



## archijacq

Je ne trouve pas que "se pavaner"  irait bien dans le contexte.
Ce que je comprends de ce synonyme de "swaggering", c'est que nos deux loubards "roulent les mécaniques" pour intimider leurs proies.


----------



## mgarizona

That's exactly it. Which is why there was never anything wrong with crân___.

I think one of the problems here is that there's no way to render "a run" without converting the word to a verb. Because the purpose of "a sweep" here is to 'correct,' so to speak, what the author presumes will be the reader's inevitable association of 'rush' with 'run.' Noun for noun.

"Both men suddenly rushed the family, not a run[n], but a strutting sweep[n]."

Would something like this work: " ... sans courir mais en quelques grandes enjambées souples et frimeuses."


----------



## Jasmine tea

ça m'évoque l'idée de "obtus"
pour reprendre la proposition de Mgarizona "sans courir mais en quelques grandes enjambées souples quoiqu'obtuses"...


----------



## Quantz

Des enjambées obtuses, c'est très singulier, mais je ne vois pas le sens de la chose.


----------



## hampton.mc

Obtus(se) :  Arrondi à son extrémité ou de forme arrondie. 
Certes, mais je ne le vois pas trop dans ce contexte


----------



## Jasmine tea

To my ears, "a sweeping strut" implies that they approached from the sides with something of an arc in their trajectory, and they did so with plainly cocky looks on their faces.[/QUOTE]

L'idée d'"obtus" m'est venu à l'esprit, d'une part parce que obtus veut dire dans le sens littéral "Qui est comme émoussé, au lieu d'être anguleux et pointu." 
Mais également parce que dans le sens figuratif "obtus", par exemple quelqu'un d'obtus, donne l'image de quelqu'un qui est déterminé, têtu mais pas forcément très malin (fin, raffiné dans sa perception etc.). 

Les termes (et idées) "crâneur, conquérant, dominateur, jerky, inelegant, rather martial and aggressive movement" reviennent souvent ici depuis le début de la discussion sur ce "sweeping strut". (termes qui m'avaient menés à proposer "acculer" car lorsqu'on accule, on ne laisse pas le choix, on domine sans courtoisie, et j'avais mis d'un "revers de main" en référence à sweep et parce que l'idée figurative de "balayer"). 

"enjambées obtuses", c'est pas très heureux, comme le fait remarquer Quantz. J'en conviens.

Alors qui dit mieux pour ce "strutting sweep"....!!!


----------



## archijacq

dernière proposition...pour garder l'idée de "conquérant":
un encerclement au pas de charge


----------



## clairet

archijacq said:


> dernière proposition...pour garder l'idée de "conquérant":
> un encerclement au pas de charge



That sounds good to me if I've understood correctly that the image is of a cavalry (strutting horses) manoevering at a determined trot but not full charge.


----------



## Quantz

No cavalry here. Thugs attacking a family.


----------



## clairet

Quantz said:


> No cavalry here. Thugs attacking a family.



?? Quantz, I don't understand the point you are making.  We're talking about an image for describing how they attacked the family.  The way cavalry horses manoeuvre just before beginning a charge seemed to me quite a good image (but maybe it's not what "à pas de charge" means).

Anyway, I've had a look at an English dictionary (not before time!) and found for the verb "to strut": "walk with a stiff, erect, and apparently arrogant or conceited gait" (AskOxford Online).  Maybe I'm the only one who has lost sight of the fact that we are talking about a way of walking (so my thought about the image of horses trotting must be wrong, but their walk might still be strutting; the image of high-jumpers approaching the bar is also clearly misleading - sorry).  So I now think that when the original text talks about not running it really is talking about walking and not, as I thought, something between running and walking.  Maybe nobody else made this mistake, but just in case they did...


----------



## hampton.mc

Both men suddenly rushed the family, not a run, but a strutting sweep."

"Tout à coup les deux hommes assaillirent la famille, sans précipitation/courir, mais en les encerclant arrogants et sûrs d'eux."
Peut-être que tout cela a déjà été proposé mais j'avoue ne pas avoir le courage de tout relire.


----------



## Quantz

clairet said:


> ?? Quantz, I don't understand the point you are making.  We're talking about an image for describing how they attacked the family.  The way cavalry horses manoeuvre just before beginning a charge seemed to me quite a good image (but maybe it's not what "à pas de charge" means).
> 
> Anyway, I've had a look at an English dictionary (not before time!) and found for the verb "to strut": "walk with a stiff, erect, and apparently arrogant or conceited gait" (AskOxford Online).  Maybe I'm the only one who has lost sight of the fact that we are talking about a way of walking (so my thought about the image of horses trotting must be wrong, but their walk might still be strutting; the image of high-jumpers approaching the bar is also clearly misleading - sorry).  So I now think that when the original text talks about not running it really is talking about walking and not, as I thought, something between running and walking.  Maybe nobody else made this mistake, but just in case they did...



You're right, CLairet, I did not get you were metaphorizing.


----------

