# FR: il ne pesait que 105 kg



## Klsey

Hello,

I am looking at a biographical article in French, but I am having difficulty with this sentence when I try to translate it into English: I am having difficulty knowing where to place the "only" in this sentence once it is translated into English:

"Il était un grand homme (1m90) qui se déclarait en forme lorsqu'il *ne *pesait *que* 105 kg."

"He was a tall man (1m90/6ft3) who considered himself fit when he *only *weighed 105kg (232 lbs)."

--> Where should the "only" go? It seems like the "only" would be better after "when" ("he...considered himself fit only when he weighed 105kg), but I'm not sure if the French syntax allows for this. If the first translation I gave is correct, the author could be joking around a bit. The style of the text is playful, so the "only weighed 105kg" could be ironic.

Thank you for your assistance.


----------



## Punky Zoé

Hi Klsey and welcome to the forum!

I think you're right, there is some irony in the text. If not the author wouldn't have used the negative form (restriction) and would have said : lorsqu'il pesait 105 kg (a statement of fact).
In the sentence I hear implicitly "même si c'est beaucoup / alors que c'est beaucoup".


----------



## Maître Capello

Note that the restriction always applies to the word or phrase following _que_, namely _105 kg_ in your example (_il *ne *pesait *que* 105 kg_).

In other words, the English translation should be:  _he weighed *only *105 kg (232 lbs)_.


----------



## Donaldos

Maître Capello said:


> In other words, the English translation should be:  _he weighed *only *105 kg (232 lbs)_.



On peut éventuellement placer _only_ devant le complément auquel il se rapporte en cas d’ambiguïté mais ce n'est pas une obligation. Cet adverbe est d'ailleurs bien plus souvent placé entre le sujet et le verbe comme l'a fait _Klsey_, sans que le sens soit affecté.


----------



## Aoyama

In fact, I wonder if a sentence like :
"He was a tall man (1m90/6ft3) who considered himself fit when he weighed *but* 105kg (232 lbs)"  could be possible.
Another way to put things :
"He was a tall man (1m90/6ft3) who considered himself fit when he* just *weighed 105kg (232 lbs)."
But the irony is less evident in English than in French.
This being said, I beg to differ a wee bit with PZ when she says that the author would/could have said : 





> lorsqu'il pesait 105 kg


. I would prefer "alors qu'il pesait 105 kg" ...


----------



## Maître Capello

Aoyama said:


> I would prefer "alors qu'il pesait 105 kg" ...


Let me disagree. The meaning would be totally different!

_*lorsqu'*il (ne) pesait (que) 105 kg_ = *when(ever)* he weighed (only) 105 kg
_*alors qu'*il pesait 105 kg_ = *whereas* he weighed 105 kg


----------



## Aoyama

> _*lorsqu'*il (ne) pesait (que) 105 kg_ = *when(ever)* he weighed (only) 105 kg
> _*alors qu'*il pesait 105 kg_ = *whereas* he weighed 105 kg


I'm not sure "whenever" he weighted (only) 105kg could really work here." Whereas" for "alors que" his correct, is it "totally different" ... ?


----------



## Klsey

Merci pour les réponses! 

Thank you for confirming the ironic nature of the text and the grammatical points underlying it. I am thinking that I will translated it as *"when he weighed a mere 105kg."* I think this helps communicate the irony better than "only" (wherever it may have been placed)would have done . I also like Aoyama's suggestion of using "but" or "just."


----------



## Aoyama

Yes "a mere"  is good.


----------



## Maître Capello

Aoyama said:


> Yes "a mere"  is good.


----------



## Il fuoco

<me butting in>_A mere _seems to go too far in the opposite direction, in my opinion, implying that he was in fact _under_weight! This causes the irony to be obscured by actual confusion about what the author is trying to say (I interpret it as the author saying seriously rather than ironically that he was too light to be considered fit). I would replace "when he weighed _a mere_ 105kg" by "when he weighed *a lean* 105 kg". </me butting in>


----------



## Maître Capello

How could "He weighed a mere *105 kg*" be understood seriously? 

Anyway, "lean" would work too.


----------



## Aoyama

I fully agree with the above, "a mere" here  has to be a joke. But "lean" is a good idea also.


----------



## jann

I'm a bit late to the table here, but I agree that "mere" or "lean" -- used ironically, of course!! -- are good.





Donaldos said:


> On peut éventuellement placer _only_ devant le complément auquel il se rapporte en cas d’ambiguïté mais ce n'est pas une obligation. Cet adverbe est d'ailleurs bien plus souvent placé entre le sujet et le verbe comme l'a fait _Klsey_, sans que le sens soit affecté.


It's true that we often place "only" between the subject and the verb... but the correct location of "only" in the sentence is next to the element that it restricts.  Sloppy placement of "only" is so common that no one notices it in speech... and only editors and the most careful of writers are likely to notice it in writing.  I have to admit that sloppy placement of "only" sometimes sounds less formal that strictly correct placement, especially orally.


----------



## Aoyama

Back to the original sentence in question here, I noticed a mistake in the French version :


> "Il était un grand homme (1m90) qui se déclarait en forme lorsqu'il *ne *pesait *que* 105 kg."
> 
> "He was a tall man (1m90/6ft3) who considered himself fit when he *only *weighed 105kg (232 lbs)."



"Il était un grand homme" is, of course, not correct here (it would mean : he was a great man), it should be : "C'était un homme grand" or better "c'était un homme de grande taille" .
Now, we all agreed that "mere" and "lean" are used here ironically, unless in the Sumo world, where a 105kg for 1.90m is considered light (135kg or more would be the norm for that size). But that is probably another story ...


----------



## Maître Capello

Aoyama said:


> Back to the original sentence in question here, I noticed a mistake in the French version : "Il était un grand homme" is, of course, not correct here (it would mean : he was a great man)


Actually, it is not incorrect… but I'm afraid this is off-topic and should be discussed in another thread.


----------

