# zafamos como podemos



## Chatto

I'm having difficulty with the verb 'zafar'. The context is an Argentine journalist lamenting that his colleagues are no longer as bold as they were in the time of Rodolfo Walsh and the Dirty War. He says: 

Nos aburguesamos, pibe. Sacamos panza, con ciertas limitaciones hacemos lo que nos piden, cobramos un sueldo a fin de mes, zafamos como podemos.

Is the last phrase 'We get by as best we can' or 'We get away with whatever we can' or something different?

Thanks.


----------



## Craicaracha

I believe your first translation is accurate, considering the context given.


----------



## Jaime Bien

Creo que zafar se corresponde con esta acepción:


> *zafar**2**.* (Del ár. hisp. _[a]záḥ,_ y este del ár. clás. _azāḥa_, quitar).
> 
> *4.* intr. coloq._ Arg._,_ Cuba_ y_ Ur._ Desentenderse, librarse de un compromiso o de una obligación.



En el sentido de, despreocuparse, hacer lo mínimo indispensable/exigible (_minimum required_; _get out of_).


----------



## Argieman

Jaime Bien said:


> Creo que zafar se corresponde con esta acepción:
> 
> 
> En el sentido de, despreocuparse, hacer lo mínimo indispensable/exigible (_minimum required_; _get out of_).



I think it´s more like to duck, dodge, avoid, evade, escape from, whatever, your dangerous situations or misfortunes, and get by.


----------



## Argieman

Chatto said:


> I'm having difficulty with the verb 'zafar'. The context is an Argentine journalist lamenting that his colleagues are no longer as bold as they were in the time of Rodolfo Walsh and the Dirty War. He says:
> 
> Nos aburguesamos, pibe. Sacamos panza, con ciertas limitaciones hacemos lo que nos piden, cobramos un sueldo a fin de mes, zafamos como podemos.
> 
> Is the last phrase 'We get by as best we can' or 'We get away with whatever we can' or something different?
> 
> Thanks.


I agree with Craicaracha, your first phrase gets the full meaning of the word. Btw, the sentence you´re translating belongs to a book by Osvaldo Soriano?


----------



## Jaime Bien

I'm not sure, because the phrase starts with "Nos aburguesamos, pibe. Sacamos panza..." that suggest that they do the minimun effort required to live. I think the main idea is _escabullirse, hacer lo mínimo posible_ o _haberse conformado_, not that they do whatever they can in order to get by (_arreglárselas, ir tirando_,_ apañárselas_).


----------



## Argieman

Mmmm...yes, in some way.  "Nos aburguesamos, pibe, sacamos panza...", in the context given by Chatto, means that they gave up, they left behind the illusions they had when they were younger (Chatto mentions the guerrila vs army clash in the 70´s, in arg), so they are fat now, working for a salary, no more dreams, getting by as they can. It´s not that they were working hard and now they got lazy, it´s that they are not fighting any more for a better world, as they did before (Chatto also mentions Rodolfo Walsh, a great journalist and writer, enlisted in the guerrilla ("montoneros") and murdered by the dictatorship).
As journalists, now they write whatever they are ordered to, they don´t give a damn. It´s a nuance, a slight difference, but it´s important.


----------



## Jaime Bien

Ok, entiendo, se han resignado/conformado a esa situación y hacen lo que pueden para ir tirando (pero para no pensar en ello, para no pensar en lo triste de la situación), para sobrellevarlo lo mejor posible. Están desilusionados.


----------



## Argieman

Jaime Bien said:


> Ok, entiendo, se han resignado/conformado a esa situación y hacen lo que pueden para ir tirando (pero para no pensar en ello, para no pensar en lo triste de la situación), para sobrellevarlo lo mejor posible. Están desilusionados.


Yes, that´s the meaning!


----------



## Jaime Bien

¿Habría alguna construcción que sonase natural en inglés con "bear" o "endure" en lugar de "get by"?


----------



## chileno

Jaime Bien said:


> ¿Habría alguna construcción que sonase natural en inglés con "bear" o "endure" en lugar de "get by"?



Pero, "get by" es lo que significaría exactamente con lo de "zafar"


----------



## Jaime Bien

No estaba diciendo que "get by" no sonase natural ni que no fuese apropiada (quizás sea además el registro apropiado), sino si se podrían utilizar los otros verbos también, ya que parecen más específicos.


----------



## Chatto

Thanks for so much help and good suggestions! No, it's not Soriano, Argieman, but doubtless someone who has read him, as well as a lot of Walsh. The trouble with my own suggestion 'get by' is that it has an economic implication of getting by on little money which clearly isn't quite right here. So I think you're right, Jaime Bien, that it's more like 'do the bare minimum'.


----------



## Argieman

Chatto said:


> Thanks for so much help and good suggestions! No, it's not Soriano, Argieman, but doubtless someone who has read him, as well as a lot of Walsh. The trouble with my own suggestion 'get by' is that it has an economic implication of getting by on little money which clearly isn't quite right here. So I think you're right, Jaime Bien, that it's more like 'do the bare minimum'.


I agree with Chileno, zafar has an ample meaning, coping successfully with economic trouble is a part of it. Your first phrase ("we get by as best as we can") was very accurate. 
So it wasn´t Soriano? It sounds so close to his writing, the author must have read him, as you said.
Saludos cordiales


----------



## Chatto

Argieman said:


> I agree with Chileno, zafar has an ample meaning, coping successfully with economic trouble is a part of it. Your first phrase ("we get by as best as we can") was very accurate.
> So it wasn´t Soriano? It sounds so close to his writing, the author must have read him, as you said.
> Saludos cordiales




OK - I will use my first suggestion with confidence then! The author is Claudia Piñeiro. Thanks very much, Argieman.


----------



## Alisterio

I'm a bit late to the party, but I would just make the following observation: "We get by as best we can" implies to my mind that the journalists are trying to do their job to the best of their ability in adverse circumstances. This is almost the opposite of what I would have interpreted from the original text: that the journalists are just "phoning it in" (i.e., doing the absolute minimum to meet their obligations, as JaimeBien mentions in post #3).


----------



## chileno

Chatto said:


> Thanks for so much help and good suggestions! No, it's not Soriano, Argieman, but doubtless someone who has read him, as well as a lot of Walsh. The trouble with my own suggestion 'get by' is that it has an *economic implication* of getting by on little money which clearly isn't quite right here. So I think you're right, Jaime Bien, that it's more like 'do the bare minimum'.



Look here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/get+by?show=0&t=1420829474


----------



## Jaime Bien

Creo que la he liado un poco . It is not a matter of money, sure, but they "get by" this situation because they have finally accepted that, although this is not the life they wanted or imagined in the beginning, it is the _poor_ (but confortable) life they actually lead. So the best thing they can do is trying to do not worry about it and do just the necessary effort to continue with their boring and confortable lives. They are not very excited about nothing, including work.

Me pregunto si _you do what you can_ / _we do what we can_ se intepretaría en ese contexto como_ se hace lo que se puede_ / _hacemos lo que podemos_, dicho, obviamente, con sentido de resignación.


----------



## Chatto

Jaime Bien said:


> Creo que la he liado un poco . It is not a matter of money, sure, but they "get by" this situation because they have finally accepted that, although this is not the life they wanted or imagined in the beginning, it is the _poor_ (but confortable) life they actually lead. So the best thing they can do is trying to do not worry about it and do just the necessary effort to continue with their boring and confortable lives. They are not very excited about nothing, including work.
> 
> Me pregunto si _you do what you can_ / _we do what we can_ se intepretaría en ese contexto como_ se hace lo que se puede_ / _hacemos lo que podemos_, dicho, obviamente, con sentido de resignación.




Alisterio - late to the party but very welcome, and I do see what you mean. This in mind, I think Jaime Bien's suggestion, 'We do what we can' is a great improvement on my original attempt.

Thanks very much!


----------



## William Stein

Chatto said:


> Alisterio - late to the party but very welcome, and I do see what you mean. This in mind, I think Jaime Bien's suggestion, 'We do what we can' is a great improvement on my original attempt.
> 
> Thanks very much!



I agree with "get by as best we can" in this context, as supported by this "neo-lunfardo" definition:


*Neo-lunfardo: Z*

neo*lunfardo*.blogspot.com/2010/03/z.html

*ZAFAR v. Salvarse o salir victorioso de una situación. "Cómo *zafamos* del final de esa materia!" 

As Jaime Bien says, they are not doing so very well so "victorioso" doesn't really apply here. It should just be "getting by" (but not necessarily "just scraping by' which means they are having a hard time).


----------



## Argieman

William Stein said:


> I agree with "get by as best we can" in this context, as supported by this "neo-lunfardo" definition:
> 
> 
> *Neo-lunfardo: Z*
> 
> neo*lunfardo*.blogspot.com/2010/03/z.html
> 
> *ZAFAR v. Salvarse o salir victorioso de una situación. "Cómo *zafamos* del final de esa materia!"
> 
> As Jaime Bien says, they are not doing so very well so "victorioso" doesn't really apply here. It should just be "getting by" (but not necessarily "just scraping by' which means they are having a hard time).


I agree. They are not "victoriosos", though they´re quite successful at the time of avoiding unfavourable situations, so, imo, "to get by" is the most correct translation.


----------



## LVRBC

In fact, they are "going along to get along," accommodating themselves (possibly in an unprincipled manner) to the situation that exists rather than struggling against it.


----------



## chileno

LVRBC said:


> In fact, they are "going along to get along," accommodating themselves (possibly in an unprincipled manner) to the situation that exists rather than struggling against it.



Correct.


----------



## William Stein

LVRBC said:


> In fact, they are "going along to get along," accommodating themselves (possibly in an unprincipled manner) to the situation that exists rather than struggling against it.



It's true that they are "collaborationists" and you describe their situation accurately but that's not necessarily how they describe themselves with "zafar" and I can't find that meaning of conformism in any definition of that verb.


----------



## chileno

William Stein said:


> It's true that they are "collaborationists" and you describe their situation accurately but that's not necessarily how they describe themselves with "zafar" and I can't find that meaning of conformism in any definition of that verb.



As in every dictionary, and this one is not something "official", there are omission, error etc.

That's all. In Chile and Argentina we mean all of the above and context will play its role.


----------



## William Stein

chileno said:


> As in every dictionary, and this one is not something "official", there are omission, error etc.
> 
> That's all. In Chile and Argentina we mean all of the above and context will play its role.



Okay, thanks, it's good to know. In that case: "and we are going along for the ride"


----------



## Argieman

William Stein said:


> It's true that they are "collaborationists" and you describe their situation accurately but that's not necessarily how they describe themselves with "zafar" and I can't find that meaning of conformism in any definition of that verb.



I don´t think they are collaborationists, they just gave up the guerrilla stuff, so your phrase is right


----------



## William Stein

Argieman said:


> I don´t think they are collaborationists, they just gave up the guerrilla stuff, so your phrase is right



Which phrase? What I mean by collaborationist is this:  con ciertas limitaciones hacemos lo que nos piden. When I was in Argentina I remember there were lots of problems because C. Kirchner was persecuting/prosecuting the critical newspapers but didn't bother the newspapers that adopted the party line. Is that what this is all about?


----------



## chileno

William Stein said:


> Okay, thanks, it's good to know. In that case: "and we are going along for the ride"[/QUOTE, not exactlt translati
> 
> You can say it in many, many ways. That's called interpreting, not exactly, translating. When you can translate something almost word by word, I consider one should always translate instead of interpret. Especially when it is going to be understood in both languages.


----------



## Argieman

William Stein said:


> Which phrase? What I mean by collaborationist is this:  con ciertas limitaciones hacemos lo que nos piden. When I was in Argentina I remember there were lots of problems because C. Kirchner was persecuting/prosecuting the critical newspapers but didn't bother the newspapers that adopted the party line. Is that what this is all about?


I´m not sure, but I think I already replied this post of yours. May be I´ll have to quit my argentinian wines. 
First, I guess the situation takes place in the final years of the dictatorship, or in the first years of democracy, long before CFK (Cristina Fernández de Kirschner). If it´s not so, the word "collaborationist" would neither be correct. I´m not a Kirschnerist ("K") at all, but the war is between the K gov against 1 paper (Clarín). It wasn´t closed, nor censured, the whole thing is about a law that restricts the property of too much media, so to say (the Clarín group owns almost 70% of tv , radios and papers). The other opposition papers are not persecuted. Nobody can seriously call a CFK supporter "collaborationist", as if the CFK gov was neo-nazi. I insist that I deeply disagree in many issues with the "K", but it´s far from being a dictatorship.
Back to the journalists, I think that your phrase "getting by" is the best. They are sad, dissapointed, they don´t give a damn for what they have to write in the paper they work for, and so they get by as they can with their sadness, their poverty, their lack of dreams, etc. They just zafan.
I trust in your much better english to see if there´s a better expression, but imo "to get by" means "zafar"


----------



## William Stein

Argieman said:


> I´m not sure, but I think I already replied this post of yours. May be I´ll have to quit my argentinian wines.
> First, I guess the situation takes place in the final years of the dictatorship, or in the first years of democracy, long before CFK (Cristina Fernández de Kirschner). If it´s not so, the word "collaborationist" would neither be correct. I´m not a Kirschnerist ("K") at all, but the war is between the K gov against 1 paper (Clarín). It wasn´t closed, nor censured, the whole thing is about a law that restricts the property of too much media, so to say (the Clarín group owns almost 70% of tv , radios and papers). The other opposition papers are not persecuted. Nobody can seriously call a CFK supporter "collaborationist", as if the CFK gov was neo-nazi. I insist that I deeply disagree in many issues with the "K", but it´s far from being a dictatorship.
> Back to the journalists, I think that your phrase "getting by" is the best. They are sad, dissapointed, they don´t give a damn for what they have to write in the paper they work for, and so they get by as they can with their sadness, their poverty, their lack of dreams, etc. They just zafan.
> I trust in your much better english to see if there´s a better expression, but imo "to get by" means "zafar"



It's true that "collaborationist" is probably too strong, unless it's in the Pinochet period.
Chileno: so what simple "word-by-word translation" are you suggesting for "zafarse" that would be clear to everybody?


----------



## chileno

William Stein said:


> It's true that "collaborationist" is probably too strong, unless it's in the Pinochet period.
> Chileno: so what simple "word-by-word translation" are you suggesting for "zafarse" that would be clear to everybody?



Pinochet is from Chile.

In the context in which it was asked, I would also use "get by" = zafar(la)


----------



## William Stein

chileno said:


> Pinochet is from Chile.
> 
> In the context in which it was asked, I would also use "get by" = zafar(la)



Right, dumb mistake. Jorge Rafael Videla.


----------



## outkast

Eso es parte de un diálogo de una película que ví hace relativamente poco en HBO Latino. Un exguerrillero argentino, pasado de los 60, está en París en un restaurante y le dice esto a un tipo más joven (tal vez el hijo, no me acuerdo debido a esos Malbecs a los que Argieman quiere renunciar).
Maybe e_ke out,_ _squeeze out_, o como dice muy bien Chatto_ get away_. 
En casos extremos usaría "weasel out".


----------



## Argieman

outkast said:


> Eso es parte de un diálogo de una película que ví hace relativamente poco en HBO Latino. Un exguerrillero argentino, pasado de los 60, está en París en un restaurante y le dice esto a un tipo más joven (tal vez el hijo, no me acuerdo debido a esos Malbecs a los que Argieman quiere renunciar).
> Maybe e_ke out,_ _squeeze out_, o como dice muy bien Chatto_ get away_.
> En casos extremos usaría "weasel out".


Lo pensé 2 veces y decidí no renunciar al Malbec, y festejé mi decisión abriendo una botella de Malbec. 
Cuando la cosa se puso really tough, en 1976, con Videla, los jefes guerrilleros weaselled out abroad, como ratas, a sacarse fotos con Arafat y otros, dejando a los pibes a merced de la dictadura, que los hizo bosta, junto a cualquier otro opositor, aunque no tuviera ninguna relación con la guerrilla. Por eso no usaría ese verbo en el caso de los periodistas. Insisto, con Chileno, que "get by" es la mejor traducción, la que mejor define el sentido de lo que el periodista dice, "_en fin ,zafamos como podemos" _


----------



## Argieman

William Stein said:


> Right, dumb mistake. Jorge Rafael Videla.


Don´t worry, they were both the same shit. Different dog: one in Chile, 1973, the other here, 1976.


----------



## chileno

William Stein said:


> Right, dumb mistake. Jorge Rafael Videla.



No problem, just thought of correcting you.



Argieman said:


> Don´t worry, they were both the same shit.  Different dog: one in Chile, 1973, the other here, 1976.



Tal cual.


----------

