# 'Traduit de l'anglais' vs 'traduit de l'américain'



## Aupick

So for a while now I've noticed something curious about French translations of English-language literature. First of all, if the author is contemporary and from the US, the book tends to say (on the front or back cover, usually): _traduit de l'américain_, rather than the _traduit de l'anglais_ that appears on books by British authors. Secondly, all the Americans I know in France seem to be offended by this, as if this suggests that American English is somehow cast as inferior, as if it somehow doesn’t qualify as 'English'. But I was wondering if it could also be taken in the other direction, and seen as a sign of respect, suggesting that American English has somehow acquired special status that is worth noting to foreign readers of literature. So I would like to know what other people think of this: what does 'américain' mean to francophones, what connotations does the term have, and why do you think it is used? (The books never say _traduit de l’anglais américain_.) And what do Americans think? Are you offended, flattered or indifferent? And do such distinctions appear in other countries?

Some further comments: last time I was in a big bookshop, I did a little survey and discovered that: 'classics' (pre-WWII) simply said _traduction de Machin Chouette_ (presumably we're supposed to know that Herman Melville, Nathaniel Hawthorne _et les autres_ John Steinbeck are American) (did that 'autres' work, Wordsmyth, or should I quickly edit it out?); Canadian texts nearly always said _traduit de l'anglais_, although two novels by Margaret Atwood said _traduit de l'anglais (Canada)_; books by Australian, South African, and Indian authors, and anyone who moved around too much just said _traduit de l'anglais._ (Sorry, couldn't think of any authors from New Zealand.  ) And if some discerning moderator thinks this thread belongs in the culture forum, I won't be offended.


----------



## Cath.S.

You should change _et les autres_ to _et aut_res, Aupick, and, yes, I'm moving this thread to the culture forum.


----------



## Isotta

Hmm. I am not sure. I think Americans would be annoyed by it, especially if Canadian authors' translations say "traduit de l'anglais." In America, people would say that they speak English with an American accent. In both countries I found people treated American English as a difference in accent, not in dialect nor language. 

Americans' attitudes towards BE is mixed, from what I have perceived. When I moved to America, I was surprised to find that teachers would take away exam points if I wrote "colour" instead of "color," and so on. When I lived in a British colony, I found that many Americans who lived there were upset about being the stepchild of the English language. Conversely, many Americans love English accents and British-isms. And then there's the whole "international accent," which is a mix between the two developed in Anglophones who grew up abroad.

I think the "traduit de l'anglais" reflects more closely French sentiments rather than those of the Anglophone world. French people generally prefer English teachers from Britain rather than from America. Incidentally this has always baffled me, since French speakers tend to overdiphthongize when they learn from English teachers from Britain. 

In any case, I don't imagine that "traduit de l'américain" was meant as a sign of respect by the French, and I expect that an American would not react to it as such.

Any thoughts?

Isotta.


----------



## timpeac

Interesting question. I'd noticed the "traduit de l'américain" as well, and always thought it sounded rather illiterate. I'd be interested to know what effect it makes on native French speakers since they are making a distinction in French that we don't make in English (eg calling the language spoken by Americans something other than "English"). It seems rather presumptuous to me.


----------



## Eddie

I don't presume to speak for ALL Americans. I personally have never been angered, upset, offended or otherwise bothered by the phrase _traduit de l'américain_. For me, it is one more example of the precision of expression for which the French language is famous. And yes, American English is diffferent from British English; so, as far as I'm concerned, the precision is a necessary and helpful one. 

There's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

Doudou


----------



## Isotta

I've been thinking about this lately, because I wonder where it came from. With the written word I feel there is little difference between American and British English. 

Do the French feel that Americans speak "'américain," rather than English?

Z.


----------



## Brioche

Eddie said:
			
		

> I don't presume to speak for ALL Americans. I personally have never been angered, upset, offended or otherwise bothered by the phrase _traduit de l'américain_. For me, it is one more example of the precision of expression for which the French language is famous. And yes, American English is diffferent from British English; so, as far as I'm concerned, the precision is a necessary and helpful one.
> 
> There's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.
> 
> Doudou


 
Can you really tell, when reading a French translation, whether the original was written in BE or AE?

La clarté française? Do they ever write "traduit de l'australien" or "traduit du néo-zélandais"

Actually, you'll see "_Aus dem Amerikanischen übersetzt von X und Y_" in some German translations.

Perhaps they just want the reader to know that an American wrote the original book.


----------



## geve

That is an interesting question... I'll try to give my view as a French reader. My first guess would be, as Brioche, that they want to point out that the writer is north-american. Either because it has an influence on the style of the writing, or the cultural background is important to the story... 
And I would expect to see this written on a certain sort of books rather than others : Armistead Maupin, Douglas Kennedy, Michael Connelly... more "contemporary" litterature as you said Aupick. 

I just went on a books website and checked : for the 3 authors I mentioned, when it's written it does say "traduit de l'américain" - and I also saw (on a M.Connelly) "traduit de l'anglais (Etats-Unis)"
Is there one you would find less offending ?

I also saw some "traduit de l'espagnol (Mexique)", "traduit de l'espagnol (Colombie)"... and some "traduit de l'anglais (Canada)", "traduit de l’anglais (Australien)"
So it does look like French precision !


----------



## Outsider

Aupick said:
			
		

> So for a while now I've noticed something curious about French translations of English-language literature. First of all, if the author is contemporary and from the US, the book tends to say (on the front or back cover, usually): _traduit de l'américain_, rather than the _traduit de l'anglais_ that appears on books by British authors. Secondly, all the Americans I know in France seem to be offended by this, as if this suggests that American English is somehow cast as inferior, as if it somehow doesn’t qualify as 'English'. But I was wondering if it could also be taken in the other direction, and seen as a sign of respect, suggesting that American English has somehow acquired special status that is worth noting to foreign readers of literature. So I would like to know what other people think of this: what does 'américain' mean to francophones, what connotations does the term have, and why do you think it is used? (The books never say _traduit de l’anglais américain_.) And what do Americans think? Are you offended, flattered or indifferent? And do such distinctions appear in other countries?


Very interesting!
A while ago I read that in France there were books by Brazilian authors on sale with the label _traduit du brésilien_, rather than _traduit du portugais_. Personally, I do not like this. I know that the borders between languages are fluid, that languages are just glorified dialects, and so on, but I don't think it's up to people who are neither Portuguese nor Brazilian to decide where to draw the line. Of course, I'm assuming that the initiative to write _brésilien_ came from a French translator -- it could have come from a Brazilian, or a French-Brazilian, although I doubt it.

By the way, I'd love to know whether they label books in Canadian French as _traduit du quebecois_, too.


----------



## foxfirebrand

I can't imagine being offended by _"traduit de l'Américain,"_ even if it was offered with a nuance of condescention.

I'm also of a generation who were taught it isn't really correct.  A lot of our discussion on the English-only channel has to do with the very real differences between AE and BE, but not yet between A and E.  Are the differences becoming greater?  Yes and no.  BE is becoming wider-known in the U.S. thanks to BBCA and PBS programming, and of course internet forums, and the odd movie will get everyone to talking about "shagging."

British- and American-authored books do read very different.  I suppose an adept translator could preserve the differences in another language-- there'd be a whole art to that which I'm not knowledgeable about.

I don't think the American dialect will ever become a separate language from the British-- if anything I foresee a convergence.  If English becomes a _lingua franca_ or world language, I can't see it being called American instead, and I hope it doesn't.  Latin never came to be known as Roman, after all.
.


----------



## cuchuflete

I had my first contact with this a couple of months back. Visitors from France left an Air France magazine here, and I made fumbling attempts to read it. One of the first articles said, "_traduit de l'américain".  _That gave me a smile.  

Then I began to wonder about it, and concluded that it was, first and foremost, an accurate statement. I appreciated it for that, and did not impute an pro or con bias to it. 

cheers,
Cuchu


----------



## JazzByChas

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> I don't think the American dialect will ever become a separate language from the British-- if anything I foresee a convergence. If English becomes a _lingua franca_ or world language, I can't see it being called American instead, and I hope it doesn't. Latin never came to be known as Roman, after all.



I must agree.  American English, although retaining some features distinct from all other varieties of English spoken, is, in the end, English.  I think that if you say, "traduis de  l'américain', you are really saying "traduis de  de l'anglais l'américain.


----------



## LMorland

Thank you, Aupick, for starting this discussion. (And may you return to WRF to continue it!) 

Two of the previous posts illustrate points I would like to make (emphasis added):


Isotta said:


> I've been thinking about this lately, because I wonder where it came from. With the written word I feel there is little difference between American and British English. *Do the French feel that Americans speak "'américain," rather than English?*





> Interesting question. I'd noticed the "traduit de l'américain" as well,  and always thought it sounded rather illiterate. I'd be interested to  know what effect it makes on native French speakers since* they are  making a distinction in French that we don't make in English* (eg calling  the language spoken by Americans something other than "English"). It  seems rather presumptuous to me.



As an American who has lived in France for over ten years (mostly in Paris), I am unhappy to report that *yes, the French do seem to think that we speak a different language than English.  *And phrases like _traduit de l'américain_ only serve to reinforce this wrongheaded idea.

I've told this story elsewhere in the Forum, but here it is again, to illustrate my point.  

Once my (amateur) _chorale _was scheduled to perform at l'Elgise de la Madeleine with a small orchestra.  Our guest conductor produced a poster for the event that was 95% in French, with one sentence in English.  Yet in this one sentence he had managed to make three mistakes!  When I pointed them out to him, he replied,  _Ah, mais vous êtes Américaine, non ?  _

He's not alone: I've talked with other French who believe that we don't ever share the same verb conjugations or tenses!  

So I agree with Timpeac, the use of this phrase is _presumptuous,_ it leads to grave misunderstandings, and for that reason I do resent it! 

P.S. The alternative is easy, as Outsider noted: French publishing houses should write: "traduit de l'anglais (Canadien)", "traduit de l’anglais (Australien)" etc.


----------



## xwolfi

As a recent english learner (I'm 23), I remember that at school our teachers always taught us that English and Amerish were different, not totally different, and not implying american was inferior, but rather as if English was more "pure" than american... a bit like how the canadian french variant is seen by us. And as a previous poster said, it's true that it's strange we prefer british english over american english, since the american accent is easier to mimic imho.

And I'm sure the "translated from american" is intended as a form of respect, I never felt it was an insult, but rather an immediate way of informing the reader about the origin of the book. But I may be wrong as I'm far from an expert and am still learning everyday  (and we're not speaking about the average french here, but about editing houses that are people who deal with culture everyday, they're not prone to perpetuate petty wars between french and american people)


----------



## LMorland

Hello, xwolfi! Two quick comments:





xwolfi said:


> not implying american was inferior, but rather as if English was more "pure" than american...


Well, that's part of the problem, because a case could be made to prove the opposite, as American English actually preserves historical forms (the subjunctive "were"  and the pronunciation of final 'r', just to name two that come to mind) that have been all or mostly lost in "English English".





xwolfi said:


> And we're not speaking about the average french here, but about editing houses that are people who deal with culture everyday, they're not prone to perpetuate petty wars between *F*rench and *A*merican people.


I'm sure that's not their intention.  But the result is that many French people feel that American English is _far _more different from British English than it actually is.  I've met a number of French people subject to that misconception.

And speaking of accent alone, I would simply mention that British TV series do _not _have to be dubbed for diffusion in the U.S., nor the reverse! By contrast, speakers of Brazilian Portuguese have a very hard time understanding "Portuguese Portuguese", and it's a well-known fact that Québecois TV series are dubbed for a "French French" audience.


----------



## timpeac

Interesting resurrected thread. I stand by my (6 year old) comment above that I found it presumptuous, but I take on board the comments in this thread that it's probably not meant to be.

I expect it's a mixture of a mark of respect and desire for further precision. The trouble is that it's not up to foreign languages to make such distinctions on the parts of others. Friendly banter apart, I don't think that British speakers or American speakers seriously think they speak anything other than very much the same language, with regional differences (and not one a dialect of the other). The trouble is that where French "helpfully" uses the term _américain_ this would be positively divisive in English (the American or British version!) where we like to think we are really just one happy English-speaking family.

A few specifics largely of vocabulary apart the two varieties indeed are, in my opinon, pretty much the same. No bigger a difference than some found between regions within each country in any case.

This question reminds me of the annoyance I've heard from Scottish people on hearing the Spanish call anyone from the British Isles _Inglés_.


----------



## LMorland

timpeac said:


> The trouble is that it's not up to foreign languages to make such distinctions on the parts of others.


Yes! 


timpeac said:


> [...] where French "helpfully" uses the term _américain_ this would be positively divisive in English (the American or British version!) where we like to think we are really just one happy English-speaking family.


Hear, hear!  That's how I feel too, but it's nice to hear it said from the other side of the 'pond'.





timpeac said:


> This question reminds me of the annoyance I've heard from Scottish people on hearing the Spanish call anyone from the British Isles _Inglés_.


Ditto for the Irish. 

And (again from the other side of the 'pond') Canadians are equally annoyed, I believe, to be considered "Americans". (Meaning "United-Statesians".) I always take the trouble to refer to people from the English-speaking New World in general as "North Americans" in order to include (or not exclude) Canadians, but I believe I'm in the minority.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

LMorland said:


> As an American who has lived in France for over ten years (mostly in Paris), I am unhappy to report that *yes, the French do seem to think that we speak a different language than English. *And phrases like _traduit de l'américain_ only serve to reinforce this wrongheaded idea.



You have had remarkably different experiences from me in that case. I have never met one French person who thought that English and "American" were different languages. 

American English and British English do differ, often greatly. The French seem to want to reflect that with the traduit de l'américain. But I have never come across anyone so stupid as to believe the two dialects are different languages.


----------



## timpeac

Pedro y La Torre said:


> the two dialects are different languages.


Just to repeat - they are not dialects, they're not even close to being dialects!! It's the same language with regional differences. I don't think they differ greatly, not if you consider internal differences within each country or consider differences between other varieties. I think they are remarkably similar given how long they have been split. All this is subjective of course - how much one variety needs to differ from another to be considered a regional variety/a dialect/a different language is a moot question - but I think the important point is that the English language and its speakers don't consider them to be different languages, or dialects.

It also seems a bit sycophantic to me that _if_ the French want this sort of precision they don't extend it to other varieties of English too. Indian English is far more different from British English than American English, for example, but would that say_ traduit de l'Indien_ ? What about countries (such as India) which have several official languages? How would you know which was meant? It's just weird - presumptuous - for one language to make distinctions about another culture or language that actively aren't accepted in that culture or language.

Imagine we had a book in English that proclaimed itself "translated from the Austrian" or "translated from the Colombian" - it would be bizarre, and not a touch presumptuous, as I say, to decide when German or Spanish has changed enough to be considered another language.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

timpeac said:


> Just to repeat - they are not dialects, they're not even close to being dialects!!



It depends how you frame the word dialect after all. Two differing "standards" might be more appropriate terminology.



timpeac said:


> It also seems a bit sycophantic to me that _if_ the French want this sort of precision they don't extend it to other varieties of English too. Indian English is far more different from British English than American English, for example, but would that say_ traduit de l'Indien_ ? What about countries (such as India) which have several official languages? How would you know which was meant? It's just weird - presumptuous - for one language to make distinctions about another culture or language that actively aren't accepted in that culture or language.



I've always understood _traduit de l'américain _to mean translated from American English. I have also come across _traduit de l'écossais _and (I think) _traduit de l'australien_. Personally, it doesn't bother me, even if I think _traduit de l'anglais _suffices perfectly well, especially as the book is no longer in the source language.


----------



## timpeac

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I've always understood _traduit de l'américain _to mean translated from American English. I have also come across _traduit de l'écossais_


Was it a loaded comment? The reason I ask is that funnily enough I was just watching TV about 2 hours ago and heard a British speaker say "translated from the American" which, of course having been dealing with this thread recently, made me sit up and listen. In this case it _was_ a disparaging comment (and therefore one I'm not proud to report as a fellow Brit). The over-arching context was about sub-titling films for deaf people but this particular comment was a snide comment about rather than show good films in their original form with sub-titles the (American) film houses reproduce them "in American", as the person in question put it - clearly distancing (rightly or wrongly, and probably wrongly) British film houses and himself from this practice and clearly implying that reproducing them "in American" made them worse.

In any case, whatever the specifics the British speaker here using the term "American" to refer to the language definitely did mean to give it further nuances than simply mean "American English", supporting what I say above about it being divisive. As such, I could imagine the same being done in French. That said, I've seen many many books with "traduit de l'américain" but hadn´t noticed it in relation to other varieties. I'm sure it does happen - and happens in the same sense as "traduit de l'américain", ie simply pointing out the variety in question - but I don't think it's routine as it is with "américain".

So I mean that describing _Trainspotting_, say, as "traduit de l'écossais" is wholly believable - but there would be a nuance given, in this case presumably that this is an extremely "Scottish" book, which it deliberately is.


----------



## LMorland

timpeac said:


> Just to repeat - they are not dialects, they're not even close to being dialects!! It's the same language with regional differences.


Absolutely right!





timpeac said:


> It also seems a bit sycophantic to me that _if_ the French want this sort of precision they don't extend it to other varieties of English too. [....] Imagine we had a book in English that proclaimed itself "translated from the Austrian" or "translated from the Colombian" - it would bizarre, and not a touch presumptuous, as I say, to decide when German or Spanish has changed enough to be considered another language.


Well said!

On the other hand....


Pedro y La Torre said:


> You have had remarkably different experiences from me in that case. I  have never met one French person who thought that English and "American"  were different languages.


Well, how much time have you spent in France?  I have lived in France (mostly in Paris) for nearly twelve years, and that's been my experience (see my posts above for examples).  Your info states that you're in Montréal.  I would imagine -- although I have no experience in the matter -- that  Canadians might have a much more nuanced view of "Englishes" than do the  French.

In any case, the two points I wish readers would take away from this discussion are the following: 

(1) As Timpeac puts it so well, it's _presumptuous_ of the French to make a distinction between two 'brands' of English that are not even dialects of each other, not to mention two different languages -- but more importantly, it's a distinction _not _made by the speakers of British and American English themselves.  (As another example I would note the infamous "English only" movement in the U.S. It's not called "American only"!)

(2)  This habit of labelling books as _traduit de l'américain __/ __écossais __/ australien _etc. causes the French to believe that the regional variants of English differ far more than they actually do.  One Parisian woman of my acquaintance was amazed when I informed her that American English uses the same verb endings as British English!  

It can also hurt people's job prospects: a friend who was hired by Berlitz in Paris was told to "lose" her American accent, or students wouldn't be happy to be assigned to her classes.  On the other hand, as a translator I don't believe I've lost any jobs because I'm American and not English.  But perhaps the staff of the multinational corporations for which I (mostly) work are well-travelled enough to realize that technical documents (spelling differences aside) are nearly identical between the two languages.  (And I do set my spell-checker to U.K. English!)


----------



## timpeac

LMorland said:


> It can also hurt people's job prospects: a friend who was hired by Berlitz in Paris was told to "lose" her American accent, or students wouldn't be happy to be assigned to her classes.


That's really sad.





LMorland said:


> On the other hand, as a translator I don't believe I've lost any jobs because I'm American and not English.  But perhaps the staff of the multinational corporations for which I (mostly) work are well-travelled enough to realize that technical documents (spelling differences aside) are nearly identical between the two languages.  (And I do set my spell-checker to U.K. English!)


I think this point is worth reinforcing - much of the larger "differences" between American and British English relate to either colloquial vocabulary or non-standard grammar (and non-standard in relation to the standard of each country, not just to the other variety) or arbitrary spelling differences of a relatively small number of words such as color/colour. British and American speakers hardly have any difficulty at all sitting round a table having a drink and chatting - and certainly no more difficulty than someone from one end of either country would have with one of his own compatriots from the other end of the country, often less.

After all, the specifics of the information in the posts apart, could anyone really tell  who out of LMorland and me were American and who British?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

LMorland said:


> Absolutely right!Well said!
> 
> On the other hand....
> Well, how much time have you spent in France?  I have lived in France (mostly in Paris) for nearly twelve years, and that's been my experience (see my posts above for examples).  Your info states that you're in Montréal.  I would imagine -- although I have no experience in the matter -- that  Canadians might have a much more nuanced view of "Englishes" than do the  French.



I am in Montreal now; it was not always thus. I spent 4 years on and off living in France (Paris, Bordeaux and Marseille), including a good part of my undergraduate degree, and all of my Masters degree. In that time, I never met anyone who considered the two to be different languages. If anything, most people outside university circles whom I encountered were ignorant of any differences existing at all, given that they had little or no grasp of English themselves. I did meet a few who used the outdated term "British Isles" and thus thought Irish people were somehow British, but that was about it.

That's not say some French people don't hold such a view as regards an apparent English/American division, but I don't believe it is widespread, at least, I hope it isn't.



> In any case, the two points I wish readers would take away from this discussion are the following:
> 
> (1) As Timpeac puts it so well, it's _presumptuous_ of the French to make a distinction between two 'brands' of English that are not even dialects of each other, not to mention two different languages -- but more importantly, it's a distinction _not _made by the speakers of British and American English themselves.  (As another example I would note the infamous "English only" movement in the U.S. It's not called "American only"!)



Well, I must confess that as an English-speaker, it doesn't much bother me and even if it did, it wouldn't make a jot of difference - it's their language and they will do with it as they wish (I doubt they'll stop including Ireland in les îles britanniques any time soon either, for example). 

In the same vein, I would never dream of emploing such a gaudy word as United Stater whatever the audience, but I am aware that in Spanish, I had better think hard before using _americano_ or risk causing offence.


----------



## timpeac

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Well, I must confess that as an English-speaker, it doesn't much bother me and even if it did, it wouldn't make a jot of difference


Well of course it doesn't and wouldn't! You're an English speaker but you're not English or American!

Put it this way - Someone who has lived most of his life in Ireland but now lives in Northern Ireland writes a book. How should the French - in the proclaimed clarity - express that? Traduit de l'anglais? Traduit de l'irlandais (which language??) Traduit de l'irlandais du nord? Traduit de l'irlandais tout court? Traduit de l'anglais de quelqu'un qui est né en Irlande? Traduit du britannique??

It's not up to foreign languages to get involved in shades of nuance of language or patriotism.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

timpeac said:


> Well of course it doesn't and wouldn't! You're an English speaker but you're not English or American!
> 
> Put it this way - Someone who has lived most of his life in Ireland but now lives in Northern Ireland writes a book. How should the French - in the proclaimed clarity - express that? Traduit de l'anglais? Traduit de l'irlandais (which language??) Traduit de l'irlandais du nord? Traduit de l'irlandais tout court? Traduit de l'anglais de quelqu'un qui est né en Irlande? Traduit du britannique??
> 
> It's not up to foreign languages to get involved in shades of nuance of language or patriotism.



Like I said, it doesn't really bother me, even when it concerns me directly. I've been called British and, horror of horrors, English by some French people, and I can't say that much perturbed me either. I am quite partial to all things British after all, and fortunately or unfortunately, English is my mother tounge. 

More seriously, in my own language, I will use terms which reflect the English as spoken in my native land (that means British Isles is out, as is United Statesian/Stater and other horrid neologisms). But if the French want to say traduit de l’américain, de l'irlandais du nord or whatever else, good luck to them. I've always taken traduit de l’américain to mean American English, and I _think_ (though we'd need one to come confirm for sure) the vast majority of French people do too. If ''américain'' is being used as a marker of the two being different languages, of course it's time to get out the horns and protest banners, but I don't think we're there yet.


----------



## timpeac

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Like I said, it doesn't really bother me, even when it concerns me directly. I've been called British and, horror of horrors, English by some French people, and I can't say that much perturbed me either. I am quite partial to all things British after all, and fortunately or unfortunately, English is my mother tounge.
> 
> More seriously, in my own language, I will use terms which reflect the English as spoken in my native land (that means British Isles is out, as is United Statesian/Stater and other horrid neologisms). But if the French want to say traduit de l’américain, de l'irlandais du nord or whatever else, good luck to them. I've always taken traduit de l’américain to mean American English, and I _think_ (though we'd need one to come confirm for sure) the vast majority of French people do too. If ''américain'' is being used as a marker of the two being different languages, of course it's time to get out the horns and protest banners, but I don't think we're there yet.


I think you're missing my point - or perhaps I'm not expressing myself well. I agree, I'm sure that they mean it in terms of "American English" and nothing more sinister from their point of view. It's just naive at best to think that inventing terms relating to language or patriotism that aren't accepted by the culture in question won't have a strong reaction. Apart from anything else they don't systematically (in my opinion) do it usually for other varieties of English which makes it even more odd.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Would that they only said traduit de l'anglais (Etats-Unis) and then we'd all be satisfied!


----------



## timpeac

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Would that they only said traduit de l'anglais (Etats-Unis) and then we'd all be satisfied!


That would indeed be no problem at all!


----------



## LMorland

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Would that they only said traduit de l'anglais (Etats-Unis) and then we'd all be satisfied!


 Amen!


----------



## Istriano

Harry Potter books are translated from UK English into US English.
Paulo Coelho's books are translated from Brazilian Portuguese to Continental Portuguese.

Sometimes, these translations (or adaptations) are made because words from another dialect/variant can distract from reading.
A person (especially the ones who are not too familiar with another variant) may find it easier to read (or more relaxing to read) in his/her own variant.

And in this case, it is not written: t_ranslated from English, or traduzido do brasileiro_ 

In Brazil, we call our language Portuguese, and not Brazilian. Even people who say that cannot understand Continental Portuguese call our language Portuguese, and not Brazilian.




> Agora que temos nosso site em português você não precisa mais gastar o  seu inglês – que consumiu uma grana dos seus pais no cursinho quando  você ainda era criança. Você já pode escrever tudo na língua tupiniquim!



I like the expression ''língua tupiniquim'' because it's affectionate and not political(ized) as ''língua brasileira''. 

I think people should use standardized expressions (the ones Microsoft is using):

English (UK)
English (US)
English (CA)
English (IN)
English (NZ)
English (AU)
Portuguese (BR)
Portuguese (PT)
and so on...

byeee


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Our (French) craving for accuracy seems only matched by the British / American aspiration to language oneness...

I  find it interesting that nobody noticed the original language of the  book is actually of little importance - the only fact worth mentioning is that  what you're reading is a translation, not the original text.
Of course  the original language is worth mentioning somewhere, but less  interesting (to me) than the cultural background of the author - and  this information is _always_ important, not only for translations.
Marcel Proust and Jules Verne are speaking the same language, and so are Joseph Conrad and Mark Twain - now you have said nothing when you have said that this language is French or English.

We French enjoy specifying the language and the country of the author, and you British / American enjoy adorning books with sycophantic blurbs - let's talk of cultural differences rather than presumptuousness...


----------



## LMorland

JeanDeSponde said:


> Our (French) craving for accuracy seems only matched by the British / American aspiration to language oneness...





JeanDeSponde said:


> We French enjoy specifying the language and the country of the author, and you British / American enjoy adorning books with sycophantic blurbs - let's talk of cultural differences rather than presumptuousness...


To be perfectly frank, I find the sycophantic  blurbs quite annoying and over the top myself.

*FÉLICITATIONS SUR TON 10.000eme POSTIVERAIRE !!!*


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Pedro y La Torre said:


> You have had remarkably different experiences from me in that case. I have never met one French person who thought that English and "American" were different languages.
> 
> American English and British English do differ, often greatly. The French seem to want to reflect that with the traduit de l'américain. But I have never come across anyone so stupid as to believe the two dialects are different languages.



In linguistics that is called "pluricentric language", which is right at least for the spelling and a part of the vocabulary. Then, the pronunciation isn't unified even across the countries, even if there are some "standards pronunciations" like "BBC English, RP, the Queen's English" - sorry, don't know what is the equivalent in the US or Canada.


----------



## LMorland

Angelo di fuoco said:


> ... sorry, don't know what is the equivalent in the US or Canada.


I can't think of a precise name for "standard American English" at the moment, but I would note that the "unaccented accent" in U.S. English is situated in the middle of the country (not too far north, or you end up with the kind of accent one hears in _Fargo), _around Nebraska, I think.  

The standard accent is definitely not found in New York, New England (especially Boston), nor in the American South (+ Texas)!  Those are all considered "accents".  Most of the speakers of West Coast meet the criteria for "unaccented accent" as well, except for the "Valley Girl"/rising intonation-type speech found mostly in Southern California.  

The standard Canadian accent sounds like the standard U.S. accent, except for the special "Canadian vowel".  Wikipedia currently has a good article about that.

Thanks for the term "pluricentric language", Angelo di fuoco!


----------



## CapnPrep

Here's an article by someone who was apparently annoyed by this practice back in 1975 and challenged some French and German publishing houses to justify it:
_Traduit de L'Américain_


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Yet it's strange how UK/US focus here on a supposed "different languages" issue, while FR/GE merely insist (to my opinion) on the country of origin as an additional piece of background information...

Of course you will find French guys believing that UK and US speak a different language - you could probably as well find an American wondering whether Oslo is the capital of Finland or the other way round. Life is rich.

As I said before, the original language is not the issue - some think that _anglais_ is enough, some find it interesting to mention _américain_; I for myself would not even mention it (the "About The Author" section should be here to this purpose).
It seems that being _more accurate than you_ means being _too accurate_...


----------



## timpeac

JeanDeSponde said:


> Yet it's strange how UK/US focus here on a supposed "different languages" issue, while FR/GE merely insist (to my opinion) on the country of origin as an additional piece of background information...


Not true - we focus on it here because the French language presents the two as being different languages. As discussed above, there would be no problem with saying "traduit de l'anglais (Etats-Unis)".


JeanDeSponde said:


> Of course you will find French guys believing that UK and US speak a different language - you could probably as well find an American wondering whether Oslo is the capital of Finland or the other way round. Life is rich.
> 
> As I said before, the original language is not the issue - some think that _anglais_ is enough, some find it interesting to mention _américain_; I for myself would not even mention it (the "About The Author" section should be here to this purpose).
> It seems that being _more accurate than you_ means being _too accurate_...


Only if you invent inaccurate terms to reflect the desired accuracy. As LMorland points out well, even the "English Only" movement in the US doesn't call itself "American Only". The American language doesn't exist.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

timpeac said:


> Only if you invent inaccurate terms to reflect the desired accuracy.


This is exactly why your focus is the wrong one: what you don't accept really is the _qualifier _we use - "américain".
Otherwise why would you agree with "anglais (Etats-Unis)"?...
Well, for most of us ignorant French, the outcome is the same - a simple statement that "anglais (UK)" and "anglais (Etas-Unis)" are not written by the same people.
We say "different people", and you hear "different languages" - because _américain_ strikes a chord that we don't really understand.



timpeac said:


> It's not up to foreign languages to get involved in shades of nuance of language or patriotism.


As long as the discussion is about language and culture, I'm interested in it.
But I'll tiptoe out when patriotism knocks at the door...


----------



## timpeac

JeanDeSponde said:


> This is exactly why your focus is the wrong one: what you don't accept really is the _qualifier _we use - "américain".
> Otherwise why would you agree with "anglais (Etats-Unis)"?...


 Because there is no such thing as the American language. "L'américain" equates it with "le français", "l'anglais", "l'allemand" - with all the sociocultural associations that a language denomination has.





JeanDeSponde said:


> Well, for most of us ignorant French, the outcome is the same - a simple statement that "anglais (UK)" and "anglais (Etas-Unis)" are not written by the same people.
> We say "different people", and you hear "different languages" - because _américain_ strikes a chord that we don't really understand.


It's purely one of grammar - and it's really not about the word "américain". If it were correct grammar to write "traduit de l'anglais américain" then I don't think people would mind either. I think many people above have said they doubt the intent is to suggest they are truly different languages. The thing is that you don't say "different people". The grammar of "l'américain" is explicitly to turn it into a language and so that is what we hear.



JeanDeSponde said:


> As long as the discussion is about language and culture, I'm interested in it.
> But I'll tiptoe out when patriotism knocks at the door...


I don't understand what you mean by that. You are still here so I presume you understand that by that I don't mean it makes me, or LMorland, you, or anyone else in the discussion patriotic - my point is that if you start mixing up terms relating to language and culture that don't have a one-to-one correlation you risk causing confusion or offence. I think that your point of view would be much stronger if "traduit de l'américain" could potentially mean that it was written in Spanish by a native Spanish speaker, for example, who happened to come from the USA - but of course it doesn't because it refers to the language not the person.

In summary, I think your position is that although "l'américain" grammatically makes it appear as a language, we should read it as "written by an American person". I also think that I have offended you by saying I found this presumptuous. Perhaps it would help if I take that back and say simply that I find it inaccurate because it is not a paradigm that is followed by other usages relating to what the word language means or implies, not followed consistently with other languages and other varieties of English and because there are very few countries in the world where all the natives of that country speak one accepted language such that you can equate the name of the country directly with their language.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

timpeac said:


> The grammar of "l'américain" is explicitly to turn it into a language and so that is what we hear.


You see explicitness where I can see no hidden agenda: I bet my shirt that the translator or editor preferring _de l'américain_ to _de l'__anglais __américain_ never thought for one minute about adding a "different language" message.
The four variations "traduit de l'américain", "traduit de l'anglais américain", "traduit de l'anglais (américain)", "traduit de l'anglais (Etats-Unis)" can be found, and the most frequent is... the shortest.
We try to be accurate, we only achieve laziness.

I would also remark that ignorance (in France) is such that "anglais" here would often be understood as "from England"; hence maybe a tendency to replace with "américain".
Same with so many "traduit du hollandais" (instead of "néerlandais"...) - I fail to see any naughty bias here.

Here are the "accusations" I found levelled in this thread against this "traduit de l'américain":


> *Aupick*: Secondly, all the Americans I  know in France seem to be offended by this [_traduit de l'américain]_, as if this suggests that  American English is somehow cast as inferior, as if it somehow doesn’t  qualify as 'English'.
> *LMorland*: ...I am unhappy to report that *yes, the French do seem to think that we speak a different language than English.  *And phrases like _traduit de l'américain_ only serve to reinforce this wrongheaded idea.
> *Timpeac*: The trouble is that it's not up to foreign  languages to make such distinctions on the parts of others.
> [...] It's not up to foreign languages to get involved in shades of nuance of language or patriotism.



"Cast as inferior", "misleading", "English not your business" - we are judged on intentions, not on facts.

So I'll re-quote the 1st post:


Aupick said:


> ...But I was wondering if it could also be taken in  the other direction, and seen as a sign of respect, suggesting that  American English has somehow acquired special status that is worth  noting to foreign readers of literature.


My answer is yes (and many other posters agreed).
Our grammar may be poor, but our heart is not jet black...

Please note that I'm not suggesting there are no anti-American or anti-British feelings deep-rooted among us French.
Far from it, we have strong ones and Lmorland would certainly confirm; I resent this more than you would imagine.
So I can understand (and acknowledge) any touchiness from the English side - now groundless accusations won't help...


----------



## CapnPrep

timpeac said:


> I find it inaccurate because it is not a paradigm that is followed by other usages relating to what the word language means or implies, not followed consistently with other languages and other varieties of English and because there are very few countries in the world where all the natives of that country speak one accepted language such that you can equate the name of the country directly with their language.


How would using _anglais (États-Unis)_ instead of _américain _(which you say would be "no problem at all") suggest any less that natives of the United States speak/write a certain way, distinct from natives of other countries?

For the average French speaker, _américain_ means "the variety of English used in the United States". In other words, it is exactly equivalent to _anglais américain_, just shorter. You may find some below-average French speakers who don't know that Americans speak some kind of English, and yes, the shortening of the phrase does leave this interpretation open (without requiring it). It's nice to be concerned about such people, but I don't believe that publishers and authors should necessarily have to write with this audience in mind.

I am sure that many English speakers are shamefully unaware that Quebecois is a kind of French. We could solve this problem by eliminating the use of _Quebecois_ in English and saying/writing only _Quebec French _or _French (Quebec)_, or better yet, just saying _French_, since after all, they have no problem having a chat with other French speakers, and it is presumptuous of us, as English speakers, to make distinctions in English about non-English things. This would also rectify the fundamental injustice and sycophantism of having a simple name for one variety of French but not for every other imaginable variety of French.


----------



## timpeac

CapnPrep said:


> How would using _anglais (États-Unis)_ instead of _américain _(which you say would be "no problem at all") suggest any less that natives of the United States speak/write a certain way, distinct from natives of other countries?
> 
> For the average French speaker, _américain_ means "the variety of English used in the United States". In other words, it is exactly equivalent to _anglais américain_, just shorter. You may find some below-average French speakers who don't know that Americans speak some kind of English, and yes, the shortening of the phrase does leave this interpretation open (without requiring it). It's nice to be concerned about such people, but I don't believe that publishers and authors should necessarily have to write with this audience in mind.
> 
> I am sure that many English speakers are shamefully unaware that Quebecois is a kind of French. We could solve this problem by eliminating the use of _Quebecois_ in English and saying/writing only _Quebec French _or _French (Quebec)_, or better yet, just saying _French_, since after all, they have no problem having a chat with other French speakers, and it is presumptuous of us, as English speakers, to make distinctions in English about non-English things. This would also rectify the fundamental injustice and sycophantism of having a simple name for one variety of French but not for every other imaginable variety of French.


Capnprep - I started to reply to your message, but can't see a single thing I could reply that I haven't said above.


----------



## CapnPrep

timpeac said:


> CapnPrep said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would using _anglais (États-Unis)_ instead of _américain _(which  you say would be "no problem at all") suggest any less that natives of  the United States speak/write a certain way, distinct from natives of  other countries?
> 
> For the average French speaker, _américain_ means "the variety of English used in the United States". In other words, it is exactly equivalent to _anglais américain_,  just shorter. You may find some below-average French speakers who don't  know that Americans speak some kind of English, and yes, the shortening  of the phrase does leave this interpretation open (without requiring  it). It's nice to be concerned about such people, but I don't believe  that publishers and authors should necessarily have to write with this  audience in mind.
> 
> I am sure that many English speakers are shamefully unaware that  Quebecois is a kind of French. We could solve this problem by  eliminating the use of _Quebecois_ in English and saying/writing only _Quebec French _or _French (Quebec)_, or better yet, just saying _French_,  since after all, they have no problem having a chat with other French  speakers, and it is presumptuous of us, as English speakers, to make  distinctions in English about non-English things. This would also  rectify the fundamental injustice and sycophantism of having a simple  name for one variety of French but not for every other imaginable variety of French.
> 
> 
> 
> Capnprep - I started to reply to your message, but can't see a single thing I could reply that I haven't said above.
Click to expand...

That's fine with me.


----------



## merquiades

I think everything has pretty much been stated here.  I'll just say I personally do not like "traduit de l'américain" or "brésilien" or "mexicain" or anything of the sort.  I feel it does somehow tend to exaggerate the interior differences in a language and some people could and do interpret this as being evidence of vast differences that approach those of a different language.  More people than you think do believe this to a point.  Discussions come up far too often.
However, translations by nature are not dealing with the distinguishing elements of the original language anyway.  In France they merely render and transfer the message of the original language into French.  "Traduit de l'anglais" "du portugais" "de l'espagnol" are good enough for this pupose.
By the way, as an extra, not wanting to go off-subject at all here, another term I object to which is used in France et al. is "General American", which attempts to codify and generalize all American speakers. One of the unfortunate side-effects is it tends to assume those who don't speak in a certain "general" manner are somehow wrong and less authentic.


----------



## LMorland

merquiades said:


> More people than you think do believe this to a point.
> 
> However, translations by nature are not dealing with the distinguishing elements of the original language anyway.  In France they merely render and transfer the message of the original language into French.


_Bien dit ! _


----------



## Istriano

merquiades said:


> "General American", which attempts to codify and generalize all American speakers. One of the unfortunate side-effects is it tends to assume those who don't speak in a certain "general" manner are somehow wrong and less authentic.



In the US, ''General American'' is no longer in technical use. But it's still used in Europe by many people, especially by British phonologists.
Never trust a British phonologist on American pronunciation. There are just too many wrong pronunciations given in Cambridge & Longman Pronouncing Dictionaries.
For American pronunciation I stick with MW's Learner's Dictionary (the only US dictionary with IPA symbols):  http://www.learnersdictionary.com


----------



## JeanDeSponde

merquiades said:


> More people than you think do believe this to  a point.  Discussions come up far too often.


What I'm pretty sure of is that the bias is in their eye, not in the person responsible for "traduit de l'américain".
As  I said, "we" mean nothing derogatory (see my "traduit du hollandais"  above). We may be pinching a painful nerve, but we didn't even know  there was a nerve here.



merquiades said:


> ...another term I object to  which is used in France et al. is "General American", which attempts to  codify and generalize all American speakers.


I have never met this "General American" expression before. Is it used by non-English speakers...?


----------



## LMorland

JeanDeSponde said:


> We may be pinching a painful nerve, but we didn't even know there was a nerve here.


I know you guys don't; why would you, when all the great French publishing houses support the notion that "American" is a different language from "English"? Thank you, JdS, for letting yourself be educated! Now we just have to work on the rest of the French intelligentsia.... 


JeanDeSponde said:


> I have never met this "General American" expression before. Is it used by non-English speakers...?


I haven't either, and I studied a bit of linguistics at U.C. Berkeley. However, Istriano is (I gleaned after some research, since he is cagey about identifying himself here on WR) a (professional?) linguist from Bahia, a region of Brazil, and so it apparently is a term of use in his circles, at least.


----------



## merquiades

Jean.  I know you mean nothing by it.  You know English perfectly.  It's the people who don't, those who have half learned it and are reading translated literature who spread the legend, and of course, it's fueled by those who have the bias you alude to. 

LMorland and JeanDeSponde
General American is something I don't think native speakers would ever study or know about.  It wouldn't be politically correct in the US or even logical.  Never heard about it until I got to France. It's used by some profesors/teachers and other French inteligentsia types, not usually by others. It's a kind of artificial standard for the way Europeans believe all Americans should/might/could/ need to speak and can often border on caricature. They would say things like: An American uses this word all the time (not another), pronounces it this way (not another), and uses these verb forms, etc. etc. There's often an implication that there is something wrong if you don't. Take it with a grain of salt. Another example of that nerve people don't know they're pinching. This article talks a bit about it.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_American


----------



## Istriano

Yes, they say ''it's the accent of American newscasters''. 
I'm not familiar with American news channels, I only get Hollywood productions (movies and sitcoms).


----------



## JeanDeSponde

LMorland said:


> I know you guys don't; why would you, when all the great French publishing houses support the notion that "American" is a different language from "English"? [...]


Well, sometimes Ewie seems to be supporting the same false notion...
OK, just a joke - I have understood through this thread that _American English_ is OK, while _American_ is not a language.
Well - I thought I had understood; now I'm not that sure. I'm a bit confused.
From now on I will do it the Matrix way (_there is no spoon_): _there is no language_ and _there is no nerve_...


----------



## JamesM

Imagine if someone translated a book from a French-speaking Moroccan into English and notated it as "translated from Moroccan".  Would you consider that accurate, JeanDeSponde?  Wouldn't Moroccan French or French (Morocco) be much more accurate?  "Moroccan" would normally refer to a dialect of Arabic, wouldn't it?

To me, this is a parallel situation.  French is not native to Morocco.  Obviously, there are some variations in Moroccan French. However, it is still fundamentally French.  The same is true for English in America.


----------



## merquiades

JamesM said:


> Imagine if someone translated a book from a French-speaking Moroccan into English and notated it as "translated from Moroccan".  Would you consider that accurate, JeanDeSponde?  Wouldn't Moroccan French or French (Morocco) be much more accurate?  "Moroccan" would normally refer to a dialect of Arabic, wouldn't it?
> 
> To me, this is a parallel situation.  French is not native to Morocco.  Obviously, there are some variations in Moroccan French. However, it is still fundamentally French.  The same is true for English in America.



No need to go so far, James.  Imagine the raised eyebrows if someone were to put on an Amélie Nothomb novel "Translated from Belgian"


----------



## sound shift

At the end of the day, it's about selling books. A publisher who believes that the USA is viewed positively by the French-speaking public might well assume that the words "traduit de l'américain" will help sales.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

My point is that _translated from XXX_, whatever you put in "XXX", is neither accurate nor inaccurate.
Not accurate enough for the full background of the author, possibly accurate enough for a clue to it.
What you put in this _XXX_ sets the size of the clue.
And there is clearly no agreement on what this size should be.

Those who object at _traduit de l'américain_ seem to be making three different cases:
- that _translated from XXX_ should only mention a _language_, and make no further distinction;
- that American is not a language;
- and that we French do it on purpose, out of ignorance and presumptuousness.

Case 1: I wonder who owns the trademark of _translated from..._, and can decide what is valid or not.
Case 2: Yes, it is not. _Traduit de l'américain_ is wrong - _if_ the sole intention is to specify a language. Is it?...
Case 3: Yes, we are ignorant and presumptuous, exactly as all people on earth are. Does this forbid us to opt for a larger _clue_?


----------



## JamesM

JeanDeSponde said:


> My point is that _translated from XXX_, whatever you put in "XXX", is neither accurate nor inaccurate.
> Not accurate enough for the full background of the author, possibly accurate enough for a clue to it.
> What you put in this _XXX_ sets the size of the clue.
> And there is clearly no agreement on what this size should be.
> 
> Those who object at _traduit de l'américain_ seem to be making three different cases:
> - that _translated from XXX_ should only mention a _language_, and make no further distinction;
> - that American is not a language;
> - and that we French do it on purpose, out of ignorance and presumptuousness.
> 
> Case 1: I wonder who owns the trademark of _translated from..._, and can decide what is valid or not.



No one here is claiming they can dictate how it can or how it will be.  We are stating our opinions about how it is and pointing out the discrepancies in the labeling.



> Case 2: Yes, it is not. _Traduit de l'américain_ is wrong - _if_ the sole intention is to specify a language. Is it?...



What is the intention, then, and is that intention borne out in other translation notations?



> Case 3: Yes, we are ignorant and presumptuous, exactly as all people on earth are. Does this forbid us to opt for a larger _clue_?



I think you are missing an entire case here, Jean. 

The case is that it is _inconsistent_ and I haven't seen you address this point.  It's not "translated from Canadian" or "translated from New Zealander", yet it is "translated from American".  If the idea is to provide additional information about both the language and the country's influence on that language it makes sense that this would apply in all cases.  Canadians have a unique style of English that is neither American nor British English.  I imagine New Zealanders do, too.  I know Australians do. The place where we live does influence the language and adds different colors to it.  If that is the point, then why is it not provided as a larger clue for all translations from different flavors of English?


----------



## JeanDeSponde

James, clearly you have not searched for _traduit du canadien / australien / néo-zélandais_, because you would have found many such examples...!
(And, just for the fun, _traduit du suisse allemand, du flamand, etc._...)
Again (and again) you insist on us targeting _American_. The nerve is hardy.


> What is the intention, then, and is that intention borne out in other translation notations?


The intention is to give additional background. Period.

There are discrepancies and inconsistencies because publishers / editors / whatnots do not share a common paradigm. Why should they?...


----------



## JamesM

There are instances, yes.  Let's look at the relative frequency in Google hits (which is by no means a totally accurate method but does allow for general comparisons):

"traduit du canadien" - 3,660 hits
"traduit de l'australien" - 19,200 hits
"traduit de l'americain" - 2,520,000 hits

In other words, "traduit du canadien" appears 1/10 of one percent of the time that "traduit de l'americain" appears.  Surely you're not going to argue that the literary output of Canada is 1/10 of one percent of the U.S. 

There are even 24 hits for "traduit du martien" (which happens to be more than the 14 hits for "traduit du néo-zélandais"),  but including it in a list and comparing it to 2.5 million hits for "traduit de l'americain" doesn't seem quite fair.  I think the same is true for "traduit du canadien".  We're looking at entirely different scales.

To say simply that "traduit du canadien" exists is to gloss over the fact that it doesn't exist in any kind of relative scale.

You keep speaking as if we are creating an anomaly where none exists.  I don't think you've quite seen the scale of the thing.

(The interesting thing to discover would be whether translated Canadian works were marked more often with "traduit de l'américain" or "traduit de l'anglais".)


----------



## JeanDeSponde

OK James, I have to confess - it's indeed a plot against America. Now you can rest in peace, our massive destruction weapon has been revealed...


----------



## JamesM

I have no concerns about any plot.    It simply appears to be a blind spot for the French, and blind spots are always the hardest things to see.  We all have them.  As you said, we're all human.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Blind spot as _markedly ignorant or prejudiced_ (Freedic) doesn't fit exactly with Actes Sud, a publishing house well known for its huge catalogue of foreign authors.
It is obvious, in the "Par langue d'origine" (sort by original language) selection in my link that for Actes Sud _langue_ means both _language _*and *_country cum culture_. There is no "Par pays"  (sort by country) selection.
16 "flavours" of English are listed, 13 for Arabic, 7 for Spanish, etc.

Furthermore, there are two entries for the USA: _américain_ or _anglais (Etats-Unis)_, a clear indication that the "language" paradigm is left to the translator.
Your country's culture is large enough for some translators to deserve a name of its own.

If you still fail to see that what some French editors state by "langue" is not _your _"language", and insist that _your_ scope for "language" should be used, then indeed blind spots are the hardest things to see (in one's eye).


----------



## JamesM

That's an interesting choice of a definition for blind spot.  It certainly wasn't my intended meaning.  WRF's definition is closer to my use and understanding of the term: "an area in which a person lacks understanding or impartiality."

If it means culture, the implication from the dropdown list at your link is that Canada and Australia are_ not_ large enough to have their own cultural designation.  However you look at it, there is a double standard going on here.  That's all I meant by "blind spot".  There is a lack of impartiality.  Somehow "American" has been set into a separate category.


----------



## L'irlandais

Hello Aupick,
I have never, in 12 years in this country, come across a French person who thought that English and Americian were different languages.  Then again, I've never heard an Americian complain about that publishing note's existence either. Why any Americian would be put out by this publishing practice is beyond me ;  surely the practice of differenciating AE from BE is widespread.  That "traduit de l'américian" is common place on title-pages, doesn't mean people in France (nor Germany), believe AE to be a vastly different language.

Many French people think that l'anglais  and l'irlandais are one and the same language, or at worst that Irish is simply a dialect of English.  (Quite the opposite of what some posters have been trying to imply about this French usage.)   This doesn't bother me particularily, for those of them who are willing to listen, I am happy to take the time to explain that Gaelic is, in fact, a different language from English.  Often they are surprised to discover this to be the case.

ps.  Also I find that *Actes Sud *using a subheading of anglais (Irlande) nice actually, not in slightest bit offensive.


----------



## JamesM

L'irlandais said:


> ps.  Also I find that *Actes Sud *using a subheading of anglais (Irlande) nice actually, not in slightest bit offensive.



Of course not.  And, as other Americans have said on this thread, "anglais (Etats-Unis)" makes perfect sense.  What is odd is to have only one variant of English given its country name.  There are sixteen subheadings for "anglais" in the dropdown list cited.  Only one of them is also a separate heading.

If the reason is for accuracy, why have only one with its separate heading?  If it's for author/translator/reader preference, why not provide more choices?   I'm not particularly outraged or offended, but I find the unique designation and the explanations for its existence don't line up.  

If an Irish author wrote in English and the designation, instead of "anglais (Irlande)", was "Irlandais" would you consider it accurate?  After all, it could be said that such a designation recognizes that English in Ireland reflects a different culture and English is used differently in Ireland, and there's always "gaélique" to differentiate something translated from the native Celtic language. If every other variant of English was designated by a subheading so that all the others were "translated from English (country)" (or simply marked "translated from English") but books from Ireland were marked "translated from Irish", would you not find that odd?

I'm surprised at the resistance of some people to even acknowledging the anomaly.  The reason for the anomaly is a separate issue.   It could be, as some say, for marketing purposes.  What doesn't bear out under examination is that it's for accuracy.  If it is, it's a very selective accuracy.


----------



## merquiades

JamesM said:


> I'm surprised at the resistance of some people to even acknowledging the anomaly.  The reason for the anomaly is a separate issue.   It could be, as some say, for marketing purposes.  What doesn't bear out under examination is that it's for accuracy.  If it is, it's a very selective accuracy.



Living here, I don't believe for a minute the "anomaly" is due to marketing interests.  People who read Stephen King or Donna Leone etc. etc. read it just because they know the style of the writer and want to read their novel(s).  If they read it in translation, it's cause they can't or don't want to read original version.  Many people don't even care what it's translated from.  As for the most common authors, it's widely known if they are American or not.  It's also not a surprise to people that there are differences between the different dialects of English, though they might not know exactly what.  I just think there is a tendancy here in France to marginalize "American English" and consider it different... for one reason or another. I may or may not have a sensitive nerve, it's true, but now I'm very sure of what I say.  I don't want to accuse and say there is any malicious intent at all, often for many French people American English is even desired, I'm just saying culturally it's in the air, it's acceptable to consider it vastly different, and to make any personal judgements and/or sterotypes based on this. That explains, for example, why "traduit de l'américain" is just fine, and there's no way they will change it.



> Also I find that Actes Sud using a subheading of anglais (Irlande) nice actually, not in slightest bit offensive.


*It's true I have a Welsh friend who has her own issues with the French.  People consistently refer to her as English, even when they know her, and it drives her absolutely crazy. Once in a while they even call her Anglo-Saxon!
I also would find anglais (États-Unis) fine


----------



## L'irlandais

merquiades said:


> Living here, ...
> 
> *It's true I have a Welsh friend who has her own issues with the French.  People consistently refer to her as English, even when they know her, and it drives her absolutely crazy. Once in a while they even call her Anglo-Saxon!
> I also would find anglais (États-Unis) fine


Salut merquiades,
mostly they call me l'anglais to wind me up.   However, perhaps like your friend I have understood that any rapproachment of l'irlandais to l'anglais is not meant to offend.


----------



## Outsider

JamesM said:


> It simply appears to be a blind spot for the French, and blind spots are always the hardest things to see.  We all have them.  As you said, we're all human.


On the flip side, maybe there is also a blind spot on the part of us foreigners. At the end of the day, why should we care about how French publishers and translators label our languages or language varieties? What difference does it make? Maybe we're all a bit touchy...

This thread has been interesting to read. JeanDeSponge has made a somewhat persuasive defence of the French practice, which left me thinking that perhaps this is truly a matter of cultural differences; French customs which foreigners do not recognize, and therefore misunderstand. My initial reaction was that this French habit was presumptuous, too - how dare they dictate how foreign languages should be classified?!...

But as time passes I'm leaning more and more towards seeing it simply as an innocent cultural quirk. I would certainly never have thought of labelling a book by a native of Quebec _"Translated from Quebecois"_, or a book by J. P. Sartre _"Translated from Parisian",_ if I were translating them into Portuguese, but that's just because I'm not used to it. And what's the harm in foreigners classifying my language, anyway? I'm sure it happens every day. In actual fact _everybody_, linguist or layman, is free to classify languages, be they foreign or not, and we do it all the time. That doesn't mean that our classifications will be taken seriously by others, or otherwise amount to much. _Chacun à son goût._


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

A fine post Outsider. If I have one beef with the French, it's this Anglo-Saxon nonsense. Je ne suis pas anglo-saxon, je suis celte !


----------



## merquiades

Outsider said:


> On the flip side, maybe there is also a blind spot on the part of us foreigners. At the end of the day, why should we care about how French publishers and translators label our languages or language varieties? What difference does it make? Maybe we're all a bit touchy...
> 
> This thread has been interesting to read. JeanDeSponge has made a somewhat persuasive defence of the French practice, which left me thinking that perhaps this is truly a matter of cultural differences; French customs which foreigners do not recognize, and therefore misunderstand. My initial reaction was that this French habit was presumptuous, too - how dare they dictate how foreign languages should be classified?!...
> 
> But as time passes I'm leaning more and more towards seeing it simply as an innocent cultural quirk. I would certainly never have thought of labelling a book by a native of Quebec _"Translated from Quebecois"_, or a book by J. P. Sartre _"Translated from Parisian",_ if I were translating them into Portuguese, but that's just because I'm not used to it. And what's the harm in foreigners classifying my language, anyway? I'm sure it happens every day. In actual fact _everybody_, linguist or layman, is free to classify languages, be they foreign or not, and we do it all the time. That doesn't mean that our classifications will be taken seriously by others, or otherwise amount to much. _Chacun à son goût._



I totally agree with you Outsider and probably would have your viewpoint if I weren't in France, but when you are confronted with this all the time, it gets old:  Je vous présente notre formateur en langue américaine... Is automobile just an American word or can we say it in English too?... I think when you talk your American has been influenced a bit by English... etc. etc. Yes, those are real examples... There are only two options here, make a fuss about it, people look at you like you are being petty and it results in something like this thread to which there is no solution.  Or you take L'irlandais' attitude:  they're trying to wind me up I think.. but I won't bite....  Just smile. And of course I end up doing the latter, mostly.


> If I have one beef with the French, it's this Anglo-Saxon nonsense. Je ne suis pas anglo-saxon, je suis celte !


For some reason this doesn't bother me much anymore. Sometimes I remind people that the Anglo-Saxons were a tribe of people who moved into medieval England and not to use it with native English-speakers or refer to them with that name, but doing that never gets you anywhere with the Gauls.
Come to think of it I'm going to start using that term.  How about "traduit du gaulois"?


----------



## doinel

Je ne sais pas pourquoi on précise traduit de l'anglais (  Etats- Unis) par X. J'ai sous les yeux la dernière traduction de Lolita par Maurice Couturier et c'est ce qu'il y a écrit, sur la quatrième de couverture. Il a traduit une langue écrite par Nabokov, né en Russie mort en Suisse.
Mais en soi, cela ne me choque pas que l'on précise traduit de l'anglais ( Irlande ) pour Ken Bruen  ou de l'anglais US pour James Ellroy, de fait on ne le confond pas avec R J Ellory qui écrit des polars qui se situent aux USA mais est britannique.


----------



## JamesM

But the question is, doinel, why is there a separate designation for "américain"?  "l'anglais (Etats-Unis)" seems to make sense to everyone here.  The puzzle is, why does one variant of English commonly get its country designation while the others don't?


----------



## Barsac

A few years ago, I found at Edinburg this sentence : "English spoken, American understood". My feeling was : Good joke !
Now, when I read  _Traduit de l'américain _on a book, it does not mean (to me) anything but geographical : The author lives in the USA, and has an american culture, which is not necessarily the same as an english culture. And I shall add that the date when the book was written is also useful. In France, I can recover the initial date of the book.

The existence of Internet has modified the situation. I follow the advice of my grand-daughter (6 years old at that time) : Papi, if you do not know something, look at Internet !


----------



## CapnPrep

JamesM said:


> But the question is, doinel, why is there a separate designation for "américain"?  "l'anglais (Etats-Unis)" seems to make sense to everyone here.  The puzzle is, why does one variant of English commonly get its country designation while the others don't?


The question is why you think _américain_ in French must be translated as "American" in English in this context. Go to any of the bilingual forums on this board and everyone will remind you to beware of mechanical, word-for-word translations that don't take actual usage and context into account. Is it so hard to understand that _traduit de l'américain_ means, to a normal French speaker, "translated from American English"?

Also, is it really so surprising that the largest monolingual English-speaking countries, starting with the United States, have a more prominent status — in this and in many, many other situations — than countries with fewer speakers/writers? It is noble and just to declare that all countries/cultures/peoples are equal, and if you don't/won't/can't do something for _all_ of them, then you shouldn't do it for _any_ of them. But it neither a logical necessity nor a practical possibility.


----------



## JamesM

If the argument is for precision, CapnPrep, then yes, it's difficult to understand why there is "anglais (Etats-Unis)" and "américain".  If the argument is for the designation to indicate both culture and language, then yes, it also seems strange to only be interested in designating one of the many cultures that use English as their primary language.

I appreciate your response and I can accept that "américain" means, in common language to a "normal" French speaker, "American English".  This is not the rationale that has been presented so far in this thread.  

So what you're saying is that in common language (in French) only American English is called out by its country name and this designation on the books reflects that common usage.  That makes much more sense than some reference to precision or need to know the culture that produced the work.


----------



## CapnPrep

JamesM said:


> I appreciate your response and I can accept that "américain" means, in common language to a "normal" French speaker, "American English".  This is not the rationale that has been presented so far in this thread.


Not so. I tried to make this point above (#42), echoing a comment by Pedro y La Torre (#26), and JeanDeSponde (#41) also confirmed that _traduit de l'américain_, _traduit de l'anglais américain_, _traduit de  l'anglais (américain)_, and _traduit de l'anglais (Etats-Unis)_ all mean the same thing.


----------



## JamesM

You're right. The idea that they mean the same thing has been presented, along with a lot of other things.  I was speaking of rationale (why is it so).

However, when the primary French respondent says in post #52 (underlining added):



> I have understood through this thread that American English is OK, while American is not a language.  Well - I thought I had understood; now I'm not that sure. I'm a bit confused.



...it does make me wonder if the lack of distinction between "l'américain" and "l'anglais (Etats-Unis) / l'anglais américain" has lost something in the process.  This is the very point we have been discussing, as I see it.


----------



## merquiades

JamesM said:


> ...it does make me wonder if the lack of distinction between "l'américain" and "l'anglais (Etats-Unis) / l'anglais américain" has lost something in the process.  This is the very point we have been discussing, as I see it.



Of course most people know they are two variants of the same language.   "Américain" rather than "Anglais" just insists on the differences.  I think it confuses people who don't master the language as they tend to believe these differences are much greater than they are... and can interpret that they way they want.  This is what I like least about the term and would prefer using something else. As I said you can find a few people who think they are two languages, maybe it's just me who meets them, and a few more who insist to prove some point... maybe out of humor, personal preference or dislikes, academics.  Again, the minority.
There may be a point to the idea that languages are identified with countries and not linguistics here. I remember a bureaucrat looking at an American transcript a few years ago and expressing surprise that English was considered a subject at school and not American. She asked if it we studied American texts in that class or just British literature or what.  In this case no doubt she knew it was the same language. She was fluent. The context wasn't humor, dislike, etc. either. She was pretty genuine. It certainly must be cultural perception.


----------



## TitTornade

Hi,
Anecdote:
Yesterday I visited an American Memorial about WWI that is in France. I wanted to bring back a brochure. Three kinds of brochures were remaining: some with a French flag, some with an American flag and some with a Netherland flag.
I was wondering: an American flag??? But which language will I find inside??? 
Of course It was English!
So, if I well understand some of you, the English brochure should have been marked with a UK flag, right ? Or perhaps an English flag?

"Traduit de l'Américain" means that the author is American... Of course he speaks English! Who doesn't know it!??


----------



## JeanDeSponde

merquiades said:


> "Américain" rather than "Anglais" just insists on the differences.  I think it confuses people who don't master the language [...].  This is what I like least about the term and would prefer using something else.


I agree on that of course. I would add that the differences are more in the cultures that in the language per se (see Barsac's #73)
I never said that I liked this _traduit de l'américain_; I only insisted on there being no hidden agenda behind, nor blind spots from usually skilled translators.


merquiades said:


> If [the people who read Stephen King or Donna  Leone etc.] read it in translation, it's cause they can't or don't want  to read original version.  Many people don't even care what it's  translated from.


Yes again; and this leads to a very interesting point (that is, interesting to me at least) : what is the purpose of this _translated from..._? Why state it in the first place?
The exact _language_ information is only relevant to those who know the language - and they would not read a translation anyway.
I'm not versed in Amharic or Hindi; so _traduit de l'Amharique_ will not help me much - except for telling me something (not much) about the _author_.
As Doinel said, _traduit de l'anglais_ for Nabokov (or Conrad, or Koestler, etc.) makes no sense.
So why do some (be them E, F or whatever) insist on standardizing the accuracy of the language, when this accuracy is meaningless?
As I said before, I'd rather simply have _Translated by MrTranslator._ See _About the Author_ for details...


----------



## merquiades

TitTornade said:


> Hi,
> Anecdote:
> Yesterday I visited an American Memorial about WWI that is in France. I wanted to bring back a brochure. Three kinds of brochures were remaining: some with a French flag, some with an American flag and some with a Netherland flag.
> I was wondering: an American flag??? But which language will I find inside???
> Of course It was English!
> So, if I well understand some of you, the English brochure should have been marked with a UK flag, right ? Or perhaps an English flag?
> 
> "Traduit de l'Américain" means that the author is American... Of course he speaks English! Who doesn't know it!??



I've been to a few of these WWI or WW2 memorials.  There are lots of American flags everywhere.  I chalked it up to the character of these cemeteries that are visited frequently by groups of Americans looking for information on relatives.  I didn't even think the brochure would have been written by an American.


----------



## merquiades

JeanDeSponde said:


> I agree on that of course. I would add that the differences are more in the cultures that in the language per se (see Barsac's #73)
> I never said that I liked this _traduit de l'américain_; I only insisted on there being no hidden agenda behind, nor blind spots from usually skilled translators.
> 
> Yes again; and this leads to a very interesting point (that is, interesting to me at least) : what is the purpose of this _translated from..._? Why state it in the first place?
> The exact _language_ information is only relevant to those who know the language - and they would not read a translation anyway.
> I'm not versed in Amharic or Hindi; so _traduit de l'Amharique_ will not help me much - except for telling me something (not much) about the _author_.
> As Doinel said, _traduit de l'anglais_ for Nabokov (or Conrad, or Koestler, etc.) makes no sense.
> So why do some (be them E, F or whatever) insist on standardizing the accuracy of the language, when this accuracy is meaningless?
> As I said before, I'd rather simply have _Translated by MrTranslator._ See _About the Author_ for details...


In essence we agree on everything.


----------



## Jasmine tea

JeanDeSponde said:


> I agree on that of course. I would add that the differences are more in the cultures that in the language per se (see Barsac's #73)
> I never said that I liked this _traduit de l'américain_; I only insisted on there being no hidden agenda behind, nor blind spots from usually skilled translators.
> 
> Yes again; and this leads to a very interesting point (that is, interesting to me at least) : *what is the purpose of this translated from...? Why state it in the first place?
> *The exact _language_ information is only relevant to those who know the language - and they would not read a translation anyway.
> I'm not versed in Amharic or Hindi; so _traduit de l'Amharique_ will not help me much - except for telling me something (not much) about the _author_.
> As Doinel said, _traduit de l'anglais_ for Nabokov (or Conrad, or Koestler, etc.) makes no sense.
> So why do some (be them E, F or whatever) insist on standardizing the accuracy of the language, when this accuracy is meaningless?
> As I said before, I'd rather simply have _Translated by MrTranslator._ See _About the Author_ for details...



Originally there was a purpose in specifying from which language a book was translated. It enabled the reader to know whether it was translated from the original language of the author or not.

The Chinese book “I Ching”’s most known translation (for a long time) was not a direct translation from Chinese. It was translated from Chinese to German, and then translated from German to most European languages and published in the related countries.
This still happens very often in many countries. Books are translated from their English translation simply because it is not always easy to find a good local translator able to translate the book from its original language.

Personally I do always pay attention to this information. As a reader, I like to think that the translation is closest possible, and as respectful as may be to the author’s words. The publishers are probably used in their ethics to specify this very exact information (who translated the book, from what language).

I had read the book “Children of Midnight” in its French translation. And recently I was told that the narrator in this book spoke a somewhat specific Indian English. And this apparently gives a savour to the book I had missed : it was absolutely not rendered in the French translation. Maybe the publisher should have asked an Indian English speaker to translate the book!
I am probably a bit off topic here. But, if there are differences between two languages having the same root, however minor these differences may be, I still prefer to think that the translator was able to acknowledge the specificity of the original words of the writer…


----------



## Hulalessar

If you have two varieties of English and call one _Américain _and the other _Anglais_ is that not suggesting that American English is not English?


----------



## merquiades

Hulalessar said:


> If you have two varieties of English and call one _Américain _and the other _Anglais_ is that not suggesting that American English is not English?



Good point, Hulalessar.  Come to think of it, it's true they would never say translated from _Britannique_

But then again, as people have already pointed out, "Anglais, Anglaterre" is used frequently in France to refer to all of the UK or characteristic of Great Britain in general, and to the dismay of the Irish, sometimes even Ireland.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Hulalessar said:


> If you have two varieties of English and call one _Américain _and the other _Anglais_ is that not suggesting that American English is not English?



Well, I often refer to ''québécois'' and ''français (de France)''. That doesn't mean I think both are separate languages.


----------



## NewtonCircus

Apart from the question if one should be offended by this or not, the French are by no means the only ones who can be accused of this practice.

I lost count how often a German has told me '_Kannst du das für ihm auf belgisch übersetzen, bitte_' what translates in ‘Could you translate this to Belgian for him please’. The first time I heard it I was speechless. Although I haven't figured out yet which language they actually refer to, I am meanwhile used to it.  Germans also use '_redest du holländisch_' (Do you speak Hollandisch), which probably make a fair amount of inhabitants of, let's say, Maastricht turn in their graves.    

Although the French never use '_Belge_', in the context of a language, they do use '_Traduit de Flamand',_ often even when the original text was published in the Netherlands or has a Dutch author, as do the Americans and British ('_Translated from Flemish_'). Since Flemish refers to a group of dialects with no formal spelling and grammar, I always wondered how one is supposed to do that.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Hulalessar said:


> If you have two varieties of English and call one _Américain _and the other _Anglais_ is that not suggesting that American English is not English?


From a language standpoint, it would mean that they are different _varieties_.
Now you take for granted that it is about _language_ - what if it were about _cultural background_...?


----------



## Hulalessar

JeanDeSponde said:


> From a language standpoint, it would mean that they are different _varieties_.
> Now you take for granted that it is about _language_ - what if it were about _cultural background_...?



That takes us into the question of whether, and if so to what extent, language and culture can or should be separated. But what we have is not so much about culture as about nationality. What is inescapable is that names for languages and names for nationalities are sometimes identical. Also, a language which has a name which is the same as that of a nationality may be spoken by those of a different nationality. Further, some names for nationalities are not names for languages. This means that if you are going to indicate the nationality of the author in your "translated from..." tag you can run into problems:

Traduit du suisse? Was it written in French, German, Italian or Rumansch?

Traduit de l'irlandais? Was it written in English or Gaelic?

Traduit de l'espagnol?  Was it written in Castilian, Catalan, Galician or Basque?

And if a book published in Catalan in Spain is to be described as "traduit de l'espagnol" then presumably a book published in Catalan in France is to be described as "traduit du français"!

Books are written in languages and not nationalities or cultures. Translation is the process of rendering text from one language to another. If you want to indicate the language translated from give it its proper name. If you want to indicate the nationality or some other attribute of the author then do that separately.

"Traduit de l'américain" is no more than one of the more absurd manifestations of French nationalism. There is nothing that annoys the French more than that more people speak English than French. If they call what Americans speak "American" then that reduces the number who speak English!


----------



## TitTornade

Hulalessar said:


> "Traduit de l'américain" is no more than one of the more absurd manifestations of French nationalism. There is nothing that annoys the French more than that more people speak English than French. If they call what Americans speak "American" then that reduces the number who speak English!



I don't understand what you mean! French is the most perfect language and French culture is the most perfect culture! No need to be the largest population to be the most perfect!

Let's be serious: "traduit de l'américain" only means the author wrote his novel in English and that he's an American... Is it so puzzling ?


----------



## terredepomme

> "Traduit de l'américain" is no more than one of the more absurd manifestations of French nationalism. There is nothing that annoys the French more than that more people speak English than French. If they call what Americans speak "American" then that reduces the number who speak English!


The reason is in fact less conspirical. The thing is that the French, being neighbors of England, are used to using the word anglais for the English people. If they see the word littérature anglaise many of them will think about literary works from England, not those in the English language, hence the more popular term littérature anglo-saxonne.
It's merely a conventional misusage of a term. No one is annoyed about English.


----------



## LMorland

TitTornade said:


> Let's be serious: "traduit de l'américain" only means the author wrote his novel in English and that he's an American... Is it so puzzling ?


TitTornade, please read the entire thread above.  If you have already done so and still hold this same opinion, then I truly despair of convincing anyone how _presumptuous, _not to mention plain _wrong, _this nomenclature is.  

There is no such language as _American!  _Just as there is no such language as _Brazilian, _or_ Mexican, _or_ Venezuelan, _or _Belgian, _or _Peruvian, _or _Canadian, _or_ Australian.  _The list could be extended _ad infinitum._


----------



## LMorland

terredepomme said:


> littérature anglo-saxonne....


Do you feel that this term includes all literature written in English?  You may be right, but I always assumed the opposite.  Interesting point.


terredepomme said:


> No one is annoyed about English.


How can you be so certain?  In fact, many French people, and probably most over a certain age, are extremely annoyed at the invasion of English on all fronts -- technological, pop-cultural, political. 

And I would be too if I were in their place.


----------



## Istriano

Some Americans say ''Sorry, I don't speak Mexican'' when immigrants ask them something in Spanish only.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Hulalessar said:


> "Traduit de l'américain" is no more than one of the more absurd manifestations of French nationalism. There is nothing that annoys the French more than that more people speak English than French.


Back to square one - derogatory comments and jingoistic _clichés_. Don't forget our white flag and _baguette_ in your next post.
Hulalessar, you could add that we are also masochists: sometimes we stop singing _La Marseillaise_ to read books written by inferior English-speaking foreigners...


LMorland said:


> No one is annoyed about  English.
> 
> 
> 
> How can you be so certain?  In fact, many French people,  and probably most over a certain age, are extremely annoyed at the  invasion of English on all fronts -- technological, pop-cultural,  political. And I would be too if I were in their place.
Click to expand...

Hey, hey, Terredepomme was not saying that the French are not annoyed at the invasion of English - Terredepomme simply stated that, _littérature anglaise_ being ambiguous (language vs. country), we would rather say _littérature anglo-saxonne_ when not from the UK but written in English. Peace...

LMorland, just like Hulalessar (and others in this thread) you are following the same (too) simple line of reasoning:
- French are known to dislike the English culture (nationalism being a French-only disease of course)
- French are known to be presumptuous
- French say _traduit de l'américain_, which is wrong
- Hence French are doing it because they are presumptuous nationalists.

I'd say that, if you've read the entire thread  above and still hold this same opinion,  then I truly despair of convincing anyone how _presumptuous, _not to mention plain _wrong, _this logic is.


----------



## terredepomme

> In fact, many French people, and probably most over a certain age, are extremely annoyed at the invasion of English on all fronts


Precisely, the "invasion" of English, i.e. using English in France. Like most countries, it does not like being dominated by a foreign language. Nothing special about the French. However no one cares about it being used outside of France.


----------



## terredepomme

> Some Americans say ''Sorry, I don't speak Mexican'' when immigrants ask them something in Spanish only.


I have also seen a "Brazilian phrasebook for tourists" in Korea.


----------



## TitTornade

LMorland said:


> TitTornade, please read the entire thread above.  If you have already done so and still hold this same opinion, then I truly despair of convincing anyone how _presumptuous, _not to mention plain _wrong, _this nomenclature is.
> 
> There is no such language as _American!  _Just as there is no such language as _Brazilian, _or_ Mexican, _or_ Venezuelan, _or _Belgian, _or _Peruvian, _or _Canadian, _or_ Australian.  _The list could be extended _ad infinitum._



Hi,
Mmm, yes, I read the entire thread and, yes, I still think that "traduit de l'américain" means that the author is American and wrote his novel in English... Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't understand why some of you want to psychoanalyze the origin of the differences between "traduit de l'americain", "traduit de l'anglais", "traduit de l'anglo-saxon"...


----------



## timpeac

JeanDeSponde said:


> LMorland, just like Hulalessar (and others in this thread) you are following the same (too) simple line of reasoning:
> - French are known to dislike the English culture (nationalism being a French-only disease of course)
> - French are known to be presumptuous
> - French say _traduit de l'américain_, which is wrong
> - Hence French are doing it because they are presumptuous nationalists.



It's easy to get beyond arguments involving opinion.

"Traduit de l'américain" means "translated from the American".
American, as a language, doesn't exist.
Therefore "traduit de l'américain" is nonsense at best, and presumptuous at worst.

Ipso facto.

If you're offended at native speakers finding their language miscategorised and calling it presumptuous just stop at the nonsense interpretation. Problem solved.


----------



## JamesM

Istriano said:


> Some Americans say ''Sorry, I don't speak Mexican'' when immigrants ask them something in Spanish only.



This is true, but you won't find "Translated from (the) Mexican" on a book here, nor will you find "Mexican" as a language choice on an academic or publisher's site.

I'm fairly convinced at this point that most French view "traduit de l'américain" to mean "translated from American English" (or at least those who have responded here, and I'm taking their opinion as representative of the French at large).  I still think it's an interesting anomaly.


----------



## CapnPrep

timpeac said:


> "Traduit de l'américain" means "translated from the American".


Incorrect. See my post #74 above, as well as several others in this thread, or consult a dictionary, such as the Concise Oxford-Hachette, cited in the Word Reference entry for _américain_ ("_masculine noun  Ling_ American English"), or the TLF (*B.−* _Subst. masc_.* 1.* _LING._  Parler anglais des États-Unis), the dictionary of the Académie Française ("N. m.  _L'américain, _ forme prise par l'anglais écrit et parlé aux États-Unis d'Amérique"), the Petit Robert ("_L'américain_ : l'anglais parlé aux États-Unis."), etc. etc. etc.


----------



## timpeac

CapnPrep said:


> Incorrect. See my post #74 above, as well as several others in this thread, or consult a dictionary, such as the Concise Oxford-Hachette, cited in the Word Reference entry for _américain_ ("_masculine noun  Ling_ American English"), or the TLF (*B.−* _Subst. masc_.* 1.* _LING._  Parler anglais des États-Unis), the dictionary of the Académie Française ("N. m.  _L'américain, _ forme prise par l'anglais écrit et parlé aux États-Unis d'Amérique"), the Petit Robert ("_L'américain_ : l'anglais parlé aux États-Unis."), etc. etc. etc.



I find it hard to believe you're being serious - but I suspect you are. Dictionary definitions are just people's opinion of usage codified - just as these forums are! If we wanted to simply believe dictate from dictionaries we wouldn't be on this board. We already know from this thread that many French speakers simply hear "American English" when they read, write or say "américain". I don't believe they are being prejudiced - it doesn't make it correct though. This thread isn't questioning that this usage exists in the French language.

By this argument you could use any word without regard for the wider world and simply on what impression it makes to you. As I said very early on in this thread, it's not for foreign speakers to decide the subsets of another language. I wouldn't dream of trying to tell a native speaker from anywhere in the French speaking world which parts of francophonie should or should not be called French! The fact that some French people do this is not in dispute. Its validity is. Its potential offence is proven by this thread.


----------



## TitTornade

timpeac said:


> ... it's not for foreign speakers to decide the subsets of another language ... Its potential offence is proven by this thread.


If you think it's an offence, you misunderstand it...


----------



## CapnPrep

timpeac said:


> As I said very early on in this thread, it's not for foreign speakers to decide the subsets of another language.


Insofar as this sort of thing is "decided" by anyone, it certainly is up to French speakers to determine French usage. But it makes no difference in this case, because the subset of English identified by the French term _américain_ is exactly the same as the subset identified by the English term _American English_, and the relationship between _américain_ and _anglais_ is exactly the same as the one between _American English_ and _English_.

Your opinion is that _américain_ refers to a language separate from _anglais_. You tried to argue above (#40) that this is somehow required by French grammar. That is incorrect: Nothing in French grammar says that the meanings of these two terms cannot overlap, or that one cannot be a subset of the other. But you are still free to hold this opinion. On the other hand, French speakers and the dictionaries I quoted are of the opinion that _américain_ refers to a type of _anglais_. We're not talking about right or wrong / valid or invalid here — just opinions. And in my opinion, their opinion about the meanings of French words, as they are used in French, counts more than your opinion.


----------



## timpeac

TitTornade said:


> If you think it's an offence, you misunderstand it...


No, you misunderstand - I mean "offence" passively, that is to say "the act of being offended (rightly or wrongly)". As I say above, I don't think that the French usage is prejudiced, I don't think it's deliberately trying to _cause_ offence. That fact that some English native speakers are offended by the French usage (which is what I mean by "offence" eg = "are offended") is shown above.


----------



## timpeac

CapnPrep said:


> And in my opinion, their opinion about the meanings of French words, as they are used in French, counts more than your opinion.



Counts more than my opinion about what? Again, I absolutely don't dispute that the French mean "American English" by the term "américain". I claim that this usage is 
- inaccurate - languages other than English are spoken in the USA and English is spoken in more countries than England.
- partisan - other countries using the English language are not so consistently given a terminology that refers to their geography rather than their language, and the treatment of one's language is very emotive.
- open to offence (= receiving offence) - this does not correlate to the way the speakers of the language itself view their own speech.
- uneven - other languages are not so consistently denominated by geography rather than language.
- grammatically singular - in normal usage in French, the adjective relating to a language when nominalised refers to the name of that language.
- unnecessary - other terms such as "anglais (EU)" exist to make the distinction if this is the main aim.


----------



## Hulalessar

timpeac said:


> it's not for foreign speakers to decide the subsets of another language.



Absolutely.

However, what is interesting is why the distinction exists. It is also perfectly legitimate to point out that questions of consistency arise if the distinction is only being made in respect of varieties of English.

I am sorry if JeanDeSponde thinks I am being jingoistic as that is the very last thing I am. The last part of my previous post was just poking a little fun and as far as I am concerned followed what went before rather than being the starting point. All nations have absurd manifestations of nationalism.

There are many varieties of English throughout the world. The two most significant (at least in terms of number of speakers) are American English and British English. These two varieties (and I am referring to the "standard" versions) are so close to each other that even the word variety seems a misnomer. The differences likely to be encountered regularly are generally well known and are no barrier to mutual intelligibility. Minor spelling differences aside, who can tell whether contributions to this forum are in American or British English?

If the French (or at least those who publish books) want to give American English and British English different names that imply they are different languages then it is not something I am going to get excited about. I do however pose the following questions:

1. Why is it felt necessary to distinguish between the two varieties in the context of specifying the language from which a text is translated?

2. Is this sort of distinction made when translating from other varieties of English? If not, why not when in some cases these will be further apart from American English and British English than either is from each other?

3. Is this sort of distinction made when translating from languages other than English, e.g. "traduit de l'autrichien"? If not, why not?


----------



## LMorland

Istriano said:


> Some Americans say ''Sorry, I don't speak Mexican'' when immigrants ask them something in Spanish only.


Yes, some do, and it's _highly insulting! _Anybody who utters that phrase is usually an anti-immigrant bigot. So that practice should not be used to support idea that foreigners should be encouraged to create names of languages that don't exist.  

Mon vieil ami, JdS, I think that you misunderstand me.  You write:





> LMorland, just like Hulalessar (and others in this thread) you are following the same (too) simple line of reasoning:
> - French are known to dislike the English culture (nationalism being a French-only disease of course)
> - French are known to be presumptuous
> - French say _traduit de l'américain_, which is wrong
> - Hence French are doing it because they are presumptuous nationalists.


 Honestly, JdS, having lived in France for nine years, I am one of the greatest defenders of the French people you'll ever find.  (And sorry, but it's often necessary. ) I have never found the French to be presumptuous. You (they) may be, but I haven't experienced it personally.  

As for your point #1, the French like English-_speaking _culture all too well.  Just take a look at your TV listings sometime: there's not a hit show in the U.S. that can't be seen in France.  And while my personal sympathies lie more towards those of José Bové, I'd just point out that France is the #2 nation worldwide for McDonald's sales, after the U.S.!  And pick up a copy of _Elle: _in some issues, on _every single fashion page_ there's a word (or words) in English.  _Parce que c'est cool, quoi ?_ 

It is true that (point #3) it is _wrong_ to write _traduit de l'américain.  _Personally I don't care so much _why _the great _maisons d'édition françaises _are doing it. I just want them to stop!


----------



## CapnPrep

timpeac said:


> - inaccurate - other languages other than English are spoken in America and English is spoken in more countries than England.


Then the term _anglais_/_English_ is already inaccurate, since languages other than English are spoken in England. What to do? 


timpeac said:


> - open to offence (= receiving offence) - this does not correlate to the way the speakers of the language itself view their own speech.


I am a speaker of English. If a French person asks me if I speak _anglais_, I say yes. I am a speaker of American English. If a French speaker asks me if I speak _américain_, I say yes. But if I understand you correctly, your response would be to take offense and inform them that this second question is "nonsense at best, and presumptuous at worst". But is it really up to you, a speaker of British English, to decide how I should view my own speech?


timpeac said:


> - grammatically singular - in normal usage in  French, the adjective relating to a language when nominalised refers to  the name of that language.


In normal French usage, the adjective formed from a geographical name, when used as a masculine singular noun, refers to what the people in that geographical area speak. Whether this is understood to be a separate language or a dialect/variety of a larger language is determined by context and world knowledge and is in no way predictable from the grammar alone. The TLF, for example, defines _américain_ as a "_parler anglais_", while _anglais_ is defined as a "_langue_". (I know, you don't care what the dictionary says. ) 


timpeac said:


> - partisan - other countries using the English language are not so  consistently given a terminology that refers to their geography rather  than their language, and the treatment of one's language is very  emotive.
> […]
> - uneven - other languages are not so consistently denominated by geography rather than language.


Languages develop richer terminology for things that are more salient (bigger, more frequent, more important, more dangerous, etc.) because they get talked about more and their properties/subtypes become more apparent. Like it or not, some countries and some languages are more present in the minds of speakers than others. There's nothing really to be done about this. I mean, you can encourage French speakers to become collectively more aware of the particularities of the English spoken in the Bahamas, or remind them that hey, Albanian is spoken in several countries and has several distinct varieties, but it won't have much effect. Or you can ask them to stop paying so much attention to the United States, but I don't think they'll do that either.


timpeac said:


> - unnecessary - other terms such as "anglais (EU)" exist to make the distinction if this is the main aim.


Yes, many terms exist; each one of them, taken individually, is unnecessary.


----------



## terredepomme

I can't remember which novel it was, but in a French novel I've read a character says something like "c'est en américain." So it's not confined to the translation issue; not so much nowadays, but the word américain was used even in daily speech to designate AmE.
So the thing is, as I have already explained, French people were not used to seperating the concept of anglais(people) and the anglais(language). At least the older people were back in the days, probably. Also consider the fact that the French still refer to the British (erroneously) as the Anglais instead of Britanniques unlike in the anglosphere where one would always say "British English" and almost never "English English." Hence all the more confusion. So they just used this word to avoid confusion, and this misusage just got stuck with time. That's all.
As for other languages like Austrian German or Mexican Spanish, I'll just say that they never were really significant in France so they never got a chance to become "exceptions."


----------



## timpeac

CapnPrep said:


> Then the term _anglais_/_English_ is already inaccurate, since languages other than English are spoken in England. What to do?


Specious argument, as I suspect you know, since English is a recognised language and American isn't. English as a language doesn't claim to be restricted to a country called England. This is irrelevant in criticising the need to denominate the language spoken by people in a different geographical area with a new name just because they are in a different geographical area. Well, just specious as I said earlier.


CapnPrep said:


> I am a speaker of English. If a French person asks me if I speak _anglais_, I say yes. I am a speaker of American English. If a French speaker asks me if I speak _américain_, I say yes. But if I understand you correctly, your response would be to take offense and inform them that this second question is "nonsense at best, and presumptuous at worst". But is it really up to you, a speaker of British English, to decide how I should view my own speech?


You're confusing where the conversation is starting there. In the first case a French person asks you if you speak English. In the second a French person asks you if you speak _américain_. Your reaction as a native speaker to those questions is your own. Mine is that it is - well see my list above. If you would prefer to say spontaneously that you speak "American", then that's your right. If someone asks you which language you speak and you reply "American" then that makes you odd, but your right nonetheless. Irrelevant in examining if the _French_ question "tu parles américain ?" is correct or not.


CapnPrep said:


> In normal French usage, the adjective formed from a geographical name, when used as a masculine singular noun, refers to what the people in that geographical area speak. Whether this is understood to be a separate language or a dialect/variety of a larger language is determined by context and world knowledge and is in no way predictable from the grammar alone. The TLF, for example, defines _américain_ as a "_parler anglais_", while _anglais_ is defined as a "_langue_". (I know, you don't care what the dictionary says. )


As you say so well with the "" this is proof by French dictionary. Pass the salt - I think we need a pinch of it.



CapnPrep said:


> Languages develop richer terminology for things that are more salient etc---


Again this is specious. Yes, I'm not blind to why the French do this with the English spoken in the USA and not that spoken in the Bahamas - doesn't make it correct nonetheless.




CapnPrep said:


> Yes, many terms exist; each one of them, taken individually, is unnecessary.


But only one of them has so many problems attached to it.


----------



## CapnPrep

timpeac said:


> This is irrelevant in criticising the need to denominate the language spoken by people in a different geographical area with a new name just because they are in a different geographical area.


… and because they speak differently. Perhaps only a bit differently, but enough to make _américain_/"American English" a concept worth having a term for.


timpeac said:


> Yes, I'm not blind to why the French do this with the English spoken in  the USA and not that spoken in the Bahamas - doesn't make it correct  nonetheless.


It doesn't make it incorrect, either.


timpeac said:


> As you say so well with the "" this is proof by French dictionary.


Whereas you are providing proof by what? Dogged repetition?


----------



## timpeac

CapnPrep said:


> … and because they speak differently. Perhaps only a bit differently, but enough to make _américain_/"American English" a concept worth having a term for.
> You're confusing what language the conversation is in. Nowhere did I say I would ever say "I speak American" in English. I would say _Je parle américain_ in French.
> Whereas you are providing proof by what? Dogged repetition?



On iPhone now so not able to reply easily with quotes. Answering above in order -

- irrelevant. No one said there shouldn't be a different term. It's the term chosen that's the problem. 

- then what are you talking about? I'm not commenting on how you, an American, reply to that French question. The point of the thread isn't what you would reply to such a question but about the question itself. Indeed, you'd be speaking good French if you did say je parle américain, I'd expect nothing less given your point of view. It's clear that you have no problem with this question - doesn't stop others not liking it and explaining why. 

- not sure what you mean here. I'm answering your points. Not aware of doggedly repeating myself but if I am it must be that you're doggedly repeating your arguments.

Ps - just noticed how often phones incorrectly replace spelling - tried to correct but if I've missed one please don't assume it's a spelling mistake of mine!!


----------



## CapnPrep

timpeac said:


> The point of the thread isn't what you would reply to such a question but about the question itself. It's clear that you have no problem with this question - doesn't stop others not liking it and explaining why.


If you don't like the term _américain_, fine. You don't even have to explain why. But your position in this thread goes well beyond your personal opinion. You have claimed that the word _américain _is formally invalid, because its very grammatical form implies the existence of an American language. But in reality it implies no such thing. You have objected to _américain_ in normative terms ("wrong", "incorrect"); such judgments require an appeal to some linguistic authority, but you refuse to acknowledge the authority of French and bilingual dictionaries, which all contradict you. So I am still waiting for some justification of your statements, or an admission that all you wanted to say from the beginning was "I don't like it".


----------



## LMorland

CapnPrep said:


> You have claimed that the word _américain _is formally invalid, because its very grammatical form implies the existence of an American language. But in reality it implies no such thing.


CapnPrep, simply because French dictionaries state that _américain _can (among a multitude of other meanings) mean "English spoken in America" does not mean that it is an accurate way to refer to American English.  Dictionaries, as you very well know, follow usage, and the term _américain _has become a part of French usage now.  There's no denying it.

One can still wish to proscribe it, however!  

The point is, as Tim has made more than once, _it's not up to other countries to decide how a foreign people call their official language.  _How about if I started saying, "Oh, I'm going to Vienna/Montevideo/Christchurch, so I'm going to study Austrian/Uruguayan/New Zealandish."  A French person saying _je vais étudier l'américain _sounds just as ridiculous to me.  {In fact, on one of my first visits to Paris, back in the 80s  (well before I moved there), I saw a poster near Beaubourg offering lessons in "American." It struck me as so outlandish that I took a photo of it.}

Further, as I have pointed out earlier, this French practice of choosing their own name for the language spoken by the majority of (but by no means all) residents of the United States actually causes confusion amongst French people.  See my post #22.  This confusion even hurts employment opportunities for Americans, because many French assume that they are not competent to teach or translate English.  They draw this conclusion, naturally enough, from the fact that they use a different name for what we speak in the U.S., _even though we ourselves refer to our language as "English". _

Finally, you cited the CNTRL.  Here's another definition on the same page:





> *1.* _LING._ _Langues américaines._ Ensemble des langues parlées par les autochtones du continent américain.


Which leads us to an ancillary  problem.  The  term "America" refers to the continents of North and South America.  The language spoken by the majority of people on these continents is not English!


----------



## Istriano

terredepomme said:


> unlike in the anglosphere where one would always say "British English" and almost never "English English."



In the US, many people say '''the English accent''.


----------



## JamesM

Istriano said:


> In the US, many people say '''the English accent''.



And your point is...?


----------



## JeanDeSponde

timpeac said:


> As I said very early on in this thread, it's not for foreign speakers to decide the subsets of another language.


This is exactly where your "language nerve" is misleading you. This thread has amply proved that we are not subsetting languages, we are adding civilization to language information.
If you read _traduit de l'américain_ as "american is a language", then your French is weak here. You read the text and ignore the subtext.
When I read _French fries, French Letter, French kiss, Pardon my French_, I can read the subtext, and I don't complain that you see us as a bunch of potato-eating people prone to weird sex while uttering dirty words!
And I don't complain either that you are using "French something" wrongly, though foreign speakers should not decide about French issues...


LMorland said:


> Mon vieil ami, JdS, I think that you misunderstand me. [...] I have never found the French to be presumptuous.


Yet the words _presumptuous / presumptuousness_ have been used very often in this thread. I can understand why you think we are wrong with _américain_, but why _presumptuous_?


----------



## Hulalessar

JeanDeSponde said:


> This thread has amply proved that we are not subsetting languages, we are adding civilization to language information.



Possibly, but the the question is: are you doing it consistently and if not, why not?

The evidence from this thread so far is that this desire to "add civilisation" only applies when the original work is written in English by an American. If that is the case, it is, as I said, interesting to speculate why.

What follows may lead to accusations of national stereotyping, but I shall risk it.

A few years before the French Revolution Antoine de Rivarol famously said in an essay: "Ce qui n'est pas clair n'est pas français". Less often quoted are the words that followed: "Ce qui n'est pas clair est encore anglais, italien, grec ou latin." He also argued that French grammar followed "la logique naturelle à tous les hommes". It is all risible nonsense, but I fear the attitude is still prevalent. If anyone objects I refer them to the words of Maurice Druon of the Académie Française who as recently as 2007 said: "L'italien est la langue des chansons, l'allemand est bon pour la philosophie et l'anglais pour la poésie. Le français est une langue plus précise et rigoureuse." He may have been be a little less dismissive than Antoine de Rivarol, but it is still nonsense.

However, if for a moment we assume that French is "precise and rigorous" we can ask if precision and rigour is being achieved. I do not think it is, not only because of the inconsistency, but also because a distinction is being made that is only partly valid and potentially misleading since it is quite possible for American and British writers to produce lengthy texts where it is impossible to determine the nationality of the author.

So, I think we can legitimately ask what is going on here. Is it simply one of those things that has come about for no real reason? If that is the case it does not need to be justified. However, if there is some logic behind it then the three questions I posed above need to be answered.


----------



## CapnPrep

LMorland said:


> The point is, as Tim has made more than once, _it's not up to other countries to decide how a foreign people call their official language._


The question is, where do you see this happening? French speakers can settle upon _américain_ or _yankee_ or _hotdog-et-baseballien _to refer to American English in French; this has absolutely no consequences for Americans and other English speakers (unless of course they happen to be speaking French, but even then they have alternatives). If you do not care to give a name to the variety of English spoken in the US, the community of French speakers is not forcing you to. If you do care to, no one is forcing you to call it "American" in English to parallel the French _américain_. If you catch a French speaker saying "American" in English, you can feel free to correct them or take a photo of them or otherwise be satisfied that their English is outlandish and wrong. You are right: They don't get to decide for you. But you don't get to decide for them either. In fact, no one gets to decide for anyone. The choice is between communicating successfully within established usages (which are not required to be the same from one language to the next), or being uncooperative, frustrated, and misunderstood.


----------



## Hulalessar

CapnPrep said:


> The question is, where do you see this happening? French speakers can settle upon _américain_ or _yankee_ or _hotdog-et-baseballien _to refer to American English in French; this has absolutely no consequences for Americans and other English speakers (unless of course they happen to be speaking French, but even then they have alternatives). If you do not care to give a name to the variety of English spoken in the US, the community of French speakers is not forcing you to. If you do care to, no one is forcing you to call it "American" in English to parallel the French _américain_. If you catch a French speaker saying "American" in English, you can feel free to correct them or take a photo of them or otherwise be satisfied that their English is outlandish and wrong. You are right: They don't get to decide for you. But you don't get to decide for them either. In fact, no one gets to decide for anyone. The choice is between communicating successfully within established usages (which are not required to be the same from one language to the next), or being uncooperative, frustrated, and misunderstood.



I can go with you quite some way on that, but I think we have to ask: Is there a limit?

How about this?

French speakers draw a line on a map of England dividing it into north and south. They decide that in French all the dwellings south of the line are to be called "maisons" and all the dwellings north of the line are to be called "chaumières". Whilst I am prepared to concede that the French can do this if they wish, I still have to point out that they may be giving different names to identical dwellings.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Hulalessar said:


> The evidence from this thread so far is that [it] only applies when the original work is written in English by an American. If that is the case, it is, as I said, interesting to speculate why.


It has already been speculated and answered many times in this thread, along with each of your three questions...

And yes, what followed was good plain stereotyping - I hope for you it was a joke.
We believe in Druon not more than you believe in G.W. Bush:


> "Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican."
> George W. Bush, declining to take reporters' questions during a photo op with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, April 21, 2001


----------



## CapnPrep

Hulalessar said:


> I can go with you quite some way on that, but I think we have to ask: Is there a limit?


The limit is also determined by what the speakers of the language collectively perceive to be useful. During the Cold War, the distinction between _astronauts_ and _cosmonauts_ was felt to be useful in English, but the Martians probably only had one word for them [Off-topic question moved to Martian Only forum]

Similarly, what's the difference between a hurricane and a typhoon, and do we have the "right" to use two different terms in English if most of the languages spoken where these things actually happen make no such distinction?


----------



## JamesM

CapnPrep said:


> The limit is also determined by what the speakers of the language collectively perceive to be useful. During the Cold War, the distinction between _astronauts_ and _cosmonauts_ was felt to be useful in English, but the Martians probably only had one word for them [Off-topic question moved to Martian Only forum]
> 
> Similarly, what's the difference between a hurricane and a typhoon, and do we have the "right" to use two different terms in English if most of the languages spoken where these things actually happen make no such distinction?



Of course we have the right.  At the same time, others have the right to point out the oddness of it, particularly if we claim it is an example of our precision and increased accuracy while we still call earthquakes "earthquakes" no matter they occur on the planet.

The strangest thing to me about the discussion is the resistance to recognizing the exception of "l'américain" as a language designator, just as "typhoon" is an exception in labeling weather phenomena.  There may be nothing behind the exception, but it's still an exception, an oddity.  To claim its an example of precision in the face of no similar precision in other areas makes the whole precision argument suspect.

If someone asked why we had two words to describe hurricanes/typhoons I could explain that it has to do with location and that it's a matter of precision.  If that person then asked me why we don't have a similar distinction in English for earthquakes, it would be a valid question, in my opinion.  It points to an inconsistency in our labeling.

Add to that the problem of misunderstanding the arbitary distinction of typhoon/hurricanes leading to people concluding "well, you only understand typhoons; this was a hurricane" and you get a closer parallel to what we're discussing here, in my opinion.

Like others here, I have had the experience of someone from France saying, "No, this is a question about English.  You speak American and I want to learn English."


----------



## CapnPrep

JamesM said:


> At the same time, others have the right to point out the oddness of it, particularly if we claim it is an example of our precision and increased accuracy while we still call earthquakes "earthquakes" no matter they occur on the planet.


A terminological system that has several words for hurricane-type events but only one for earthquakes is, in fact, more precise than a system with only one word for hurricanes and one word for earthquakes. It is inconsistent/uneven/partial, but so what? Does that mean the language should be required to enrich its earthquake terminology, or forced to simplify its hurricane terminology? Or should we just recognize that language is inconsistent/uneven/partial? We have distinct words for male and female chickens and sheep and a few other animals. This is of course terribly unfair to crocodiles and scorpions and cuttlefish, but is there really anything to complain about here? 

If someone says "I'm allergic to chicken, so I bought a roasting hen instead," there is certainly a problem, but is the solution to conclude that the English term _hen_ is unnecessarily opaque and should be eliminated in favor of the transparent expression _female chicken_, or to say that this person just needs to learn English better?


----------



## JamesM

CapnPrep said:


> A terminological system that has several words for hurricane-type events but only one for earthquakes is, in fact, more precise than a system with only one word for hurricanes and one word for earthquakes.



In what way? If the hurricanes themselves are the same and we are designating them one thing or another based solely on location, how is it more precise?  You could argue that it lets us know which hemisphere it occurred in but if it leads to the idea that they are different types of events then it is not more precise.  By introducing the labels you have decreased its precision, unless you're equating "precision" with quantity of labels.  I don't think they are one and the same.

If I call it a chicken if it's in the front yard but a hen if it's in the back, that is not more precise.  That is confusing location with identity.  That is not clarity of thought.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

JamesM said:


> The strangest thing to me about the discussion is the resistance to recognizing the exception of "l'américain" as a language designator [...].  To claim its an example of precision in the face of no similar precision in other areas makes the whole precision argument suspect.


Two pennies (pence?) have not dropped, it seems.
1st penny - "as a language designator" is where you're wrong.
The (intended) precision is not in the language, it is in the background - language _cum_ civilization.
We are of course wrong about the language - but we are (roughly) right about the country.
2nd penny - as to why "américain" and not e.g. "australien", you fail to grasp the sheer volume of _American_ material (movies, books, soaps, music etc.) we _choose_ to be confronted with vs. Australian, New-Zealand or whatever. You have decided to ignore the "a civilization of its own" aspect, I don't have to apologize for your ignorance.
If the French who don't know anything about your language were the same people responsible for _traduit de l'américain_, I would agree with you.
But this is not the case. Professional translators (most of them in love with your language) are perfectly aware of the issue, and the fact that _other_ French people think American and English are separate languages is not at stake - they have no voice here.
If _traduit de l'américain_ is misleading our ignoramuses, OK, we will change it - once you've stopped using _French kiss_ or _pardon my French_, which are misleading plain US citizens into seeing us as swearing sex perverts...


----------



## JamesM

Even as "language_ cum _civilization" it is an anomaly, JeanDeSponde.  Giving that answer doesn't explain the anomaly, but we've had this discussion before so I don't think there's any headway to be made there.  Can you name another designation in common use that is "language _ cum _civilization"?



> If traduit de l'américain is misleading our ignoramuses, OK, we will change it - once you've stopped using French kiss or pardon my French, which are misleading plain US citizens into seeing us as swearing sex perverts...



  Oh come on now, your countrymen have gotten a lot of mileage out of that stereotype...    If you have to be stereotyped, at least it's something sexy. "Sexy American tourist" sounds like an oxymoron.


----------



## merquiades

Well, 129 posts and we haven't gotten anywhere.  I think it's clear the French are not going to change their "Américain" any more than we're going to stop saying French fries, despite the exasperation of Belgians who deplore that their national dish (see the active thread on nationalities in the culture café) could be considered French.  If anything "Américain" is more widely used than ever.
I personally hate it and it's one of my pet peeves and if I get a chance I let people know, see any of the posts I have made earlier on. Is it merely an ellipsis of English from the expression "Anglais Américain"?  Probably...  I won't question it. How else are they going to translate "Américain" in bilingual dictionaries anyway?  They are certainly not going to invent the term "American language" in English.  I do think it's more than that though, and the fact that "Anglais" is missing form the "Américain" does skew perceptions, sometimes slightly, sometimes widely. I have witnessed it. In the least it makes people more aware of the differences than the vast similarities, since it is the same language. 
Is that real English or Americain? I usually ask them to define the difference and see what they come up with. Yet, I'm willing to admit it works out sometimes to my advantage. A lawyer once said to me: "Je voudrais apprendre l'Américain et certainement pas l'Anglais".
Yes, I cringe when I see "Apprenez l'Américain sans peine" or "Traduit de l'Américain", but in the end.. what can you do about it? Have a laugh.
Jean, isn't it true you all are sex perverts?


----------



## CapnPrep

JamesM said:


> You could argue that it lets us know which hemisphere it occurred in but if it leads to the idea that they are different types of events then it is not more precise.


If someone thinks hurricanes and typhoons are different types of events, they don't know the meanings of the words and/or they have an incomplete knowledge of this aspect of the world. Speakers are fully capable of associating two distinct terms to entities of the same type. English doesn't use the expressions _cobra snake_ and _adder snake_, but you are still supposed to know that cobras and adders are both, in fact, snakes. As a speaker of the language, you are expected to know the meanings of commonly used terms, even if this meaning is not spoon-fed to you.

_Américain_ is a common term in French. As a French speaker, you are expected to know that _américain_ is a type of _anglais_, even if the name doesn't say so explicitly. Insisting on the systematic use of a longer, more explicit term is like saying that _panda bear_ should never be shortened to _panda_ because someone somewhere might fail to learn what it means. Or that _polar bear_ should be expanded to _North polar bear_ because the current, imprecise name leads some English speakers into thinking that they live at both poles.


JamesM said:


> If I call it a chicken if it's in the front yard but a hen if it's in  the back, that is not more precise.  That is confusing location with  identity.


If you have some reason to care whether your bird is in the front yard or the back, then the location becomes part of its identity, and you may very well come up with two distinct terms for it. Your terminological system may be unusual/unexpected and require explanation, and even after explanation someone else may fail to grasp the meanings of the terms or assume that they mean something else or insist that you can't possibly mean that, why in the world would you want to say that, or that it's a fine system but they would prefer if you used different terms etc. etc. That doesn't change the fact that it is a useful and precise system for you.


----------



## L'irlandais

CapnPrep said:


> ...Similarly, what's the difference between a hurricane and a typhoon, and do we have the "right" to use two different terms in English if most of the languages spoken where these things actually happen make no such distinction?


Just as the French are perfectly entitled to their publishing practices, then why not two words to define a subtle difference in tropical cyclones origins?





> The fact that the Spaniards introduced the word to the English language is the reason that our word_ "hurricane" generally refers to tropical cyclones that have their origin in the Caribbean or Atlantic_. When the same type of storm has its origin in the Pacific, it is known as a typhoon (originally a Greek word), or tifón in Spanish. (There is a slight difference in the way the way the storms are categorized in the languages. In Spanish, a tifón generally is considered to be a huracán that forms in the Pacific, while in English "hurricane" and "typhoon" are considered to be separate types of storms, even though *the only difference is where they form*.)
> 
> source


----------



## Hulalessar

L'irlandais said:


> Just as the French are perfectly entitled to their publishing practices...



Indeed they are. The point is that it is a publishing practice rather than use of language comparable with, say, dividing up the colour spectrum in different ways. It is more comparable to the practice of considering a horse to be a year older every 1st January irrespective of when it was actually born.

The instructive, if not mildly amusing, thing about this thread is watching people in a hole digging themselves further in. It is not so much that they are trying to justify something that is unjustifiable, but that they are going to such lengths to justify something that really needs no justification.


----------



## CapnPrep

Hulalessar, do you think that the people who say they find _traduit de l'américain _offensive, annoying, illiterate, presumptuous, weird, naive, inaccurate, nationalistic, nonsense, wrong, … would be satisfied with the response "It's just a publishing practice that exists for no real reason and really needs no justification"? I doubt it, especially since I don't think that this statement is true. Publishers print this expression on book title pages in part because it corresponds to everyday French usage, and many posters in this thread object more generally to this usage, i.e. using _américain _as a noun to refer to what Americans speak/write (which happens to be a kind of English).


----------



## TitTornade

My harrap's English-French dictionary has two prefaces : one in English that indicates some distinctions between "American English" and "British English" and the other in French that indicates the same distinction between "l'américain" and "l'anglais britannique"... _C'est l'usage_ !

Whatever the psychoanalysis of French customs, minds, way of thinking, you won't change "l'usage" which make the correctness....


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

This truly is the thread that never dies.


----------



## Istriano

TitTornade said:


> you won't change "l'usage" which make the correctness....



But many Spanish, Italian (and other) newspapers use *carioca *as a general synonym for (any) Brazilian which is ugly.
*Carioca *is a person living in the city of Rio de Janeiro, it should not be used as a synonym for any other Brazilian.
We do have an alternative form for Brazil which is _tupiniquim_, so use this form instead, if you want to use a native American word.


Incorrect usage hurts our feelings. We don't call the Spanish: _madrileños , _Argentinians _porteños _or Italians _romanos_.

*'traduit de l'américain' *looks so inelegant and unsophisticated.



Outsider said:


> By the way, I'd love to know whether they label books in Canadian French as _traduit du quebecois_, too.


----------



## CapnPrep

Istriano said:


> *Carioca *is a person living in the city of Rio de Janeiro, it should not be used as a synonym for any other Brazilian.


This is the opposite situation: Other languages/cultures failing to understand/enforce a distinction that is important in your language/culture. Other examples have already been brought up in this thread: calling Scottish people "English", calling Canadians "Americans", calling Ireland "British", saying that people from Maastricht speak "_Holländisch_", saying that Belgians speak "Belgisch", etc. All of these deserve — and probably already have — their own threads in CD, but they are not particularly relevant here, unless what we're doing in this thread is simply listing a bunch of things that, for whatever reason, "they" should stop saying about "us". (In which case, Pedro y La Torre, this is only the beginning…)


----------



## L'irlandais

CapnPrep said:


> ... do you think that the people who say they find _traduit de l'américain _offensive, annoying, illiterate, presumptuous, weird, naive, inaccurate, nationalistic, nonsense, wrong, … would be satisfied with the response "It's just a publishing practice that exists for no real reason and really needs no justification"?...


CapnPrep,
Not wishing to curtail this discussion, but...  what does it matter what any Americian (or anybody else) feels about this particular French usage?  Ok this discussion thread lets them express their opinion, and that's fine, they're entitled to their opinion.  However as TitTornade pointed out that's not going to change the way French people use "traduit de l'américain".  Next time somebody gets upset by it, just do your best gallic shrug and say "C'est comme ça."  Point, barre, à la ligne.


----------



## JamesM

Isn't that precisely the reason you started the discussion? 

From your opening post:



			
				L'irlandais said:
			
		

> So I would like to know what other people think of this: what does 'américain' mean to francophones, what connotations does the term have, and why do you think it is used? (The books never say traduit de l’anglais américain.) And what do Americans think? Are you offended, flattered or indifferent? And do such distinctions appear in other countries?



Be careful what you ask for.


----------



## L'irlandais

Aupick said:


> ...So I would like to know what other people think of this: what does 'américain' mean to francophones, what connotations does the term have, and why do you think it is used? (The books never say _traduit de l’anglais américain_.) And what do Americans think? Are you offended, flattered or indifferent? And do such distinctions appear in other countries?...


Not guilty your Honour.  It were Aupick, wot done it.


----------



## Istriano

I think the French are doing this on purpose, they want to separate English (or make it look this way) by breaking it into countless number of dialects (divide et impera).
They want English weak, and French strong. It's called jealousy. 


"traduit du brésilien" coelho site:fr  *43* hits
"traduit du portugais " coelho site:fr *34,300* hits

 They sure seem to like translating Coelho from Portuguese, rather than from Brazilian.
Double standards here?


----------



## CapnPrep

Istriano said:


> They sure seem to like translating Coelho from Portuguese, rather than from Brazilian.
> Double standards here?


I gather from your previous message (#31) that if publishers always used _traduit du brésilien_, you would also be unhappy. The French just can't do anything right, can they?


Istriano said:


> I think the French are doing this on purpose,  they want to separate English (or make it look this way) by breaking it  into countless number of dialects (divide et impera).
> They want English weak, and French strong. It's called jealousy.


Again,  you can't have it both ways. Do they inconsistently and anomalously  reserve this special treatment for American English alone [a recurring complaint in this thread], or do they  purposefully break English up into a countless number of dialects?


Aupick said:


> So I would like to know what other people think of this: […] why do you think [_américain_] is used? […] And what do Americans think? Are you offended, flattered or indifferent?


According to the CD forum guidelines, these parts of Aupick's original post should have been ignored. This forum is not "a place to advocate or promote personal viewpoints about _the way things ought to be_", and "responses must contain more than personal opinions".


----------



## Jasmine tea

I have been following this thread lately. And it has been making me think quite a bit, wondering what the true issue was, here. Thinking about why it was such a major drama that a one and only language shall be seen as two different languages (and named accordingly) or not. 

This morning I realized that each time I had faced this kind of issue it was when one country speaking one language broke into two countries. Each of these two countries happened to evolve in its own way and the language spoken as well. Sometimes, voluntarily the languages where differentiated. 

I will take an example a Croatian friend had explained to me in details some years ago. When the ex-Yugoslavian communities first started to want to break Yugoslavia into several countries (as it had been in the past…), their first move was to work on the revival and differentiation of their own languages. Therefore papers started to be published in what was, for example, pure Croatian rather than Yugoslavian language. If the police stopped a car and the driver used the word passport, they would pretend not to understand, saying that they did not speak Serb language and that they recommended the use of the Croatian equivalent of the word passport…

And now, with regard to this type of examples I am wondering why Americans are not very proud that American English shall be called “américain” by the French, who in this way recognize their full independence and existence as a separate country… As we all know, of course, the French were very willing to see the Americans achieve their independence, back then, “fighting” the English in some ways.

I don't know if what I say here will make sense to you... Sorry for my awkward English.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

The core of this thread is "there is no such thing as the _American_ language; so those French are wrong, whatever they say."
Let me discuss this, by drawing a parallel with the word _race_ (F & E) taken in its "genetics" meaning.
Genetically speaking, most people know that we all share the same genes (one race), or that each of us is a race of its own (we're all different) - depending on where you place the boundary.
The concept of "black race", asian race", "caucasian race" is known to be as groundless that of an "American language".

Though one can easily find in US newspapers such statements as:


> ...These articles and too many others have failed to take account of the  fact that nearly half of the Hispanic population is white in every  social sense of this term; 48 percent of so-called Hispanics classified  themselves as solely white, giving only one race to the census taker.  Although all reports routinely note that ''Hispanics can be of any  race,'' they almost always go on to neglect this critical fact, treating  Hispanics as if they were, in fact, a sociological race comparable to  ''whites'' and ''blacks.''



Are Americans wrong about _races_, as we French are about _language_s?...

No. _Race _is versatile, and can be used in biology or sociology (or census) with different subtexts.
Many French don't understand the way races are distinguished in the US; they usually lack the subtext.

And _traduit de l'américain_ is genetically wrong (Americans speak English), but sociologically right.
Yes, it may mislead some into thinking that American is not English: just like speaking of _Hispanic race, Caucasian race_ or _black race _can lead to other unwanted problems.


----------



## Hulalessar

I was initially persuaded that this was a case of one language making a distinction that other languages may not make and that on that account it ought not be challenged. On reflection, I am not convinced that it is the case, though I am open to be persuaded that it is. In English (as indeed in French) we make a distinction between "watch" and "clock"; some languages do not and where the distinction exists it has arisen without anyone deciding to make the distinction. The question is whether the use of "américain" to mean "anglais américain" simply emerged or was deliberate.

If the distinction emerged then the answer to any criticism is simply to say: "This is how it is. We are not quite sure how it happened."

If the distinction is deliberate the French are still entitled to stick to it, but ought to be prepared to offer an explanation of why the distinction is made and justify the inconsistencies that have been highlighted.

The feeling that I think is coming out from some posters is that since there is a lot of justification sloshing about it sort of follows (though not necessarily logically) that the distinction is deliberate. If you form that impression the next step is to ask why.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Hulalessar said:


> If the distinction is deliberate the French are still entitled to stick to it, but ought to be prepared to offer an explanation of why the distinction is made and justify the inconsistencies that have been highlighted.


Hulalessar, I suggest you read the whole thread at least once before demanding explanations and justifications that have already been given...


----------



## Hulalessar

JeanDeSponde said:


> Hulalessar, I suggest you read the whole thread at least once before demanding explanations and justifications that have already been given...



I did that! I failed to find the explanations and justifications convincing.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Then simply say that you're not convinced by them, not that we "ought to be prepared to offer an explanation [and justification]" which sounds like we dodged the question from the prosecution.


----------



## Hulalessar

JeanDeSponde said:


> Then simply say that you're not convinced by them, not that we "ought to be prepared to offer an explanation [and justification]" which sounds like we dodged the question from the prosecution.



J'accuse!

You have not answered the questions except by answering questions that were not asked and employing diversionary tactics.


----------



## JamesM

As I understand it, the explanation is that l'américain is both a sociological distinction as well as a distinction in language, that l'américain is the exception to the rule in French and that we should be honored by this distinction because it recognizes both our culture and our language in one word.

Have I got it right?


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Hulalessar, I have answered the question many times, e.g. here.
I fail to see why this post #127 would be "answering questions that were not asked and employing diversionary tactics". Can you be more specific?
(And, JamesM, where did I say / inferred that you should be "honored" by this "distinction"...?)

You have decided that 


Hulalessar said:


> "Traduit de l'américain" is no more than one  of the more absurd manifestations of French nationalism.


"Nationalism": _la messe est dite_.
You can't be convinced, just like some of my fellow countrymen can't be convinced that Mc Donald's is *not* part of a US plot to destroy our world...


----------



## CapnPrep

JamesM said:


> As I understand it, the explanation is that l'américain is both a sociological distinction as well as a distinction in language, that l'américain is the exception to the rule in French and that we should be honored by this distinction because it recognizes both our culture and our language in one word.
> 
> Have I got it right?


No. The explanation is that, in accordance with the rule in French, _américain_ refers to what people in _Amérique_ speak. You know this as "American English". French also allows the expression _anglais américain_, which is more formal than _américain_ but means exactly the same thing. The expression _anglais américain_ is more explicit and its meaning is more transparent, and it is certainly preferable in many situations, but it does not follow that _américain_ is incorrect. The fact that _américain_ gets special treatment by French-language publishers when they indicate "_Traduit de …_" is:

not something that has actually been verified in this thread; in fact it is clear that other examples such as _traduit du brésilien_ can be found, in lesser numbers 
not surprising, given the status of English with respect to other languages of the world and that of the USA with respect to other languages of the world 
not known to be motivated by some deliberate, industry-wide consensus, so we are all free to speculate about each publisher's secret reasons, from the most innocent/practical/unthinking to the most cynical/sycophantic/nationalistic/calculating (or we could actually ask them, as the author of the article I linked to in #36 did, but why would they tell us their real reasons, and why should I care, since it doesn't matter what their motivations/intentions are, I still have *my feelings*! ) 
not actually worth getting this worked up about (either positively or negatively) 
not likely to change anytime soon, and certainly not in response to complaints from outside of the French-speaking/French-reading community.


----------



## JamesM

I was actually hoping for a response from one of the French contributors to the thread.  I think my summary does match what JeanDeSponde has been saying, for example.


----------



## CapnPrep

JamesM said:


> I was actually hoping for a response from one of the French contributors to the thread.


Then I guess you should actually have specified that. Feel free to delete my response if you find nothing useful in it.


----------



## JamesM

I didn't say that I found nothing useful in it.  I just don't find it to match the explanation being given by the French speakers on this thread.

I think it _has_ been established that something like "traduit du brésilien" is so rare as to have no reasonable comparison to this topic.

As far as I know, other variants of English are not commonly called by their country's name: l'australien, le canadien, etc.  even though these variants of English also differ from British English to some degree.  That is what I meant by "exception".   

I'm not imparting any evil intentions here, despite your protests.  I'm simply pointing out the exception that the French don't say "Il parle canadien", for example, but they do say "Il parle américain". 

Apparently these two things (the exception and the reason for the exception) are too entangled at this point to be able to talk about one without assuming we're talking about the other.   It _is_ an exception in the sense that all other speakers of English "parle anglais" but Americans "parle américain".  This seems to be a point that cannot be acknowledged.  It's a simple observable fact.  The reason for it is a separate issue but it _is_ an exception, a break in a pattern.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

OK, my two cents then.

Yes, _traduit de l'américain_ is not only about language.

No, I did not say it was an exception to the rule [that is, vs. _traduit de l'anglais (Etats-Unis)_ as with other languages], as we also say _traduit du hollandais, du brésilien_ etc.
_You_ said (#59) that those other occurences are so few that they should not be considered; I still consider that the volume of American material is so large that it is not surprising _traduit de l'américain _has acquired a status of its own - simple snowball mechanics.

And I didn't try to butter you up by pretending you "should be honored" - that would really be presumptuous...

I fully agree with Capnprep when he says


> we are all free to speculate about each publisher's secret reasons, from  the most innocent/practical/unthinking to the most  cynical/sycophantic/nationalistic/calculating


The point is, everybody can pretend that a given occurence is caused by nationalism, presumptuousness, plain ignorance or whatever, but that could hardly apply to _all_ occurences by every translators / editors. You may find one nationalistic, ignorant professional translator (?); that would not make them all guilty.

James, do you really think that a significant number of _professional translator_ could believe that US authors do not speak English..? Honestly...?
Then _traduit de l'américain _is either what I say, or a conspiracy...!


----------



## JamesM

JeanDeSponde said:


> OK, my two cents then.
> 
> Yes, _traduit de l'américain_ is not only about language.
> 
> No, I did not say it was an exception to the rule [that is, vs. _traduit de l'anglais (Etats-Unis)_ as with other languages], as we also say _traduit du hollandais, du brésilien_ etc.



I'm sorry.  Let me be more clear.  It is an exception for English-speaking countries.



> _You_ said (#59) that those other occurences are so few that they should not be considered; I still consider that the volume of American material is so large that it is not surprising _traduit de l'américain _has acquired a status of its own - simple snowball mechanics.



OK... and we still have the question why American is different from all other countries.  If it's also culture it seems odd to designate only one English-speaking country outside the UK to have a culture that calls for such a distinction.  The Australian culture is significally different from the British culture.



> And I didn't try to butter you up by pretending you "should be honored" - that would really be presumptuous...



You're right.  I was wrong about that.    I apologize.  I must have picked that up from someone else's post.




> I fully agree with Capnprep when he says
> 
> The point is, everybody can pretend that a given occurence is caused by nationalism, presumptuousness, plain ignorance or whatever, but that could hardly apply to _all_ occurences by every translators / editors. You may find one nationalistic, ignorant professional translator (?); that would not make them all guilty.
> 
> James, do you really think that a significant number of _professional translator_ could believe that US authors do not speak English..? Honestly...?



No, I don't, not at all.  I would not be surprised, though, if they thought American English was different enough to be considered a different language from British English.  There are differences, to be sure (the English Only forum is full of discussions about them), but it is fundamentally the same language.  I also think we're talking not only about publishers here but the general use of "américain" in French to designate the language spoken in the U.S.



> Then _traduit de l'américain _is either what I say, or a conspiracy...!



No, I don't think it's that black and white and I don't think we'll actually have a chance at discussion if we frame things in black and white like that.  It appears to me that there is a lot being added to what I'm saying.  I guess that's that entanglement I spoke of.

I'd be happy if any French speaker or anyone living in France who is participating on this thread would simply acknowledge that the answer to the question "Quelle langue parle-t-on en/au  _____" for _any_ English-speaking country is "Anglais" in French unless the country is the U.S.   Given that, is that not an exception of one for English-speaking countries?  No conspiracy, no plot, nothing evil... just a linguistic quirk. 

For some reason I don't think that will happen.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

JamesM said:


> I'm sorry.  Let me be more clear.  It is an exception for English-speaking countries.
> [...]
> OK... and we still have the question why American is different from all other countries.  If it's also culture it seems odd to designate only one English-speaking country outside the UK to have a culture that calls for such a distinction.  The Australian culture is significally different from the British culture.


Sheer volume of material...
I can cite two Australian pop groups - but American groups are uncountable (to me). Same for literature.
(Australian folks - don't take it the wrong way. I wouldn't be offended to learn that French musicians & writers are not #1 in Australia...)
Is _traduit de l'américain_ wronger than _Hispanic_, when Spain-originated Hispanics account for 0.000...% of said Hispanics, and _Latino_ = Latinoamericano would be more precise...?


----------



## JamesM

And still no acknowledgement of the linguistic quirk.  It's curious.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

You're back to language, JamesM.
But this is not *only* about language. 
Race is not only about genes, and Hispanic is not only about Spain...


----------



## JamesM

When a French person says "Il parle américain" while he says "Il parle anglais" for all other English speakers it _is_ about language.  Why is this one basic point so difficult to agree on?  That is the most curious thing about this discussion to me.  He certainly isn't saying "He speaks (the American culture)".


----------



## Hulalessar

JamesM said:


> When a French person says "Il parle américain" while he says "Il parle anglais" for all other English speakers it _is_ about language.  Why is this one basic point so difficult to agree on?  That is the most curious thing about this discussion to me.  He certainly isn't saying "He speaks (the American culture)".



Exactly. And equally the words "traduit de..." surely need to be followed by the name of a language, not a culture.


----------



## JamesM

Well, I'm trying not to get into that.  One step at a time.   I'd just like to see us agree that we have a situation where "Il parle" is followed by "anglais" for all countries but the U.S.  If we could even agree on that one point I'd feel like we were making progress in the discussion.


----------



## merquiades

JamesM said:


> When a French person says "Il parle américain" while he says "Il parle anglais" for all other English speakers it _is_ about language.  Why is this one basic point so difficult to agree on?  That is the most curious thing about this discussion to me.  He certainly isn't saying "He speaks (the American culture)".



Fortunately it is possible to say "il parle anglais" even when referring to an American  In my opinion "Américain" has not triumphed yet in general speech by normal people. But maybe word has got around not to use that term with me or else... If someone were to say "il parle américain" he is making a statement mostly about himself, drawing attention to the fact he considers for whatever reason the supposed difference important enough to mention. Why he would do that you have to figure it out, but as an American you'll soon find out. It's about his ideas, his attitudes, his humor, his received ideas of correctness, his experiences, his background, his way of being, his opinions or his jargon...  It's not a neutral thing to say.  Mind you he could have said quite simply "il parle anglais avec un accent américain." "il parle anglais. il est américain, du Mississippi..." whatever.


----------



## JamesM

Thanks, merquiades.  That's useful information.  I wonder if the others who live in France have the same opinion about the phrase "Il parle américain".

I spoke with a friend at work today who lived in France for many years.  I brought up this discussion.  He said, "Yes, of course, they say 'Il parle américain' because the vocabulary is different, some of the grammar is different, the accent is different..." and I said, "Yes, but the same can be said about Australia or South Africa."  He look thoughtful for a moment and said "Yes, I suppose that's true.  That's an interesting point."  I asked him if his experience was that people said "Il parle américain" and he said, "Absolutely!"  So I'm not sure how widespread this use of "américain" is. 

He lived in Paris, if that's any help. (And he is not American, if that has any bearing on the discussion.)


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

JamesM said:


> Thanks, merquiades.  That's useful information.  I wonder if the others who live in France have the same opinion about the phrase "Il parle américain".
> 
> I spoke with a friend at work today who lived in France for many years.  I brought up this discussion.  He said, "Yes, of course, they say 'Il parle américain' because the vocabulary is different, some of the grammar is different, the accent is different..." and I said, "Yes, but the same can be said about Australia or South Africa."  He look thoughtful for a moment and said "Yes, I suppose that's true.  That's an interesting point."  I asked him if his experience was that people said "Il parle américain" and he said, "Absolutely!"  So I'm not sure how widespread this use of "américain" is.
> 
> He lived in Paris, if that's any help. (And he is not American, if that has any bearing on the discussion.)



It's not frequently used in my experience, in fact the only times I have heard it have been in jest.
It's like here when people say they are English, or French. They don't literally mean they're from England or France, they (especially if spoken in a strong québécois accent) mean that is the basis of their ethnic or linguistic heritage.

At first, I found this bizarre; now I'm used to it. Words mean different things to different groups.
You get used to traduit de l'américain too. It's not changing any time soon so it'll just have to be put up with. Point barre.


----------



## CapnPrep

JamesM said:


> Apparently these two things (the exception and the reason for the exception) are too entangled at this point to be able to talk about one without assuming we're talking about the other.   It _is_ an exception in the sense that all other speakers of English "parle anglais" but Americans "parle américain".  This seems to be a point that cannot be acknowledged.  It's a simple observable fact.  The reason for it is a separate issue but it _is_ an exception, a break in a pattern.


Everybody in this thread acknowledges the particular status of _américain_. If people keep trying to tell you the reasons for the exception, it follows logically that they must agree that there is an exception. For example, when JDS says 


JeanDeSponde said:


> as to why "américain" and not e.g. "australien"


he is acknowledging that French speakers commonly use _américain_ and not e.g. _australien_. And when he writes


JeanDeSponde said:


> it is not surprising _traduit de l'américain _has acquired a status of its own


he is saying precisely and explicitly that _traduit de l'américain _has acquired a status of its own. What more do you need to see before you stop coming back with


JamesM said:


> And still no acknowledgement of the linguistic quirk.  It's curious.




If people have seemed reluctant to agree with you explicitly on this point earlier in this thread, it may because they don't wish to validate the language you have used up to now ("anomaly", "oddity", "quirk"), or they disagree with your suggestion that there is some kind of "rule" in French about when the term _anglais_ must be used, and that _américain_ breaks this rule. And if people failed to rally behind you when you wrote


JamesM said:


> The strangest thing to me about the discussion is the resistance to  recognizing the exception of "l'américain" as a language designator,  just as "typhoon" is an exception in labeling weather phenomena.  There  may be nothing behind the exception, but it's still an exception, an  oddity.  To claim its an example of precision in the face of no similar  precision in other areas makes the whole precision argument suspect.


it's not that they question the exceptional status of _américain_, it's that they question the false conclusion that you attempt to draw from this "simple observable fact".


----------



## Barsac

Could we say of somebody : "He speaks texan." ?


----------



## JamesM

CapnPrep said:


> Everybody in this thread acknowledges the particular status of _américain_. If people keep trying to tell you the reasons for the exception, it follows logically that they must agree that there is an exception.



Actually, I can find many examples where people do not acknowledge that its an exception, but I think I've reached the point where I don't think this will go anywhere no matter what is said.  In the same post you quote, JeanDeSponde says, 



> No, I did not say it was an exception to the rule [that is, vs. traduit de l'anglais (Etats-Unis) as with other languages], as we also say traduit du hollandais, du brésilien etc.



The "special status" referred to the quantity of books with "traduit de l'américain", as I read it, not that it was an exception.  Since the conversation isn't progressing, I don't think I'm adding anything by belaboring the point. 



> it's not that they question the exceptional status of américain, it's that they question the false conclusion that you attempt to draw from this "simple observable fact".



I don't think the conclusion is false.  I am still convinced that American English is separated out from all other forms of English, both in the French language and the French mind.  I think the separation is misleading at best. 

Obviously, you think the question has been more than answered, so perhaps I'm a lost cause.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

JamesM said:


> I don't think the conclusion is false.  I am still convinced that American English is separated out from all other forms of English, both in the French language and the French mind.  I think the separation is misleading at best.
> 
> Obviously, you think the question has been more than answered, so perhaps I'm a lost cause.



Well, if this is the case, we English-speakers surely play a role, as we (at least in the UK and Ireland anyway) regularly distinguish between "American", and everything else.

As I've discovered time and again on this forum, Irish English is probably at least as close to AE as it is to BE, but AE is still "the other". This might be down to American power, American exceptionalism, or just the fact that you guys insist on writing differently. Whatever it is, it's just a fact of life, unjustified perhaps, but there nonetheless. Maybe if America is one day no longer a leading influencer on the world, your privileged _traduit de l'américain_ will reach an end.


----------



## L'irlandais

Pedro y La Torre said:


> ...or just the fact that you guys insist on writing differently...


Perhaps it's because English is a complex and subtle language that even today continues to enrich it's vocabulary with words from other cultures.  While Americian, on the other hand, has been slower to accept these changes to it's original 17th century (English) wordbase. 


JamesM said:


> And still no acknowledgement of the linguistic quirk.  It's curious.


I'm disappointed that a WR Moderator could lack objectivity.  I already gave an example of such an occurence in my post #64. "Il parle irlandais" when they mean to say I speak English.  (One and the same for my former work colleagues.  So my personal experience contradicts your position on the matter.) Your answer to my post #64 supports my sig, since you read what you wanted to read in that post #64.  My subsequent post #67 sought to clarify the point, which I felt you had missed.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Let me state this "exception" issue otherwise: there is no exception to the rule, because it is not an exception, and there is no rule.
I'm talking only about _traduit de l'américain_, because this use:


JamesM said:


> When a French person says "Il parle américain"  while he says "Il parle anglais" for all other English speakers it _is_  about language.  Why is this one basic point so difficult to agree on?   That is the most curious thing about this discussion to me.  He  certainly isn't saying "He speaks (the American culture)".


is clearly out of context. Editors & professional translators are not _monsieur tout-le-monde_.
Yes, some (many?) French could say _Il parle américain_; maybe you'll see here a proof of quirkiness, ignorance, presumptuousnes or nationalism; but read those two successive posts from another thread (my underline):


brian said:


> [...] I guess it's just not as cool to say "I'm  English/British."  I guess this is because we both speak (more or less)  the same language, we look the same, everyone is familiar with the British accent, etc., so there's less to distinguish that person from others [...]





brian said:


> I'm sorry...by British I did mean English.  Most  Americans, and unfortunately I make the same mistake, say British to  mean English.  If an American were speaking about someone from from  Scotland or Wales, I highly doubt they would use the term "British," as  that would imply, to us ignorant Americans, "English."  Instead, they  would probably say "Scottish" or "Welsh."


Brian may humbly say he's ignorant, though I doubt you will agree. If even knowledgeable people stumble about language / country issues, why put a specific blame on us French?...


----------



## ribran

Barsac said:


> Could we say of somebody : "He speaks texan." ?



I can't imagine a Texan seriously taking offense at that. There is a heptalingual native Texan guide at the state capitol who always teasingly corrects those who assume that his native language is English. "Naw, my first sentence was in Texan," he says.


----------



## TitTornade

Hi,

On wikipedia, I read that "_The United States editions of the Harry Potter novels have required the adaptation of the texts into American English, as many words and concepts used by the characters in the novels may have not been understood by a young American audience._"

So, if it is possible to translate British English into American English, it is possible to "traduire de l'américain en français" (translate American English into French), possibly through British English...


----------



## COF

I think the French do regard British English and American English as different, but I think that's more of a symptom of their own linguistic purism.

For example, you will find quite a lot of French people don't even considered Quebec French to be true French and regard it as a creole at best.


----------



## doinel

Je m'éloigne un peu mais nous persistons  et signons dans notre besoin de précision.
Je viens de regarder en VO sous titrée Sons of Anarchy à la fin de chaque épisode sont donnés les noms des traducteurs.
En dessous, en assez gros  et entre parenthèses : ( French- Parisian)


----------



## Hulalessar

doinel said:


> ... nous persistons  et signons dans notre besoin de précision.



La grande illusion française!


----------



## Hulalessar

TitTornade said:


> Hi,
> 
> On wikipedia, I read that "_The United States editions of the Harry Potter novels have required the adaptation of the texts into American English, as many words and concepts used by the characters in the novels may have not been understood by a young American audience._"
> 
> So, if it is possible to translate British English into American English, it is possible to "traduire de l'américain en français" (translate American English into French), possibly through British English...



Adaptation is not translation.


----------



## Jasmine tea

Having read the last posts, this is the question that comes to my mind:

What are the translations for AE and BE?

 AE would be "anglais américain" and BE "anglais anglais". In which case, I could most naturally translate AE by the one word "américain" and BE by the one word "anglais"!

Maybe this is the only reason why....


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Hulalessar said:


> Adaptation is not translation.



It isn't, however, when Quebec series are subtitled on the likes of TV5Monde, typical Quebecisms such as ''je m'en calisse'', ''dépanneur'', débarbouilette'', etc. are ''adapted/translated'' into Parisian French for audiences. I don't think anyone imagines that Quebec French is not French, any more than one would hold that AE is not English, unless one were very ignorant, and sadly, there will always be a certain number of such people around.


----------



## Istriano

Hulalessar said:


> Adaptation is not translation.


Adaptation may be an euphemism for translation, especially when close related language pairs are concerned.
Written Danish and Norwegian Bokmaal look almost the same, so do Czech and Slovak, Macedonian and Bulgarian, Serbian and Croatian, and Hindi and Urdu (the last two pairs differ mainly in the alphabet used).
In Portugal, they translate/''adapt'' Paulo Coelho from Brazilian Portuguese, I guess it's because:

1. Paulo Coelho is not serious literature, of great literary value,  but is seen as kind of self-help literature
2. with self-help literature (as well as in children literature) you want to sound as close as you can to the reader, and not not from another country/continent since any regionalism can be distracting

On American TV, most regional (nonRP) British accents are subtitled.
''Girls Aloud'''s singer Nathalie Coyle was subtitled when she was a mentor on that Tyra Banks' model show.
And Cheryl Cole was not even allowed to be a judge on the American X Factor because the producers thought her accent would not be understood by Americans.


----------



## Hulalessar

Jasmine tea said:


> Having read the last posts, this is the question that comes to my mind:
> 
> What are the translations for AE and BE?
> 
> AE would be "anglais américain" and BE "anglais anglais". In which case, I could most naturally translate AE by the one word "américain" and BE by the one word "anglais"!
> 
> Maybe this is the only reason why....



But that is a classic case of confusing "English" with "British"! When wishing to refer specifically to the English spoken in England the phrase "English English" is often used even though it sounds awkward; "Anglo-English" sounds better.

I think this thread can be summed up as follows: In English (whether British or American) the word "American" is not (except jocularly) used as a noun to describe the English language as spoken or written in America. English speaking Americans have no problem calling the language they speak "English"; if they need to contrast it with other varieties of English they call it "American English" and not "American". This being the case, native English speakers have asked why French publishers have found it necessary to make a distinction that native English speakers do not make. The apparent answer is that it is all about precision. The response to_ that_ is that this precision is very selective.

What English speakers are really objecting to is that using the phrase "traduit de l'américain" gives the impression that American English and British English are two significantly different things when they are not - at least when talking about the two written standards.


----------



## JamesM

Istriano said:


> On American TV, most regional (nonRP) British accents are subtitled.



This is simply untrue and extremely misleading.  Gordon Ramsey is not subtitled. Neither is Tabitha on that salon takeover show or Eddie Izzard or Phoebe on Frazier or the characters on Dr. Who or Antiques Roadshow or Absolutely Fabulous or Top Gear or dozens of other shows.  I can't think of a single show I have seen that subtitles British accents.

The bizarre choice of one reality show to subtitle is the exception and not the rule.


----------



## ampurdan

I dare say that most people in my country would think of it as quite odd too if they started to see "traducido del americano" or "idioma original: americano" (although it's true that Spanish speakers have their own axes to grind about the use of "americano" meaning only "from the USA", as many discussions in these forums attest to). Most people say "inglés" ("English") when they mean "británico" ("British") in everyday speech (this last word is too cumbersome). Of course, this should be avoided in formal situations. But my point is that if anything, foreign cultures tend to exaggerate similarities between countries of the same cultural background, like people calling Mexican citizens "Spanish".

I guess this américain thing comes of old habit among the French. I remember an old man from Toulouse who was a dear friend of my uncle told me when I was a kid, as a response to my own quite inappropriate rebuke that English was more important than French when he asked why I wasn't learning his language, that "ce n'est pas l'anglais, mais l'américain qui est la langue la plus internationale" or something along those lines. I didn't get the idea that he thought that the two were different languages though, but that the two dialects were very different.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

JamesM said:


> This is simply untrue and extremely misleading.  Gordon Ramsey is not subtitled. Neither is Tabitha on that salon takeover show or Eddie Izzard or Phoebe on Frazier or the characters on Dr. Who or Antiques Roadshow or Absolutely Fabulous or Top Gear or dozens of other shows.  I can't think of a single show I have seen that subtitles British accents.
> 
> The bizarre choice of one reality show to subtitle is the exception and not the rule.



I once saw an Irish guy subtitled on CNN, but it must be said that he had a very strong West of Ireland accent which even I struggled with. I think I've also seen a few Scots get the same treatment. Generally though, U.S. TV doesn't subtitle us (British Isles speakers). Then again, sometimes Americans subtitle their own citizens (strong Southern accent, some speakers of AAVE), so fair's fair.


----------



## Nanon

Jasmine tea said:


> Having read the last posts, this is the question that comes to my mind:
> 
> What are the translations for AE and BE?
> 
> AE would be "anglais américain" and BE "anglais anglais". In which case, I could most naturally translate AE by the one word "américain" and BE by the one word "anglais"!
> 
> Maybe this is the only reason why....


Beaucoup d'éditeurs indiquent par exemple "traduit de l'anglais (Angleterre)". Et on voit aussi "traduit de l'anglais (Grande-Bretagne"). Les premiers sont sûrement ceux qui indiqueront également "traduit de l'anglais (Écosse)". Plus précis, tu meurs...


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Nanon said:


> Beaucoup d'éditeurs indiquent par exemple "traduit de l'anglais (Angleterre)". Et on voit aussi "traduit de l'anglais (Grande-Bretagne"). Les premiers sont sûrement ceux qui indiqueront également "traduit de l'anglais (Écosse)". Plus précis, tu meurs...



Traduit de l'anglais (Irlande, Province de Leinster, Ville de Dublin, Rue O'Connell, achevé le 17 Mars 2012 a 05:37). Le français est précis hein.


----------



## Jasmine tea

Et voilà l'avis d'un écrivain américain. (article paru dans le Magazine Littéraire d'Août 2012, cet entretien avec Russel Banks date de 1999) :

Q. : Vos romans appartiennent au domaine un peu indéterminé de la littérature anglo-saxonne. Pourtant, la page de titre précise "traduit de l'américain". Est-ce important pour vous?

Réponse de Russel Banks :
"Les Anglais ne font absolument pas la distinction. Il n'y a que les Français pour la faire. L'anglais n'est pas une langue pour un pays donné, cela fait longtemps qu'il a quitté sa terre natale. Il y a tout de même des différences essentielles entre l'anglais de Grande Bretagne et celui des États-Unis, bien plus influencé par la manière juive, italienne, latino-américaine, afro-américaine de parler. Ma langue appartient incontestablement à l'anglais d'Amérique. J'adore les différents courants qui parcourent cette langue. Il ne s'agit pas uniquement d'un brassage de cultures, mais également de classes sociales. Je suis très sensible au langage parlé par les marginaux et beaucoup plus sensible à l'anglais parlé qu'à l'écrit."


----------



## WME

LMorland said:


> As an American who has lived in France for over ten years (mostly in Paris), I am unhappy to report that *yes, the French do seem to think that we speak a different language than English.  *And phrases like _traduit de l'américain_ only serve to reinforce this wrongheaded idea.



I also know Americans who indeed believe that English was invented by Americans...


----------



## JamesM

WME said:


> I also know Americans who indeed believe that English was invented by Americans...



And I know Frenchmen who believe anything good must have been invented by the French,  but that is not the topic of this thread.  Ignorance can be found everywhere, unfortunately.


----------



## WME

JamesM said:


> And I know Frenchmen who believe anything good must have been invented by the French,



what ? isn't it true ?


----------



## L'irlandais

WME said:


> what ? isn't it true ?


Of course it's irrefutably true.  However it not the subject of discussion.


----------



## JamesM

Americans are often ridiculed for their geographical ignorance but we are not alone in this, either.  I remember a teacher whose European relative was coming to visit her in Idaho.  She wanted to be picked up in Denver (1,340 km), swing by the Grand Canyon (1,118 km) and San Francisco (1,269 km) on the way back to Boise (1,026 km).   She couldn't understand why this would be a problem, since all of these locations were in the western U.S.


----------



## PaulQ

On the subject of translation into American or English, I am presently reading "Easy Money" by Jens Lapidus. It is a translation from the Swedish. Unfortunately, the translator, Ms Astri von Arbin Ahlander, drifts between American and English and struggles with idioms and slang in both dialects. Whereas the plot is very clever and the characters well-drawn and consistent, I found myself drifting into proof-reading it into English, which, after 160 pages, is ruining the pleasure of reading.

I really don't mind whether it is in English or American, as long at the translation, like the book's characters, is consistent.


----------



## almostfreebird

PaulQ said:


> I really don't mind whether it is in English or American, as long at the translation, like the book's characters, is consistent.


----------



## funnyhat

Jasmine tea said:


> Having read the last posts, this is the question that comes to my mind:
> 
> What are the translations for AE and BE?
> 
> AE would be "anglais américain" and BE "anglais anglais". In which case, I could most naturally translate AE by the one word "américain" and BE by the one word "anglais"!
> 
> Maybe this is the only reason why....



Isn't _anglais britannique_ a better translation?  _Anglais anglais_ translates to English English, which implicitly leaves out the rest of the UK.


----------



## palomnik

Americans may presume it's a slight, but I don't think so. I think it is perceived like this:

Anglais: think Evelyn Waugh.

Americain: think Raymond Chandler.

I think that sums it up.


----------



## alaric

If this discussion is still live, I am writing to ask for help because I am trying to write something about this very topic. Like most of the contributors to this discussion, I have some personal experiences (anecdotal) and a personal hypothesis (similar to some of the other posters, namely, the snarky attitude towards American culture that is typical of a CERTAIN class of European), but few hard facts. I would like more of the latter, eg, to find out when this usage first started.  Because after all it is entirely possible it started for some reason X which may be entirely different from the real reasons Y1-Yn that cause it to persist which may be entirely different from the various reasons Z1-Zn that any or all of us imagine.  The only thing I would ask everyone to consider (perhaps someone else has said this too?) is that this is NOTHING to do with France and the French per se.  The same usage exists in Dutch and German for sure and likely in several other European languages.  So whatever attitude it now reflects (or shapes or reinforces) is a more widespread one, and so any explanation has to be Euro-wide and not specific to France.  And thank you in advance for any help.


----------



## L'irlandais

alaric said:


> .... this is NOTHING to do with France and the French per se.  The same usage exists in Dutch and German for sure and likely in several other European languages.  ....


Hello alaric,
Speaking of few hard facts, are you sure of this?  I am of the opinion this is very much a french publishing practice.  But, I am happy to be shown to be wrong on this point.  However, for now, for example in Germany


> From the German edition of a New York bestseller, we find
> « *Aus dem amerikanischen Englisch* »
> 
> Originalausgabe
> A.J. Finn
> deutschsprachigen Ausgabe
> Christoph Göhler


My German copy of Der Hobbit (Tolkien ie UK) gives *Aus dem Englischen* übersetzt von Wolfgang Krege.
I could not find an example for an American author in Dutch.  For a UK writer eg. Harry Potter series we find:
*Vertaald uit het Engles *door Wiebe Buddingh’ I am not at all convinced Germans/Dutch Publishers do this.
Do you have some examples of other European publishers using « translated from American » à la OP?


Spoiler: Thread topic



_traduit de l'américain_, rather than the _traduit de l'anglais_


----------



## berndf

I would say it makes a difference if they write _Aus dem amerikanischen Englisch_ or _Aus dem Amerikanischen_. I would the latter rather off but the former merely over-precise.

Distinguishing between _English_ and _American_ as languages is not necessarily a sign of


alaric said:


> snarky attitude towards American culture[.]


It often merely reflects the perception them being different languages. Written British and American English are not more different then, e.g. , German and Austrian German, yet no German speaker would consider written German and Austrian German as a separate languages.


----------



## Hulalessar

berndf said:


> It often merely reflects the perception them being different languages.



One has to wonder why there is such a perception. Given the way that "Anglo-Saxon" is bandied about to cover a perceived US/British culture one would have thought that the opposite would be the case.


----------



## berndf

My impression is that those people are often just smart assy.


----------



## User With No Name

Within the U.S., one would probably expect to hear "I speak American" (probably rendered as something like "Ah speak Murkin") from sectors of society where nationalism runs high and cultural/linguistic sophistication runs low.

It's kind of amusing that that crowd and French publishing houses have wound up on the same page about this issue....


----------



## L'irlandais

The flip side of Europe’s publishers translating American books, is the fact so few translations of foreign language books sell in the US.  So figures I saw suggested only 3% of books in the States, compared to over 50% of all books in Italy for example.  Much of the blame for this lies with Publishers, rather than the American public.  Poor language skills at this level, deprives the wider population gems from overseas.  It is of course revealing that UK authors are not included in this US figure, proof if proof was needed, Americans do know they speak English.

So what mention do Italian publishers put inside the cover, anyone know?


> tradotto dall'inglese (américano?)


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

British books are written in English, why would they ever even be thought to figure in a count of translations of foreign language books in the U.S.?


----------



## L'irlandais

I am guessing you didn’t read some of the earlier comments?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

I did. I don't understand what you're trying to say. Most foreign language books in Italy are translated from the English due to the pervasive Anglo-American publishing industry. The smaller percentage of translated books in the U.S. is a consequence of this. There is no comparable volume of publishing in other languages except, perhaps, Chinese. But that doesn't mean that foreign language best sellers don't make it to the States. Carlo Rovelli's Order of Time (originally written in Italian), for one, was a major seller in North America. 

No native English-speaking American with a functioning brain believes that he or she speaks a language other than English. I've never seen anyone seriously trying to make the claim that American English is an independent language. ''Translated from the American'' is a bizarre continental European invention.


----------



## Hulalessar

Pedro y La Torre said:


> No native English-speaking American with a functioning brain believes that he or she speaks a language other than English. I've never seen anyone seriously trying to make the claim that American English is an independent language. ''Translated from the American'' is a bizarre continental European invention.



I am inclined to agree. A significant proportion of Europeans know enough English to know that the differences between written Standard American and British English are minimal almost to the point of being inconsequential. Those who do not know English have no basis for forming an opinion on how different written Standard American and British English are from each other. One would certainly expect publishers to be well informed.

I wonder what the French would make of a Maigret story being described as "Translated from the Belgian".


----------



## Nanon

http://www.translitterature.fr/media/article_92.pdf
_Traduit de l'anglais ou traduit de l'américain ? Mais aussi : traduit en anglais ou traduit en américain ?_
By Barbara Wright (unfortunately, I can't find the original article)


----------



## Dripweed

Un article vraiment intéressant.  Merci beaucoup, Nanon.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Hulalessar said:


> I am inclined to agree. A significant proportion of Europeans know enough English to know that the differences between written Standard American and British English are minimal almost to the point of being inconsequential. Those who do not know English have no basis for forming an opinion on how different written Standard American and British English are from each other. One would certainly expect publishers to be well informed.
> 
> I wonder what the French would make of a Maigret story being described as "Translated from the Belgian".



A lot of more recent works seem to use ''traduit de l'anglais (États-Unis)'', which at least has the virtue of not hinting at a nonexistent language (American). French editors would appear to be under the impression that there are huge differences between AmE and British English, when in reality the differences are very minor.


----------



## User With No Name

Nanon said:


> _Traduit de l'anglais ou traduit de l'américain ? Mais aussi : traduit en anglais ou traduit en américain ?_
> By Barbara Wright (unfortunately, I can't find the original article)


Yes, that is an interesting article. And it points out what I don't understand about the situation. Whether a book is translated *into* U.S. or U.K. English could be an issue for some readers (although not a very serious one, it seems to me). But it shouldn't be an issue when translating from English. And since readers typically know where the author of a book they're reading is from, they should be able to figure out if what regional variety of English was used in the original, if they care...

Do French publishers do the for any language other than English? Is Paolo Coelho translated from Brazilian? Or Mario Vargas Llosa from Peruvian?

And how do French publishers handle non-French Francophone writers? Would a novel written by an author from Québec or Senegal be modified before being published in France? (I assume not.)


----------



## Nanon

A question: why are we only discussing the French vs British or American English if German publishers do the same? And why just English?
An exemple: Antonio Skármeta - Mit brennender Geduld - Übersetzung _aus dem chilenischen Spanisch_ von...

Yes, French publishers mention that Jorge Amado (I am not a big fan of Paulo Coelho) _est traduit du portugais (Brésil)_ or even _du brésilien_. Same for Alaa el Aswany - _traduit de l'arabe (Égypte)_.

Not being a literary translator myself, I think that French publishers define their own rules in that matter, and I wonder if translators need the country of origin to be mentioned in order to appear as experts in a given variant of a language. Not sure about this.

And about Francophone writers, no, publishers do not modify texts from Québec or Senegal and readers do not ask for that. A glossary or footnotes may be added if necessary.


----------



## User With No Name

Nanon said:


> I think that French publishers define their own rules in that matter


Maybe we should be thinking of this as just a convention among publishers in some countries, without any particular significance beyond that.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

If a book were written in dialectal Swiss German, say, I suppose that I could see the value in specifying that in translation (for instance, it's useful to know the Swiss German words that helped Carl Jung frame his psychological system). But for a work written in Standard German in Vienna or Standard Spanish in Montevideo or English in Philadelphia, it just seems a bit OTT. But it doesn't hurt anyone so good luck to those who do it.


----------



## merquiades

User With No Name said:


> Is Paolo Coelho translated from Brazilian? Or Mario Vargas Llosa from Peruvian?


Yes, I have a copy of  L'Alchimiste in which it is written Traduit du Brésilien.
I certainly agree with Pedro  Traduit de l'Anglais (États-Unis) is much better.  Sometimes with authors people might not even know where they come from, so it has the advantage of giving that information.


----------



## Nanon

User With No Name said:


> Maybe we should be thinking of this as just a convention among publishers in some countries, without any particular significance beyond that.


I concur . This is just a matter of usage.


----------

