# homologue parisien



## Emily-Anne

Hello, I need to translate a text that speaks about the earthquake in Haiti (from French to English).  I have a hard time translating the expression "homologue parisien". I've been doing some research but nothing seems to work!

Here's the whole sentence:

"Le jardin du Champs-de-Mars de Port-au-Prince n'a jamais été aussi différent de son homologue parisien".

Merci-Thanks!


----------



## jann

Welcome, Emily-Anne! 

Our site dictionary suggests "counterpart" as a translation for homologue.  In this case, since you're talking about an inanimate, you might consider "twin" as well.


----------



## Emily-Anne

I guess that twin would make sense... Thanks!


----------



## franc 91

namesake - perhaps?


----------



## The Prof

franc 91 said:


> namesake - perhaps?


 
That´s what I would go for, too :_ its Parisien namesake_.


----------



## jann

Well, "namesake" is only accurate if we know that the garden in Port-au-Prince was indeed named after the park in Paris... and not, for example, in reference to the original Roman "Campus Martius."


----------



## The Prof

Taken from Answers.com:

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a _namesake_ is a person or thing having the same name as another.



(As that link doesn´t work, here´s another one):

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/namesake?view=uk


----------



## Jean-Michel Carrère

Can't "counterpart" be used for things, then ?


----------



## Jean-Michel Carrère

Thank you for your confirmation.


----------



## The Prof

Jean-Michel Carrère said:


> Can't "counterpart" be used for things, then ?


 
I believe that the word counterpart_ can_ be used for things, but tends to describe things with the same characteristics or function. 
Just sharing a name doesn't really count as a characteristic, so we wouldn't use 'counterpart' as a translation for 'homologue' in this instance.


----------



## Emily-Anne

Thank you all!
I am still not sure about how I should translate the sentence, but I'll figure it out eventually.


----------



## The Prof

I don´t know if this will help you to make up your mind or not, but I´ve just found this sentence on Google:

The gardens in front of *Haiti* s presidential palace no longer resemble their famous *namesake* in Paris.


----------



## Emily-Anne

Thank you: it will help for sure!


----------



## allezallez

I would add that I usually hear "homologue" used more like "counterpart" (to be precise, in English I most frequently hear "counterpart" where in French I would hear "homologue." 
However, I believe "namesake" is a more complete and precise translation in general usage.


----------



## jann

I'm sorry to disagree, but I really don't think that it is accurate to say that "namesake" is a good translation for _homologue_ in general usage!  I'm not even convinced that it's a good translation in this particular sentence.

Perhaps other people use this word differently, but for me, "namesake" implies names that are deliberately chosen to correspond with each other (and especially when one person is named in reference to or honor/memory of someone else).  Here is the M-W dictionary definition (my blue emphasis):





> one that has the same name as another; *especially : one who is named after another or for whom another is named*


The French word _homologue_ has nothing to do with the way things are named (TLFi definition):





> - Qui présente une correspondance de place, de forme, de fonction
> - Personne ou collectivité remplissant un rôle analogue d'une structure à une autre, d'un pays à un autre.


In French (and in English too, actually), if you wish to emphasize something having been named for something else, you use the word _éponyme._.. which is not how the Haitian _Champ de Mars_ was presented.


----------



## The Prof

allezallez said:


> I would add that I usually hear "homologue" used more like "counterpart" (to be precise, in English I most frequently hear "counterpart" where in French I would hear "homologue."
> However, I believe "namesake" is a more complete and precise translation in general usage.


 

Yes, that's a very good point that we shouldn't lose sight of when translating the word in the future. 
What's more, it's made me realise that I didn't actually know the standard translation of 'namesake' , which turns out to be 'homonyme', according the the WR dictionary.


----------



## allezallez

jann said:


> I'm sorry to disagree, but I really don't think that it is accurate to say that "namesake" is a good translation for _homologue_ in general usage!  I'm not even convinced that it's a good translation in this particular sentence.
> 
> Perhaps other people use this word differently, but for me, "namesake" implies names that are deliberately chosen to correspond with each other (and especially when one person is named in reference to or honor/memory of someone else).  Here is the M-W dictionary definition (my blue emphasis):The French word _homologue_ has nothing to do with the way things are named (TLFi definition):
> In French (and in English too, actually), if you wish to emphasize something having been named for something else, you use the word _éponyme._.. which is not how the Haitian _Champ de Mars_ was presented.



You are absolutely right!  Thank you for explaining further.


----------



## The Prof

> Perhaps other people use this word differently, but for me, "namesake" implies names that are deliberately chosen to correspond with each other (and especially when one person is named in reference to or honor/memory of someone else). Here is the M-W dictionary definition (my blue emphasis): Quote:
> one that has the same name as another; *especially : one who is named after another or for whom another is named*


 
Hi Jann

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that perhaps other people use this word (namesake) differently.

We generally get our inate sense of what words mean from both the people around us, and what we read. Personally, I have often heard 'namesake' used in the context that we have been discussing, so to me it seems beyond question. However, I can quite see that others may not be used to hearing the word in that context. 

In the case of 'namesake', not all dictionaries appear to give the same definitions. However, as the Oxford dictionary, one of the most respected sources,includes in its definitions_ 'a person or thing having the same name as another'_, I feel fully justified in my use of the word.

That said, each of us has to feel confident about the words and expressions that we use, so I would recommend that Emily-Anne, who posted the original question, should take her time, perhaps Google a few sample sentences, and then decide what she feels translation she feels most comfortable with.

My goodness, that sounds a bit cheesy, doesn't it! Sorry, it wasn't meant to.


----------



## jann

Hello The Prof, 

Discovering and discussing variability in usage is one of the pleasures of this site.





The Prof said:


> However, as the Oxford dictionary, one of the most respected sources,includes in its definitions_ 'a person or thing having the same name as another'_, I feel fully justified in my use of the word.


I absolutely understand your own everyday usage of the word "namesake"... but would you really feel justified in using it as a translation for the French word _homologue_, which focuses on ressemblence/correspondance/analogy in structure or function?  I'm not saying that a native English speaker writing about Port-au-Prince might not have referred to the _Champ de Mars'_ Parisian "namesake"... but this is not the idea that the native French speaker had in mind when writing the original sentence, and I am questioning whether we can take the liberty of substituting one idea for another in translation.


----------



## allezallez

Jann is correct; even if _namesake_ might be plausibly used in reference to inanimate objects in English as we have discussed, it misses the mark if we draw the line to "homologue" since that French term evokes correspondance of function.  

To put it a different way,
"namesake" is more superficial, whereas...
"homologue" is about function.


----------



## franc 91

I'm beginning to regret that I ever took part in this never-ending discussion - why don't you just say - the park of the same name/that carries the same name - et basta.


----------



## The Prof

franc 91 said:


> I'm beginning to regret that I ever took part in this never-ending discussion - why don't you just say - the park of the same name/that carries the same name - et basta.


 
Good idea, or even, to be more concise, its 'namesake' (sorry, couldn't resist that). 

Just one final thought on this subject - how many English / Canadian / American readers would actually link '..._ with its Parisian counterpart_' to the Parisian park in question? French readers, and those who have a basic knowledge of France would immediately realise that it meant the park of that same name in Paris, but without a little push in the right direction, I can't help thinking that many English speakers have not actually heard of_ le Champs de Mars_, and would miss the point!

But that's just my opinion.


----------



## xiancee

So using a circumlocution will appear necessary for a better understanding    like "named after the parisian Champ de Mars"


----------



## The Prof

xiancee said:


> So using a circumlocution will appear necessary for a better understanding like "named after the parisian Champ de Mars"


 
Something like that, yes.
Because _Le jardin du Champs-de-Mars_ has already been named in the first half of the sentence, perhaps we could avoid repetition and keep both camps happy by ending it with something like:

-..._its Parisien counterpart of the same name_. ???


----------



## xiancee

I noticed the word "equivalent" has not been mentionned .... Will it work?


----------



## pickarooney

The main problem here is the incorrect use of 'homologue' in the original text. The question is whether it's preferable to have an accurate translation of the words used (in which case 'counterpart') or the idea they're trying to express ('namesake').


----------



## The Prof

xiancee said:


> I noticed the word "equivalent" has not been mentionned .... Will it work?


 
I'm probably the wrong person to answer that, because as you will have realised by now, I personally am not very happy with the word _counterpart_ and, in this context, I think that _equivalent_ means the same thing, so I would be just as reluctant to use that.

My doubts arise partly from my own ignorance - I don't know how much these two parks have in common apart from their names, and my attempts to find out have been fruitless. 

I feel that in order to use _counterpart_, they need to have more in common than the fact that they are both parks in the middle of cities. That is why from the outset I have preferred to concentrate on the one thing that they _obviously_ share, and use _namesake _instead. 

However, if those with a better knowledge of the two parks can assure us that they genuinely have more things in common, then either _counterpart_ or _equivalent_ would probably be ok (apart from the possible problem that I mentioned in my last post).


----------



## allezallez

There is obviously a difference between a primary translation of a word and a secondary, third, etc., translation.  Posters might want to be more clear as to whether they are straying from an answer to the original poster of a thread and giving a more general translation instead.

That said, equivalent, namesake and counterpart would all do in certain contexts.  

@ TheProf:

I am a little curious as to why you (apparently) believe the word "equivalent" to be more generic than "counterpart" - not that I disagree - I'm just curious, maybe others might respond to this, and we could drag this thread out just a bit more!


----------



## Tresley

I agree that you cannot use 'namesake' for all the reasons already expressed above.

I too would use 'its counterpart in Paris'

Other debatable options:

'Its equivalent in Paris'
'Its equal in Paris'

Have I opened a new debate?


----------



## xiancee

I don' t really see the difference between "counterpart" and "equivalent" in this context.


----------



## The Prof

> I am a little curious as to why you (apparently) believe the word "equivalent" to be more generic than "counterpart" - not that I disagree - I'm just curious, maybe others might respond to this, and we could drag this thread out just a bit more!


 


> I don' t really see the difference between "counterpart" and "equivalent" in this context.


 
I obviously explained myself badly. What I was actually trying to say was that I didn't see _any_ difference between 'counterpart' and 'equivalent' in this particular instance, and that the doubts I had about one of them applied equally to the other.

I'm sorry if I misled you both, or anyone else. I'll try to be clearer next time.


----------



## Keith Bradford

It's _*namesake*_ for goodness sake.  Translate the sense, not the words.


----------

