# Peut-être l'immobilité des choses autour de nous leur est-elle imposée par notre certitude



## gaer

Or so I'm told. Again, my friend in France is attempting to drive me mad with things much too hard for me. But this time I have no patience to try to break it down without clues. And my RH is a bit sore, so flipping windows and looking up words is not what I mean. The sentence:

Peut-être l'immobilité des choses autour de nous leur est-elle imposée par notre certitude que ce sont elles et non pas d'autres, par l'immobilité de notre pensée en face d'elles.

I'm sure when I find out what this mean I will be SURE I have no business trying to read such a thing. 

Gaer


----------



## Gil

Perhaps the immobility of things around us is imposed to them by our certainty that it is them and not others, by the immobility of our thought facing them. 

I am not sure I understand, but I tried.


----------



## gaer

Gil said:
			
		

> Perhaps the immobility of things around us is imposed to them by our certainty that it is them and not others, by the immobility of our thought facing them.
> 
> I am not sure I understand, but I tried.


Oh my GOD!!! Okay, I KNEW I had no business trying to figure this out unless I wanted to get a headache.

I'd KILL my friend, except he is really a nice guy! <grrr>

Now, with those clues, I'll attack it and see if I can work it out. But I have NO hopes getting as far as you did.

I suspect you are not the only person who is wondering exactly what that means. 

Thanks again,

Gaer


----------



## fetchezlavache

again, gaer, if my opinion matters a tiny bit, i strongly advise against translating in your head when you read french literature. you have to learn to 'think in french'...


----------



## Sev

What Proust wanted to say, with his always sooooo short and simple sentences, is that maybe if the things around us are immobile (or still ? I'm sorry, I don't know what is the best word to translate here), it's because our thoughts are immobile when thinking about them. Well, it's not very clear (?) but I tried. I understand in French, but explainnig that in english....


----------



## la grive solitaire

gaer said:
			
		

> Or so I'm told. Again, my friend in France is attempting to drive me mad with things much too hard for me. But this time I have no patience to try to break it down without clues. And my RH is a bit sore, so flipping windows and looking up words is not what I mean. The sentence:
> 
> Peut-être l'immobilité des choses autour de nous leur est-elle imposée par notre certitude que ce sont elles et non pas d'autres, par l'immobilité de notre pensée en face d'elles.
> 
> I'm sure when I find out what this mean I will be SURE I have no business trying to read such a thing.
> 
> Gaer



Here's an attempt, more for understanding than as a polished translation; stillness...stultification is to me the sense of what Proust was trying to convey, so I have included it in brackets.

Perhaps the immobility [stillness] of the things around us is imposed on them by our own certainty that it is they [that they are what they are] and not anything else, by the immobility [stultification] of our [own] thinking as we encounter them .


----------



## LV4-26

gaer said:
			
		

> Peut-être l'immobilité des choses autour de nous leur est-elle imposée par notre certitude que ce sont elles et non pas d'autres, par l'immobilité de notre pensée en face d'elles.Gaer


Let me comfort you. If my memory serves me well (I've read a few books) not *all *Proust is like that.
This makes me think that I should have had my english sentence (http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=20638), translated by Proust. He would have done just the job. He sure would have succeeded in making it as intricate and confusing as it needs to be.


----------



## RobInAustin

Perhaps the fixation of the things around us is itself imposed upon them by our own certainty that they are themselves and not by others, by the fixation of our thoughts in their presence.

My stab at it.
Cheers,
Rob


----------



## timpeac

Dear all, All of your translations seem fine apart from the bit for "ce sont elles et non pas d'autres". What does this really mean?

The only English translation that seems to make sense in English is la grive's "they are what they are and not anything else" but I can't see how the French words can mean that.

Everyone else's translations seem truer to the French, but don't make sense in English!


----------



## fetchezlavache

la grive's is the best translation, and the closest to the french as well. i'm sure it makes sense in english as well. _they are what they are and nothing else._


----------



## Gil

la grive solitaire said:
			
		

> Here's an attempt, more for understanding than as a polished translation; stillness...stultification is to me the sense of what Proust was trying to convey, so I have included it in brackets.
> 
> Perhaps the immobility [stillness] of the things around us is imposed on them by our own certainty that it is they [that they are what they are] and not anything else, by the immobility [stultification] of our [own] thinking as we encounter them .


I like that.  Would you feel that "our own certainty about their identity" means more or les the same thing?  It is not very proustian, but a whole lot clearer (provided I am right and you agree).


----------



## RobInAustin

What I think Proust is saying here, in both the English and French is this:
The constant nature of the things that we see around us comes from our own thoughts about them, which WE impose upon them ourselves; our own recognition that "they are what they are" comes from ourselves, not others- our own thoughts of what they are, when we see them


----------



## la grive solitaire

Gil said:
			
		

> I like that.  Would you feel that "our own certainty about their identity" means more or les the same thing?  It is not very proustian, but a whole lot clearer (provided I am right and you agree).




I do agree that it's about the identity of things, but I think it's more about perception--that we perceive things not as they reallly are but as projections of our minds. Proust's choice/repetition of the copulative verb "to be", with the subject equalling its object, seems key-- a way of reinforcing linguistically that we = they/the things. Thus somehow retaining "être" in translation seems important--and a challenge!


----------



## gaer

la grive solitaire said:
			
		

> Here's an attempt, more for understanding than as a polished translation; stillness...stultification is to me the sense of what Proust was trying to convey, so I have included it in brackets.
> 
> Perhaps the immobility [stillness] of the things around us is imposed on them by our own certainty that it is they [that they are what they are] and not anything else, by the immobility [stultification] of our [own] thinking as we encounter them .


Your English translation makes perfect sense to me. As I said, the French sentence is far over my head. I only started trying to learn to read French, as I've said many times, about three months ago. I could not read such sentences in German until I had become much more comfortable with that language, after a much longer time.

Thank you.

G


----------



## timpeac

fetchezlavache said:
			
		

> la grive's is the best translation, and the closest to the french as well. i'm sure it makes sense in english as well. _they are what they are and nothing else._


 
I'm sure you're right but can you tell me how "ce sont elles et non pas d'autres" means "they are what they are and nothing else". To me it seems to mean "they are themselves and not others" (which is meaningless in this context in English).

I'm not saying this is what I think it means (it's rubbish in English). I really am sure you're right, I just can't see how those words mean that. Do you read those words in French, as a French person, and not be confused at all and competely sure of what the author meant? La grive's translation is fine English and makes fine sense in the context. I wouldn't have come to that conclusion and am just trying to work out why


----------



## gaer

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Let me comfort you. If my memory serves me well (I've read a few books) not *all *Proust is like that.
> This makes me think that I should have had my english sentence (http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=20638), translated by Proust. He would have done just the job. He sure would have succeeded in making it as intricate and confusing as it needs to be.


I can only give you my impression. It is possible that the sentence is very clever and actually says what it means to say in a way that could not be said any other way. But it seems "inflated" somehow.

I have never much cared for philoshophy, so perhaps my ignorance and my prejudice is showing. 

Gaer


----------



## LV4-26

As I said before, I've read a few books by Proust and, believe me, if all the sentences had been like this one, I wouldn't have been able to read any further than the third page  (even though I'm supposed to understand French).


----------



## gaer

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> As I said before, I've read a few books by Proust and, believe me, if all the sentences had been like this one, I wouldn't have been able to read any further than the third page  (even though I'm supposed to understand French).


I generally prefer things that are very simple and elegant, even in my own language. 

But I will keep an open mind in the future. 

G


----------



## Gil

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> As I said before, I've read a few books by Proust and, believe me, if all the sentences had been like this one, I wouldn't have been able to read any further than the third page  (even though I'm supposed to understand French).



Can I second that?


----------



## fetchezlavache

timpeac said:
			
		

> I'm sure you're right but can you tell me how "ce sont elles et non pas d'autres" means "they are what they are and nothing else". To me it seems to mean "they are themselves and not others" (which is meaningless in this context in English).
> 
> I'm not saying this is what I think it means (it's rubbish in English). I really am sure you're right, I just can't see how those words mean that. Do you read those words in French, as a French person, and not be confused at all and competely sure of what the author meant? La grive's translation is fine English and makes fine sense in the context. I wouldn't have come to that conclusion and am just trying to work out why




of course not, i'm not sure what the author means. the sentence is not clear. so i'm not sure my translation is correct either, for he may perfectly have been meaning 'they are they and not others'. which makes no sense in english or in french. i give up.


----------



## gaer

fetchezlavache said:
			
		

> of course not, i'm not sure what the author means. the sentence is not clear. so i'm not sure my translation is correct either, for he may perfectly have been meaning 'they are they and not others'. which makes no sense in english or in french. i give up.


I'm very glad I asked all you people about this sentence and did not spend ONE SECOND trying to figure it out! 

I've also told my friend, in no uncertain terms, do NOT send me French of this sort every again!

Gaer


----------



## timpeac

gaer said:
			
		

> I'm very glad I asked all you people about this sentence and did not spend ONE SECOND trying to figure it out!
> 
> I've also told my friend, in no uncertain terms, do NOT send me French of this sort every again!
> 
> Gaer


 
You're still speaking to them then!!


----------



## timpeac

fetchezlavache said:
			
		

> of course not, i'm not sure what the author means. the sentence is not clear. so i'm not sure my translation is correct either, for he may perfectly have been meaning 'they are they and not others'. which makes no sense in english or in french. i give up.


 
Sorry I didn't mean to push you. It was just that you seemed so sure of what it meant (la grive's translation being the closest to the French), so I just wondered if it were perfectly clear to you. Because if it were I would be interested in the thought process that brought you to that conclusion. 

I've seen many times that someone can write a sentence in French that I understand all the words but don't quite "get" what was meant, but it is clear from the replies from other native speakers that they saw immediately what was meant. I didn't know if this were an example of that. 

I don't like not understanding things!!


----------



## fetchezlavache

no no don't apologise, i didn't feel pushed. it's just that lagrive's translation seemed the closest from what _i _ had understood the french text to mean... 

i dislike not understanding as well, but in cases like this one, and considering my present state of health, i give up. it's nothing personal with you timpeac !


----------



## la grive solitaire

Perhaps Mallarmé, himself hardly known for his clarity, had been reading Proust when he wrote, "La chair est triste hélas et j'ai lu tous les livres"...


----------



## gaer

timpeac said:
			
		

> You're still speaking to them then!!


If you mean "him", my friend, most definitely. He's a great guy! And if it hadn't been for him, I would never have started. He's not a language teacher, so sometimes he gives me things that are too hard. NOTHING is too easy. I've always said that. When learning, if something is too easy, just do it faster and do more on that level, to get confidence and fluency. The same is true of music.

If a piece seems too easy, it no longer is when you play it very fast. That sort of thing. 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

fetchezlavache said:
			
		

> no no don't apologise, i didn't feel pushed. it's just that lagrive's translation seemed the closest from what _i _had understood the french text to mean...
> 
> i dislike not understanding as well, but in cases like this one, and considering my present state of health, i give up. it's nothing personal with you timpeac !


I'm sorry to hear you are sick. In fact, I've been miserably sick on and off for over two weeks. You may understand now why I was so angry when I found out who Proust is, and that someone had sent me something so advanced KNOWING that I'm only a beginner. 

Gaer

PS-I hope you are soon feeling better!


----------



## Cath.S.

la grive solitaire said:
			
		

> Perhaps Mallarmé, himself hardly known for his clarity, had been reading Proust when he wrote, "La chair est triste hélas et j'ai lu tous les livres"...


Especially when he wrote the next line:
"Fuir, là-bas, fuir"!


----------



## gaer

timpeac said:
			
		

> You're still speaking to them then!!


Him, and he's a great guy. He's just not a language teacher. 

Gaer


----------

