# On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog



## polaire

"Sur l'Internet personne ne sait qu'on est/soit chien?"

Cela vient du dessin fameux de _The New Yorker_.


http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html


----------



## Gardefeu

Oh, is it a query? At first, I thought you only wanted to share this very funny cartoon with everyone...
_Sur Internet_ (oddly enough, no article in French!), _personne ne sait que vous êtes un chien_


----------



## hibouette

"Sur* I*nternet, personne ne sait *que tu es* un chien"


----------



## polaire

Gardefeu said:
			
		

> Oh, is it a query? At first, I thought you only wanted to share this very funny cartoon with everyone...
> _Sur Internet_ (oddly enough, no article in French!), _personne ne sait que vous êtes un chien_


It's very funny, one of my all-time favorites in fact, but I also wanted to see how it would be translated.  Je vous en prie.


----------



## Dlyons

Isn't there also the sense
"Sur Internet, personne ne sait que tu es une vache/ un chameau" ?

But the drawing would have to change if the title were in French!


----------



## Gardefeu

> Isn't there also the sense
> "Sur Internet, personne ne sait que tu es une vache/ un chameau" ?


Well if you're a _dog_ in _that_ sense, people are bound to find out pretty soon on the Internet, particularly on a forum like this one (but there ain't any _vache_ or _chameau_ here, is there?)


----------



## polaire

So do you think the dogs in the cartoon have a vouvoyer or tutoyer relationship?


----------



## Dlyons

I think "sniffing heinie" has definitely reached the tutoyer level.


----------



## polaire

Gardefeu said:
			
		

> Well if you're a _dog_ in _that_ sense, people are bound to find out pretty soon on the Internet, particularly on a forum like this one (but there ain't any _vache_ or _chameau_ here, is there?)



You mean a "dog" like " un cageot"?  (Sexist term).


----------



## Gardefeu

> I think "sniffing heinie" has definitely reached the tutoyer level.



Yeah, but that's not part of the original cartoon, it's something they added later - quite funny too, though!


----------



## Gardefeu

> You mean a "dog" like " un cageot"?


Nope, I mean a dog like _un chameau_ or _une vache_


----------



## polaire

Gardefeu said:
			
		

> Nope, I mean a dog like _un chameau_ or _une vache_



Chameau:  A swine (familiar)
Vache:  A cow?  That's uncomplimentary?  Used to refer to a woman?


----------



## Gardefeu

> Vache:  A cow?  That's uncomplimentary?  Used to refer to a woman?



No, no, not at all! It's another translation for a dog, a swine, someone who's unpleasant (man or woman!)
​


----------



## Dlyons

Yup!  Animal names used for people in uncomplimentary ways - as "dog" is in English.  Although oddly "dog" in this context refers to a human female only doesn't it (and is totally different from the usage of "bitch")


----------



## polaire

Actually, why isn't it "Personne ne sait qu'_*on*_ est un chien"?

Isn't the dog at the computer saying, in effect, "Nobody knows that *one* is a dog"; therefore requiring the use of the impersonal?

In AE, people use "you" instead "one" a lot because "one" too often sounds stuffy or pretentious.


----------



## Gardefeu

> "Personne ne sait qu'_*on*_ est un chien"?



You could say that also. Both translations, I think, are valid.


----------



## polaire

Gardefeu said:
			
		

> You could say that also. Both translations, I think, are valid.



Thanks!


----------



## Cath.S.

_Mon grain de sel :_
_Les gens ne peuvent pas savoir que tu es un chien._

_Polaire, a *dog* = a plain-looking woman = un* thon* in French, - _but I've also heard it used to describe an unattractive male.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

J'aime bien le thon d'egueule, c'est vraiment ce qu'on dirait en français si on voulait émettre des doutes sur la beauté d'une personne de l'autre côté d'un écran.  
Je dirais quelque chose comme : "Sur Internet, personne ne peut savoir si tu es un thon ou non" (pour la rime).
Mais est-ce bien le seul sens de "dog" ici ? C'est à dire utilisé pour émettre des doutes sur le physique uniquement, ou bien aussi sur ce que sont vraiment les gens du point de vue de leur sexe (homme/femme), ou alors de leurs caractéristiques morales (gentil/peau de vache) ou autre chose encore ?


----------



## polaire

KaRiNe_Fr said:
			
		

> J'aime bien le thon d'egueule, c'est vraiment ce qu'on dirait en français si on voulait émettre des doutes sur la beauté d'une personne de l'autre côté d'un écran.
> Je dirais quelque chose comme : "Sur Internet, personne ne peut savoir si tu es un thon ou non" (pour la rime).
> Mais est-ce bien le seul sens de "dog" ici ? C'est à dire utilisé pour émettre des doutes sur le physique uniquement, ou bien aussi sur ce que sont vraiment les gens du point de vue de leur sexe (homme/femme), ou alors de leurs caractéristiques morales (gentil/peau de vache) ou autre chose encore ?


"Thon" is a good word to know.   The reason I said "cageot" earlier is because I was watching a movie where the word was used and the teacher, a Frenchman, said it was an unflattering word to describe an unattractive woman.    I also saw this:  http://www.wordreference.com/fren/cageot

Maybe "cageot" is a lot stronger than "thon"?

If you look up in the thread, you'll see that someone else introduced this line of discussion, by referring to words like "vache."  I never had any doubt that "chien" was correct for the cartoon, because, well, two dogs are featured.


----------



## LV4-26

Gardefeu said:
			
		

> You could say that also. Both translations, I think, are valid.


Yes. But _tu_ is better than _on_ here, as the dog is speaking to another dog, as if to share his experience with him it.


----------



## polaire

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Yes. But _tu_ is better than _on_ here, as the dog is speaking to another dog, as if to share his experience with him it.



I know what you mean, but I've never been able to figure out whether the dog at the computer was offering direct advice or a kind of apercu, in which case I think the impersonal would be more appropriate.

He did say "you," but as I said earlier, in the U.S. people often say "you" instead of "one" because they think it sounds pretentious.


----------



## LV4-26

polaire said:
			
		

> He did say "you," but as I said earlier, in the U.S. people often say "you" instead of "one" because they think it sounds pretentious.


Yes, but what I forgot to say is that _"tu"_ (or _vous_, for that matter) can have the same impersonal value in French as _you_ has in English. Although maybe to a lesser degree. It's difficult to explain. I think, in this case, the tu would mean both the other dog and the whole world. Let my fellow natives correct me if I'm wrong or if they feel they can provide a better description of the value of "_tu"_ here.


----------



## polaire

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Yes, but what I forgot to say is that _"tu"_ (or _vous_, for that matter) can have the same impersonal value in French as _you_ has in English. Although maybe to a lesser degree. It's difficult to explain. I think, in this case, the tu would mean both the other dog and the whole world. Let my fellow natives correct me if I'm wrong or if they feel they can provide a better description of the value of "_tu"_ here.



Oh, that's interesting.

Along the same lines, I sometimes get confused about using "on."  I used to avoid it.  Then I realized from movies that people would use "on" where I would have used "nous."  So I started using it more.  Then I realized that "on" (which to an English speaker, sounds like "one," which in the U.S. sounds pretentious to some people) is actually more informal than "nous," so I began to think I was overdoing it.

It's very hard when you can't completely grasp the tone of a word that is confusingly close in sound to a word in your own language but which actually occupies a different register.


----------



## polaire

The English version of "tu," "thou," is kind of weird, too.  When people in the U.S. are taught languages with the formal and informal forms of you it often is pointed that we have an informal form in "thou."  But since most people know "thou" only from the Bible, to many it sounds _more_, not less formal than "you."


----------



## polaire

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Yes, but what I forgot to say is that _"tu"_ (or _vous_, for that matter) can have the same impersonal value in French as _you_ has in English. Although maybe to a lesser degree.* It's difficult to explain. I think, in this case, the tu would mean both the other dog and the whole world.* Let my fellow natives correct me if I'm wrong or if they feel they can provide a better description of the value of "_tu"_ here.



How would you translate:  *"I guess you had to be there." * [Explaining that it's hard to convey the spirit of the experience after the fact.]  There, "you" is used in the same way, to the person, but also to anyone in the world who did not experience whatever's being described.

Je suppose qu'on a dû y être?

Je suppose que tu as dû y être?

Or would something like this be closer?
"Il fallait y être" 

I have a feeling that they all have problems.

Je vous attends.


----------



## polaire

Dlyons said:
			
		

> Yup!  Animal names used for people in uncomplimentary ways - as "dog" is in English.  Although oddly "dog" in this context refers to a human female only doesn't it (and is totally different from the usage of "bitch")



There are lots of similar "oddities" in English, I fear.


----------



## LV4-26

polaire said:
			
		

> How would you translate:  *"I guess you had to be there." * [Explaining that it's hard to convey the spirit of the experience after the fact.] There, "you" is used in the same way, to the person, but also to anyone in the world who did not experience whatever's being described.
> 
> Je suppose qu'on a dû y être?
> 
> Je suppose que tu as dû y être?
> 
> Or would something like this be closer?
> "Il fallait y être"
> 
> I have a feeling that they all have problems.
> 
> Je vous attends.


Real tricky one, that one is. 
1.The double value of "_tu"_ or "_vous_" only works for general statements.
2. Also, to be able to use it, you have to be addressing someone. Either someone physically present, or readers, for instance. But, as I said, that doesn't stop the statement from being valid for everyone (including the speaker himself).

Your sentence doesn't comply with the first criterion. You're referring to a specific situation. So if you said
_Je suppose que tu aurais dû y être_, that would necessarily be understood exclusively as a personal address only applying to the person you're speaking to.

Therefore you have to resort to the impersonal form here.
_Je suppose qu'il fallait y être_.
as in.....your last option 

Another example of "_tu_" with a double value would perhaps make things a wee bit less confusing.
- _Tu sais, dans la vie, plus tu travailles, mieux tu t'en sors._
This word of wisdom could be said by a father to his son. It's a general statement. The father is directly addressing his son. But the statement goes for anyone and everyone.


----------



## polaire

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Real tricky one, that one is.
> 1.The double value of "_tu"_ or "_vous_" only works for general statements.
> 2. Also, to be able to use it, you have to be addressing someone. Either someone physically present, or readers, for instance. But, as I said, that doesn't stop the statement from being valid for everyone (including the speaker himself).
> 
> Your sentence doesn't comply with the first criterion. You're referring to a specific situation. So if you said
> _Je suppose que tu aurais dû y être_, that would necessarily be understood exclusively as a personal address only applying to the person you're speaking to.
> 
> Therefore you have to resort to the impersonal form here.
> _Je suppose qu'il fallait y être_.
> as in.....your last option
> 
> Another example of "_tu_" with a double value would perhaps make things a wee bit less confusing.
> - _Tu sais, dans la vie, plus tu travailles, mieux tu t'en sors._
> This word of wisdom could be said by a father to his son. It's a general statement. The father is directly addressing his son. But the statement goes for anyone and everyone.



Thanks for the detailed discussion.  "I guess you had to be there" is sort of a general statement as well.  It's a comment on the experience, but it's also a kind of statement about life that you hear all the time.  I didn't express that very well the first time.


----------



## LV4-26

I expected that  : I knew my use of _general statement_ was too vague. By general statement I mean those kind of statements that are almost always expressed in the simple present, such as proverbs*. The use of the conditional here makes it impossible to fit in.

Conversely, the sample sentence _On the Internet......_fits into the proverb-like category.

EDIT :
* proverbs or aphorisms. The topic sentence can be considered as some sort of aphorism.


----------



## LV4-26

I guess the imperfect could work as well.
_En ce temps-là, tu ne pouvais pas sortir avec une fille sans lui avoir passé la bague au doigt._
But rule #2 still applies : you're speaking to someone. The difference is that there can be no ambiguity (say we're speaking about times before the other person's birth)

I think that's where the difference between English and French lies. In English, you don't need another person to be physically (or virtually, in the case of readers) present. And that minimizes the risk of ambiguity. 

This discussion made me discover something very interesting I hadn't realized before. I might start a new thread.


----------



## tokyowalker

une vache , un chien ou meme  une mouche . ja crois pas que ca fait une difference puisuqe la signification est la meme


----------



## polaire

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Real tricky one, that one is.
> 1.The double value of "_tu"_ or "_vous_" only works for general statements.
> 2. Also, to be able to use it, you have to be addressing someone. Either someone physically present, or readers, for instance. But, as I said, that doesn't stop the statement from being valid for everyone (including the speaker himself).
> 
> Your sentence doesn't comply with the first criterion. You're referring to a specific situation. So if you said
> _Je suppose que tu aurais dû y être_, that would necessarily be understood exclusively as a personal address only applying to the person you're speaking to.
> 
> Therefore you have to resort to the impersonal form here.
> _Je suppose qu'il fallait y être_.
> as in.....your last option
> 
> Another example of "_tu_" with a double value would perhaps make things a wee bit less confusing.
> - _Tu sais, dans la vie, plus tu travailles, mieux tu t'en sors._
> This word of wisdom could be said by a father to his son. It's a general statement. The father is directly addressing his son. But the statement goes for anyone and everyone.



"s'en sortir"
The better you will _get on in life_?


----------



## LV4-26

polaire said:
			
		

> "s'en sortir"
> The better you will _get on in life_?


Yes, that's it. 

One question.
Could the sentence _I guess you had to be there_ be said by the person that was *not* there. Say, the other person is describing the situation (s)he experienced and the speaker says
_I can't really figure out what you mean. Well, I guess you had to be there.
_I do think it could but I want it to be confirmed.


----------



## polaire

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Yes, that's it.
> 
> One question.
> * Could the sentence I guess you had to be there be said by the person that was **not there.* Say, the other person is describing the situation (s)he experienced and the speaker says
> _I can't really figure out what you mean. Well, I guess you had to be there.
> _I do think it could but I want it to be confirmed.


Yes, absolutely.  

The way it usually comes up is one person tells the story and doesn't get the reaction s/he was hoping for (usually a laugh or an expression of disgust or shock).  At that point, the storyteller _or_ the listener says, in a kind of deadpan tone: "I guess you had to be there."

From Google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22you+had+to+be+there%22&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q="I+guess+you+had+to+be+there"&btnG=Search


----------



## LV4-26

Thanks. Then the interesting point is that in such a situation, the _"you"_ cannot refer to the other person *at all*. (as the other person was precisely the one that *was* there). In *that* specific situation, "_you_" really means *I *_plus a number of undefined people._ Funny, isn't it that "_you_" (of course only the one with an impersonal value) can occasionally exclude _you_?


----------



## polaire

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Thanks. Then the interesting point is that in such a situation, the _"you"_ cannot refer to the other person *at all*. (as the other person was precisely the one that *was* there). In *that* specific situation, "_you_" really means *I *_plus a number of undefined people._ Funny, isn't it that "_you_" (of course only the one with an impersonal value) can occasionally exclude _you_?



It is funny.


----------



## LV4-26

I found those two pages
one about generic "you"
one about le "tu" générique

Of course, the French one is very hard to follow for a non native.
But I'll quote one sentence which seems to be more accurate and precise than all my explanations. Then I'll try to translate it


> selon nous, en employant le «tu» de cette figure, le locuteur invite son interlocuteur à devenir le protagoniste principal de la scène verbale qu'il a dressée pour que celui-ci puisse suivre le récit de façon plus active.


 Which means
 According to us, by using the "tu", the speaker asks the listener to become the main protagonist of the verbal scene he has made up so that the listener can follow the "story" in a more active way.

Which is not exactly (as I said previoulsy) the same part as the one played by the generic "you" (the latter is much simpler : basically it's undefinite that's about all).


----------



## polaire

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> I found those two pages
> one about generic "you"
> one about le "tu" générique
> 
> Of course, the French one is very hard to follow for a non native.
> But I'll quote one sentence which seems to be more accurate and precise than all my explanations. Then I'll try to translate it
> Which means
> According to us, by using the "tu", the speaker asks the listener to become the main protagonist of the verbal scene he has made up so that the listener can follow the "story" in a more active way.
> 
> Which is not exactly (as I said previouslyy) the same part as the one played by the generic "you" (the latter is much simpler : basically it's undefinite that's about all).


Thanks! 

This is interesting, from the first article.  See, I told you that using "one" was awkward.

In casual English, the second person pronoun "you" often takes on the additional role of a generic pronoun. In more formal speech, the pronoun "one" serves this function; but as a pronoun (notably _not_ when it signifies the number 1), it is felt to be somewhat awkward, and is infrequently used outside the most formal styles. The _Oxford English Dictionary_ suggests that the use of this word as a pronoun in English was influenced by French _on_, which is not a number, but a reduced form of _homme_, "human being, person".

It never occurred to me that "on" ever meant the number "one."


----------

