# doit retenir



## Icetrance

En effet, le véritable problème est de savoir, lorsqu'aucune preuve n'est suffisante, et alors que le juge est obligé de trancher le litige, quelle solution ce dernier doit retenir.

I always thought that "retenir" mean to "uphold" in a legal context. But, some people have been telling me no. I don't believe them just yet.

I thought that this meant: the settlement decision the judge is expected to uphold...


Thanks in advance.


----------



## tilt

Icetrance said:


> En effet, le véritable problème est de savoir, lorsqu'aucune preuve n'est suffisante, et alors que le juge est obligé de trancher le litige, quelle solution ce dernier doit retenir.
> 
> I always thought that "retenir" mean to "uphold" in a legal context. But, some people have been telling me no. I don't believe them just yet.
> 
> I thought that this meant: the settlement decision the judge is expected to uphold...
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance.


If _to uphold _is used as a synonym of _to prefer_ here (and I think it does), your translation is right.


----------



## Gil

Suggestion:
which solution the judge will adopt.
I don't think "retenir une solution" is legaleze here.
Dans le Petit Robert


> 4¨
> Dr. Admettre, garder (un chef d'accusation, un argument). Le jury n'a pas retenu la préméditation.
> 
> Cour. Prendre en considération (un fait, une idée) pour en tirer parti. Nous regrettons de ne pouvoir retenir votre proposition. Retenir la candidature de qqn.


on mentionne le sens en droit (Dr.) et le sens courant (Cour.)
Ama, dans le contexte que tu donnes, il ne s'agit pas d'admettre ou de garder, mais de choisir.

Edit:  "uphold" est plutôt synonyme de "support, sustain"


----------



## Icetrance

Gil said:


> Suggestion:
> which solution the judge will adopt.
> I don't think "retenir une solution" is legaleze here.
> Dans le Petit Robert
> 
> on mentionne le sens en droit (Dr.) et le sens courant (Cour.)
> Ama, dans le contexte que tu donnes, il ne s'agit pas d'admettre ou de garder, mais de choisir.




Thanks, Gil! 

Thanks for the definitions. But, I'm still a little confused.

 En effet, le véritable problème est de savoir, lorsqu'aucune preuve n'est suffisante, et alors que le juge est obligé de trancher le litige, quelle solution ce dernier doit retenir.

According to these definitions, you'd have:

what (solution = settlement decision?) the judge is expected to consider.

Not necessarily "opt for" or "prefer."

doit = is expected (I'm pretty sure)


----------



## Gil

In Le Petit Larousse, I think it is clearer:


> 5. Considérer (une idée, une proposition, etc.) comme digne d'intérêt. Retenir un projet.
> (c) Larousse.


and for _doit = is expected_, it's a valid option


----------



## tilt

Icetrance said:


> Thanks, Gil!
> 
> Thanks for the definitions. But, I'm still a little confused.
> 
> En effet, le véritable problème est de savoir, lorsqu'aucune preuve n'est suffisante, et alors que le juge est obligé de trancher le litige, quelle solution ce dernier doit retenir.
> 
> According to these definitions, you'd have:
> 
> what (solution = settlement decision?) the judge is expected to consider.
> 
> Not necessarily "opt for" or "prefer."
> 
> doit = is expected (I'm pretty sure)


Why not simply saying _what solution the judge *must* consider_?


----------



## Icetrance

Gil said:


> In Le Petit Larousse, I think it is clearer:
> 
> and for _doit = is expected_, it's a valid option



The judge is expected to consider this "solution".

Il est évident qu'il y en a certaines que refusera de prendre en considération ce juge.

Merci beaucoup Gil. Tu m'as tant aidé ce soir. Je te revaudrai ça.


----------



## Icetrance

So, "doit" does not mean "is expected to", Tilt?

It means "must" here???


----------



## tilt

Icetrance said:


> So, "doit" does not mean "is expected to", Tilt?
> 
> It means "must" here???


I don't understand your question, Icetrance. I'd say that _must _and _is expected to_ are equivalent, here, aren't they?
I just meant _must _could make the sentence simpler and thus clearer.


----------



## Draper

_uphold_ can be a good choice. In order to say: "retenir [s'agissant du juge] la responsabilité de quelqu'un", we can say _uphold someone's liability_. The most compelling proof is this excerpt from a decision pronounced by the Court of Appeals of the USA, 4th circuit, January 13, 2000  : "Wassau contends that if we uphold its liability on Stonehenge's breach of contract claim, we must vacate the district court's judgment and remand for recalculation of the amount it owes Stonehenge in indemnification."  But _adopt_ is correct as well. On the other hand _consider_ seems too dubious, given that we are talking about a decision to be pronounced by the Court.


----------



## Icetrance

tilt said:


> I don't understand your question, Icetrance. I'd say that _must _and _is expected to_ are equivalent, here, aren't they?
> I just meant _must _could make the sentence simpler and thus clearer.



Tilt, "must" and "is expected" are *not* synonyms for one another.

_Doit_ has more than one meaning in French, depending on the context.

Je dois appeler ma mère ce soir = I must call my mother this evening.

Le président doit rencontrer le maire de cette commune pour la première fois cet après-midi = The president is expected to meet the mayor of this town for the first time this afternoon.



			
				Draper said:
			
		

> _uphold_ can be a good choice. In order to say: "retenir [s'agissant du juge] la responsabilité de quelqu'un", we can say _uphold someone's liability_. The most compelling proof is this excerpt from a decision pronounced by the Court of Appeals of the USA, 4th circuit, January 13, 2000 : "Wassau contends that if we uphold its liability on Stonehenge's breach of contract claim, we must vacate the district court's judgment and remand for recalculation of the amount it owes Stonehenge in indemnification." But _adopt_ is correct as well. On the other hand _consider_ seems too dubious, given that we are talking about a decision to be pronounced by the Court.



That's what I initially thought, Draper. But, I am not sure.

It all depends on what "solution" is referring to here. If it's a settlement agreement, then it would be "uphold" for sure.

I appreciate your help.


----------



## Gil

When there is no sufficient proof watsoever, what is there to uphold?


----------



## Nicomon

Gil said:


> Ama, dans le contexte que tu donnes, il ne s'agit pas d'admettre ou de garder, mais de choisir.
> 
> Edit: "uphold" est plutôt synonyme de "support, sustain"


 
C'est ce que je comprends aussi dans le contexte. "_Adopt_" ou "_opt for_" comme quelques uns l'ont suggéré ou approuvé... ici

Edit: àma, _upheld_ n'est pas synonyme de _preferred/favoured_ (comme AllegroTrans semble le suggérer)


----------



## Icetrance

Nicomon said:


> C'est ce que je comprends aussi dans le contexte. "_Adopt_" ou "_opt for_" comme quelques uns l'ont suggéré ou approuvé... ici
> 
> Edit: àma, _upheld_ n'est pas synonyme de _preferred/favoured_ (comme AllegroTrans semble le suggérer)



Yes, Nicomon, but how does one get "prefer" out of "retenir"? I've read the definitions. Only two could fit in this context: uphold or consider

Si, mon amie, "uphold" peut effectivement avoir le sens de "support/approval."

Definitions of *uphold*:

Definition:1. *maintain or support: *to maintain, confirm or defend something, especially laws or principles, in the face of hostility

2. *give somebody support: *to provide somebody with moral support, or inspire somebody with confidence

I agree that "uphold" may not be correct. 

I think that "retenir" means "to carefully weigh", which is clearly implied by the English verb "to consider."

Il pourrait bien s'agir d'une solution particulière que va prendre en considération le plus sérieusement le juge, mais forcément celle qu'il va finir par choisir.

The solution that I choose to give most consideration to may not be the one that I choose.

retenir sa candidature =  to consider one for a job (not who they prefer to hire)


----------



## tilt

Icetrance said:


> Tilt, "must" and "is expected" are *not* synonyms for one another.
> 
> _Doit_ has more than one meaning in French, depending on the context.
> 
> Je dois appeler ma mère ce soir = I must call my mother this evening.
> 
> Le président doit rencontrer le maire de cette commune pour la première fois cet après-midi = The president is expected to meet the mayor of this town for the first time this afternoon.


Ok, I understand the difference. I always thought _must _had several meanings like in French, including _to be expected to_.
But then, in the French initial sentence, I think _must _is to be used to translate _doit_, because the judge definitely has to make a decision.


----------



## viera

My favorite: *which solution he should opt for*.

*doit*: I can't understand how "is expected" could translate "doit". Expected by whom? Are we introducing some third party here? It is not about what is expected, but rather about what he should do, in accordance with the law, justice and good practice.

*retenir*: The judge has to decide, to choose the best solution, and not just support, consider, approve or uphold somebody else's decision. The buck stops with the judge and he is the one who must choose.

Icetrance: "retenir sa candidature = to consider one for a job (not who they prefer to hire)"
I don't agree with you interpretation. "Nous avons le plaisir de vous informer que nous avons retenu votre candidature" means that you are the chosen one, ...er, that you have been selected.


----------



## Nicomon

I agree with Viera about *opt for*, in context, and that doit means *should* here.
And also this sentence from Draper (#10) 
But _*adopt*_ is correct as well. On the other hand _consider_ seems too dubious, given that we are talking about a decision to be pronounced by the Court.
And this other one from Gil (#12)
When there is no sufficient proof watsoever, what is there to uphold?

Although in my field of work « _retenir la candidature_ » usually means that someone's CV was retained, out of a few applicants to choose from. e.g.: _Seules les personnes dont la candidature a été retenue seront convoquées en entrevue._ And this indeed would be *consider.*


----------



## viera

"Although in my field of work « _retenir la candidature_ » usually means that someone's CV was retained, out of a few applicants to choose from. e.g.: _Seules les personnes dont la candidature a été retenue seront convoquées en entrevue._ And this indeed would be *consider."*

Nicomon, my interpretation is slightly different. I imagine that all the CVs were considered (examined) and a few candidates were selected (retenus) for further consideration, after which a single candidate would be definitively chosen (retenu) and given the job.


----------



## Moon Palace

My two cents hoping it will help:
I personally would have used 'uphold' rather than consider, because to me there is a difference in the process of the action: consider first and then decide on something, whereas 'uphold' conveys the idea that the decision has been made by the judge (he has picked the solution from the array of solutions he was given). But does this make any sense to a native? or am I just hair-splitting?

As regards 'is expected to', I would also keep that one since the passive voice hints at an agent that is indeed obscure as it is the sum of laws and court decisions that eventually compel the judge to give that decision.
I usually teach that 'must' does not imply outer constraint but rather that the subject of the action accepts the duty he has to fulfill, contrary to such phrases as 'have to' and 'be expected to' which both convey external pressure. 

One other verb I have seen used in the field of law is 'render a decision'. Couldn't it fit here?


----------



## Nicomon

viera said:


> Nicomon, my interpretation is slightly different. I imagine that all the CVs were considered (examined) and a few candidates were selected (retenus) for further consideration, after which a single candidate would be definitively chosen (retenu) and given the job.


 
My bad.  You are absolutely right about *selected*, in my example*.* We often say « _sélectionnés pour une entrevue_ » What I had in mind is a context like these:



> -This means that your resume must be written to fit a particular job listing if you want to even have a chance of being considered for the job.
> -Typically a hiring manager has 10 seconds to determine whether or not you should be considered for the job.


 
In any event, I agreed right from the start that consider isn't right in Icetrance context. I understand adopt/opt for.


----------



## Icetrance

C'est bien dommage que ce soit la seule phrase du texte que j'ai devant moi.

What is "solution" exactly? That would help clear things up a little.

 I've never seen "retenir" to mean anything but *uphold* in a legal context such as this. But, maybe, this is an exceptional case.

uphold: to defend or maintain a principle or law, or to state that a decision which has already been made, especially a legal one, is correct:

retenir = prendre en considération/uphold ??

I don't know.

It's interesting to note that "devoir" is being misunderstood here by someone (probably me LOL).

No, I wouldn't translate it by "must." 

Il doit me rendre les clefs demain matin =  He's supposed to/is expected to give me back the keys tomorrow morning/He should be giving me back the keys tomorrow morning. 

Il s'agit de ce qu'il devrait retenir, le juge? In that case, it's clear to mean it means "should" (obligation).

Again, the both words have me crazy.


----------



## Icetrance

Moon Palace said:


> As regards 'is expected to', I would also keep that one since the passive voice hints at an agent that is indeed obscure as it is the sum of laws and court decisions that eventually compel the judge to give that decision.I usually teach that 'must' does not imply outer constraint but rather that the subject of the action accepts the duty he has to fulfill, contrary to such phrases as 'have to' and 'be expected to' which both convey external pressure.




J'abonde dans le même sens que toi. Il ne semble pas s'agir d'une obligation de la part du juge, mais plutôt la solution que l'on peut attendre de ce dernier, compte tenu de tous les événements de l'action jusqu'au présent et de toutes les lois déjà en place à considérer.

Rappelez-vous bien que "should" en anglais peut avoir le sens de "is expected to." En anglais, le sens de "should" est parfois ambiguë.




			
				Moon Palace said:
			
		

> One other verb I have seen used in the field of law is 'render a decision'. Couldn't it fit here?



Cela se dit, mais je ne pense pas ça marche dans ce contexte. 

Ce que je ne comprends pas, c'est d'où vient l'idée de "prefer/opt", vu les définitions données?

retenir = to uphold 
retenir = to consider


----------



## Nicomon

I don't know how to explain solution. I think it is a solution to the problem/litigation. It's just that in my stubborn mind, you can uphold a decision, but not a solution. I think you choose, adopt or opt for a solution (among a few) and then render a decision.  

You have to/should/must decide which of the possible solutions is the best one to translate this sentence. It is expected of you.  

PS: there are only 6 google hits for "uphold a solution"


----------



## Icetrance

Nicomon said:


> I don't know how to explain solution. I think it is a solution to the problem/litigation. It's just that in my stubborn mind, you can uphold a decision, but not a solution. I think you choose, adopt or opt for a solution (among a few) and then render a decision.
> 
> You have to/should/must decide which of the possible solutions is the best one to translate this sentence. It is expected of you.
> 
> PS: there are only 6 google hits for "uphold a solution"



Tu es têtue comme tout! LOL. J'aime bien ça.

Pour ce qui est du sens de «retenir», tu as peut-être raison. Mais comment en être certain?

Quant au sens de "doit", je pense avoir vu une phrase comme telle: « Le juge doit retenir la décision d'un tribunal inférieur ». 

Je la traduirais par «The judge is expected to uphold the lower court's decision» (or should uphold)

Cela ne voudrait pas dire « should » dans le sens de l'obligation.


----------



## Moon Palace

I agree with Nicomon, I wouldn't say 'uphold a solution' for the following reason: to me, uphold presupposes a decision, and this is contradictory with what a solution is by essence, since a solution is one possible way out of a conundrum, but there may be others. The decision in that case follows the appraisal of the different existing solutions, which in my very humble opinion accounts for why the two verbs cannot be swapped. 
Does it suit any of you? Or am I totally off the mark?


----------



## Gil

Moon Palace said:


> Does it suit any of you? Or am I totally off the mark?


Tout à fait d'accord.


----------



## Icetrance

Moon Palace said:


> I agree with Nicomon, I wouldn't say 'uphold a solution' for the following reason: to me, uphold presupposes a decision, and this is contradictory with what a solution is by essence, since a solution is one possible way out of a conundrum, but there may be others. The decision in that case follows the appraisal of the different existing solutions, which in my very humble opinion accounts for why the two verbs cannot be swapped.
> Does it suit any of you? Or am I totally off the mark?



Thanks, Moon Palace. Je pense aussi que "uphold" ferait une mauvaise traduction.

Je vais opter pour: what solution the judge is expected to accept.


----------



## Icetrance

Icetrance said:


> Je vais opter pour: what solution the judge is expected to accept.



Qu'en pensez-vous?

How are you understanding "doit" here? I need a bit more opinions before calling it quits. LOL.


----------



## Moon Palace

Well, I wouldn't like to be too critical, but to me a solution is not accepted by a judge, he is the one that is going to pick the right one usually, isn't he?
So I offer two solutions that could fit:
what solution the judge is expected to endorse?
what solution the judge is expected to adopt?
Hope it will suit you.


----------



## Icetrance

Moon Palace said:


> Well, I wouldn't like to be too critical, but to me a solution is not accepted by a judge, he is the one that is going to pick the right one usually, isn't he?
> So I offer two solutions that could fit:
> what solution the judge is expected to endorse?
> what solution the judge is expected to adopt?
> Hope it will suit you.



Thanks so much.

I'm still having problems deciding which is the case:

doit = used to indicate probability or likelihood
doit = used to indicate obligation or duty
doit = used to indicate desirability

In English, "should" and "ought" can encompass all these meanings. That's why I'm having trouble deciding. 

which solution the judge ??? to endorse/approve...


----------



## Icetrance

Yes, "is expected" could indeed work here.

If I say "It is expected that you don't wear your shoes in the Grandma's house", it means that you are not supposed to wear your shoes in Grandma's house. 

"Should" is very ambigious in English 

1)used to indicate probability or likelihood
2)used to indicate obligation or duty/desirability

quelle solution le juge doit retenir....

what solution the judge is expected to approve

It probably does imply obligation or duty, but remember "should" and "is expected" are both ambiguous in certain contexts. Without more context, "on ne peut que deviner."


----------



## Moon Palace

Regarding the difference between 'should' and 'is expected to', it all depends on who is writing, and what this person's stance is. I would naturally advise 'is expected to' because it is more impartial, but of course if the journalist or whoever is writing has started a diatribe or a praise of the judge and the circumstances, then maybe 'should' is more appropriate. imho.


----------

