# Laisser entendre



## CLEMENTINE

Help please!

How would you translante "laisser entendre" in this context:
"Votre réponse laisse entendre que vous avez déjà pris une décison"

Thanks


----------



## ninoupticha

I would translate that: "Your answer makes me presume that you already made a decision"
but i'm not english so it could be wrong


----------



## Maldoror

CLEMENTINE said:
			
		

> Help please!
> 
> How would you translante "laisser entendre" in this context:
> "Votre réponse laisse entendre que vous avez déjà pris une décison"
> 
> Thanks


Je dirais : the answer you made *suggests *you have already made a decision


----------



## Gil

Your answer gives the impression that...


----------



## le chat noir

I think "suggests" is the most appropriate equivalent : "laisser entendre" implies the idea of letting the interlocutor guess about something you don't want to say directly.


----------



## timpeac

le chat noir said:
			
		

> "laisser entendre" implies the idea of letting the interlocutor guess about something you don't want to say directly.


 
I agree with what le chat noir has written here and would therefore make the English verb a bit more active since the interlocutor is inferring something and say "you reply leads me to believe that you have already made your decision". You have to add the "me" in here which is not explicit in the French, so if you don't want to add that I would say that Gil's "gives the impression that" is best, since it underlines the fact that the interlocuter is reacting in some way.


----------



## fetchezlavache

implies ? implicitly states that ?


----------



## Benjy

implies/would imply that is what i wouls go for. as has already been mentioned


----------



## fetchezlavache

who mentioned it ? have i missed something ?


----------



## Jabote

I definitely vote for "leads to believe"


----------



## Gil

I vote for "implies".


----------



## timpeac

I don't like "implies" here used of a reply because an implication must be made by someone. In fact I think I would go as far as to say, in my opinion, it is grammatically wrong. A reply cannot imply anything. A person can infer something from someone else's reply, or that person can imply something by making that particular reply. The reply itself has no ulterior motive either way!!


----------



## Benjy

timpeac said:
			
		

> I don't like "implies" here used of a reply because an implication must be made by someone. In fact I think I would go as far as to say, in my opinion, it is grammatically wrong. A reply cannot imply anything. A person can infer something from someone else's reply, or that person can imply something by making that particular reply. The reply itself has no ulterior motive either way!!



mmmmmmmmmm perhaps. but because im annoying, i'm going to disagree without providing any reasons. so there! how do you like that??

ps i guess strictly speaking you are right. but implied is used in that way all the time.


----------



## timpeac

Benjy said:
			
		

> mmmmmmmmmm perhaps. but because im annoying, i'm going to disagree without providing any reasons. so there! how do you like that??
> 
> ps i guess strictly speaking you are right. but implied is used in that way all the time.


 
You are right, it is used a lot but we might as well recommend a form that is not non-sensical to our English learning friends though, particularly as there seems to be many different ways to translate the original. Why pick one that has inanimate (indeed bodiless) objects going around implying things?


----------



## Benjy

because impliquer gets "abused" in the same way? meh. i like implies. shoot me


----------



## timpeac

Benjy said:
			
		

> because impliquer gets "abused" in the same way? meh. i like implies. shoot me


 
Aaaargh there is now a little hole in my computer screen just where your smiley is  .

Seriously though, I know that impliquer would have the same problem but the original didn't use that verb. Using "to imply" (or indeed "impliquer") of a reply would be viewed as poor expression by some, and I do think that that is worth pointing out, since we would be translating an unimpeachable French phrase with an English one some people could legitimately criticise. I would certainly suggest someone avoid using it in an essay, but in speech I don't imagine anyone would probably notice.


----------



## fetchezlavache

timpeac said:
			
		

> I don't like "implies" here used of a reply because an implication must be made by someone. In fact I think I would go as far as to say, in my opinion, it is grammatically wrong. A reply cannot imply anything. A person can infer something from someone else's reply, or that person can imply something by making that particular reply. The reply itself has no ulterior motive either way!!



no, an implication mustn't be made by someone.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=39436&dict=CALD

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

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=imply


and although i'm not a native, i'll stick with my suggestion. doh !


----------



## fetchezlavache

timpeac said:
			
		

> Aaaargh there is now a little hole in my computer screen just where your smiley is  .
> 
> Seriously though, I know that impliquer would have the same problem but the original didn't use that verb. Using "to imply" (or indeed "impliquer") of a reply would be viewed as poor expression by some, and I do think that that is worth pointing out, since we would be translating an unimpeachable French phrase with an English one some people could legitimately criticise. I would certainly suggest someone avoid using it in an essay, but in speech I don't imagine anyone would probably notice.




and, 'imply' and 'impliquer' have got nothing to do with one another, at least in this particular case.


----------



## timpeac

fetchezlavache said:
			
		

> no, an implication mustn't be made by someone.
> 
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=39436&dict=CALD
> 
> http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/imply?view=uk
> 
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=imply
> 
> 
> and although i'm not a native, i'll stick with my suggestion. doh !


 
That's the beauty of democracy! It sounds awkward to me though. Either way, the original phrase underlines the person's active "entendre" rather than the reply's active "implication". The French could easily have put "implique" here if that was the nuance wanted. Either way, I don't think we're all going to agree and the nuance is small...


----------



## timpeac

fetchezlavache said:
			
		

> and, 'imply' and 'impliquer' have got nothing to do with one another, at least in this particular case.


 
I'm not sure what you mean?


----------



## Gil

fetchezlavache said:
			
		

> no, an implication mustn't be made by someone.
> 
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=39436&dict=CALD
> 
> http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/imply?view=uk
> 
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=imply
> 
> 
> and although i'm not a native, i'll stick with my suggestion. doh !



Your Oxford reference says:
 USAGE The words imply and infer do not mean the same thing. Imply is used with a speaker as its subject,
and Fowler says the same thing, although Cambridge uses the example:
2 FORMAL to involve something or make it necessary:
Socialism implies equality.
Tanx anyway.  I learned something:  there is a difference between infer and imply and some people care.


----------



## timpeac

Gil said:
			
		

> Your Oxford reference says:
> USAGE The words imply and infer do not mean the same thing. Imply is used with a speaker as its subject,
> and Fowler says the same thing, although Cambridge uses the example:
> 2 FORMAL to involve something or make it necessary:
> Socialism implies equality.
> Tanx anyway. I learned something: there is a difference between infer and imply and some people care.


 
That's right Gil. Someone implies something by their words or actions and someone else infers what is meant. So someone can imply something without someone else picking up on it (making the inference) and equally you can infer something that was never implied in the first place. Either way takes a person to do either. I think the "socialism implies equality" is a specialised usage, based on the mathematical, scientific usage of proof. I notice that the entry does say FORMAL at the start.


----------



## Jabote

I'm sticking with leads to believe. Because implies means that what is "laissé entendre" is sure. Whereas laisser entendre means that there is a doubt. Which doubt is present in "leads to believe".

That is my opinion. And I share it.


----------



## fetchezlavache

timpeac said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean?



well, impliquer had a notion of logical consequence that is totally absent of 'laisser entendre', and thus of 'imply' as i had intended it. 

not sure this is clear enough. it's clear in my head but i have difficulties putting the words together correctly.


----------



## timpeac

fetchezlavache said:
			
		

> well, impliquer had a notion of logical consequence that is totally absent of 'laisser entendre', and thus of 'imply' as i had intended it.
> 
> not sure this is clear enough. it's clear in my head but i have difficulties putting the words together correctly.


 
Erm, I'm not sure. I _think_ that you are now pretty much saying what I was saying from the start, that "laisser entendre" has no active nuance at all and therefore shouldn't be translated by "imply" in English. If so - you are now saying you disagree with your earlier translation? This thread is getting quite surprisingly complicated.


----------



## Jabote

timpeac said:
			
		

> Erm, I'm not sure. I _think_ that you are now pretty much saying what I was saying from the start, that "laisser entendre" has no active nuance at all and therefore shouldn't be translated by "imply" in English.


 
As far as I am concerned, I have always agreed with what you had said right from the beginning. Laisser entendre leaves a doubt as to the reality of what it laisse entendre, whereas to imply means that it is sure !


----------



## fetchezlavache

no, that's not it timpeac, i was referring to your inserting the french 'impliquer' in this thread. and to the differences between 'impliquer' and 'to imply'.

i see where you and jabote come from, but have found no clear evidence that 'imply' means that 'it's sure', pour utiliser les mots de jabote... 

so we'll have to agree to disagree


----------



## timpeac

fetchezlavache said:
			
		

> no, that's not it timpeac, i was referring to your inserting the french 'impliquer' in this thread. and to the differences between 'impliquer' and 'to imply'.
> 
> i see where you and jabote come from, but have found no clear evidence that 'imply' means that 'it's sure', pour utiliser les mots de jabote...
> 
> so we'll have to agree to disagree


 
Actually it was Benjy in no.15. But I still don't understand. Impliquer and to imply are absolutely identical in this sense. If you don't think that "impliquer" has the same meaning in this context as "laisser entendre" (and I agree) then I can't see how you think "to imply" has. "to imply" also has the meaning of logical consequence, as highlighted in your dictionary extracts.


----------



## Jabote

That is what I meant: impliquer has the same meaning of logical consequence as to imply. Laisser entendre leaves the same doubt as lead to believe. So if it meant to imply the author would have used impliquer.


----------



## Gil

timpeac said:
			
		

> Actually it was Benjy in no.15. But I still don't understand. Impliquer and to imply are absolutely identical in this sense. If you don't think that "impliquer" has the same meaning in this context as "laisser entendre" (and I agree) then I can't see how you think "to imply" has. "to imply" also has the meaning of logical consequence, as highlighted in your dictionary extracts.



"Impliquer and to imply are absolutely identical in this sense."  I would be very cautious about that.  When the subject of "impliquer" is a person, its meaning is not the same as "imply".  See the examples in "Le Trésor de la langue française".

Edit.  The existence of "implicate" in English does not simplify things: it seems to be translated with "impliquer" too.


----------



## kiolbassa

CLEMENTINE said:
			
		

> Help please!
> 
> How would you translante "laisser entendre" in this context:
> "Votre réponse laisse entendre que vous avez déjà pris une décison"
> 
> Thanks



How about "your answer gives me to understand that you have already taken a decision"?

PS
I agree with whoever it was who pointed out that imply and impliquer do not correspond in this context (and in many others....)


----------



## timpeac

Gil said:
			
		

> "Impliquer and to imply are absolutely identical in this sense." I would be very cautious about that. When the subject of "impliquer" is a person, its meaning is not the same as "imply". See the examples in "Le Trésor de la langue française".
> 
> Edit. The existence of "implicate" in English does not simplify things: it seems to be translated with "impliquer" too.


 
True. I only meant in terms of the logical consequence, I should have been more explicit in my "in this sense".


----------



## fetchezlavache

i don't know really tim. i see no absolute evidence in 'my' dictionary links that 'imply' has that sense of logical consequence. 

i disagree with you that impliquer and imply are absolutely identical in this sense. 

it is very well possible that i have been misusing 'imply' all these years, but when merriam webster says 'to express indirectly' i find the perfect meaning of 'laisser entendre'... 

dans 'laisser entendre', il n'y a aucun moyen de savoir si le non-exprimé est le fait de celui qui parle ou de celui qui entend. pour moi c'est une expression neutre. on ne peut pas savoir si celui qui parle a fait un sous-entendu délibéré, ou si c'est celui qui entend qui entend des choses autres que celles qui lui sont dites explicitement.

so, i rest my case, and rest my brain too.


----------



## Jabote

Laisser entendre = on peut entendre (comprendre) d'une façon, mais aussi d'une autre. Donc doute.


----------

