# arracher du sol (soulever)



## Nil-the-Frogg

Hi,

I'd like to translate "le bureau fut arraché du sol". Note that the use of "arraché" instead of "soulevé" suggests that this desk was lifted with some (much, in this case  ) brutality. Also note that it was not attached to the floor, except by gravity.

Any idea?


----------



## mally pense

Perhaps "jerked off the ground" ?


----------



## Nil-the-Frogg

mally pense said:


> Perhaps "jerked off the ground" ?


"jerked off"? Err... Must not be the meaning I know!


----------



## wildan1

Nil-the-Frogg said:


> "jerked off"? Err... Must not be the meaning I know!


 
Nil must have a dirty mind--but he's not alone!

I think I would use _ripped off the ground_ (to avoid any misunderstandings!)


----------



## KeithCar

The shock caused the desk to heave up off the floor.
The desk, uplifted several meters, fell back with a pronounced _thud._
The desk was thrust up by the force of the blow.


----------



## mally pense

Nil-the-Frogg said:


> "jerked off"? Err... Must not be the meaning I know!


 
There's no ambiguity or possibility of misunderstanding here. The expression you're thinking of would not make sense in the context of "jerked off *the ground*", and even more particularly not in the context of "*the table* was jerked off *the ground*". Not even a troublesome schoolboy would attempt to misinterpret that.

So behave!


----------



## KeithCar

or...     The desk was _thrust upwards_.
No need to mention the ground here.


----------



## mally pense

Or jerked upwards!

_(put your silly grins away now!)_


----------



## Nil-the-Frogg

Oh, I think there are a couple of misunderstandings here, and I'm responsible for this.

First, while I am unquestionably very dirty-minded, WR doesn't help when the two possible translations for "jerk off" are: "se tourner les pouces" and "se branler" 

Secondly, in the case of this desk, someone actually lifts it up before throwing it away (and yes, "someone" is very strong). It's not like a tremor or a bouncing table... 

Sorry for the mess.


----------



## KeithCar

Nil didn't notice, typing away in the forum, when Mally had entered his office. Before he was able to reach the _Post Quick Reply_ button, his desk heaved up off the floor.
...his desk was lifted high into the air.
...his desk violently rose without cause. No cause, until his eyes met Mally's stare.
...his desk exploded upwards from the carpet.
...his desk launched up and froze for the better part of a second. He was just able to make out her slender figure holding his solid oak bureau high overhead when it came crashing down upon him.


----------



## KeithCar

...his desk shook and was jerked upwards. "Quit jerking off!" yelled Mally, holding the bureau in a threatening manner above him. He wished he would have stayed in bed today.


----------



## mally pense

What's going on with this desk anyway? Is there some sort of poltergeist, or are there people involved in doing the lifting? "Also note that it was not attached to the floor, except by gravity" is ambiguous - I took it to mean that it was not screwed permanently to the floor, so there was no "breaking away" involved, but it seems to have been more generally interpreted in a paranormal sense.

Oops, I've just noticed N-t-F has already clarified this. In which case, most of the suggestions so far seem a bit too extreme (apart from mine of course  ). I'd like to propose another:

yanked off the floor


----------



## mally pense

Nil-the-Frogg said:


> First, while I am unquestionably very dirty-minded, WR doesn't help when the two possible translations for "jerk off" are: "se tourner les pouces" and "se branler"


 
You should have been looking up "jerked" rather than "jerked off" because the "off" obviously (?) belongs to the phrase "off the floor". I don't think you can blame the dictionary for this.  It's all good fun though!


----------



## wildan1

mally pense said:


> What's going on with this desk anyway? Is there some sort of poltergeist, or are there people involved in doing the lifting? "Also note that it was not attached to the floor, except by gravity" is ambiguous - I took it to mean that it was not screwed permanently to the floor, so there was no "breaking away" involved, but it seems to have been more generally interpreted in a paranormal sense.
> 
> Oops, I've just noticed N-t-F has already clarified this. In which case, most of the suggestions so far seem a bit too extreme (apart from mine of course  ). I'd like to propose another:
> 
> yanked off the floor


 
_yanked?_ yanked!!?--watch it, you limey!

No, you're right, mally. _Yanked_ is the right word.

But Nil and I still are right about the problematic choice of _jerked off_. It's as unambiguously suggestive in AE as _wanked off_ would be in BE...


----------



## Nil-the-Frogg

mally pense said:


> You should have been looking up "jerked" rather than "jerked off" because the "off" obviously (?) belongs to the phrase "off the floor". I don't think you can blame the dictionary for this.  It's all good fun though!


Oh, well, I don't mind taking the blame as long as it doesn't involve being on the receiving hand of a desk throwing contest. 

To yank or to jerk are translated as "soubresaut" or "coup sec"... I would not have guessed they could be used as synonyms for "rip off" (my favorite so far, but I wonder if it doesn't suggest that the desk was fixed to the floor) or "lift brutally"


----------



## wildan1

but _rip off _is also slang for _steal _or _cheat--_which could make the meaning ambiguous in another way


----------



## Nil-the-Frogg

Okay, "yanked off" it will be, then.


----------



## Nicomon

As a non native, I'm not contesting the usage of "yanked off", which sounds right to me.

However for my personal knowledge...

In weight lifting "un arraché" - as opposed to "épaulé-jeté" - is translated as "snatch". So I'm wondering if _snatched off the floor_ would have made any sense, in Nil's context. Or is this only used in a sense of _to grab? _ 

And how about something like _was sent flying across the room_? A little too extreme, I suppose.


----------



## wildan1

Nicomon said:


> As a non native, I'm not contesting the usage of "yanked off", which sounds right to me.
> 
> However for my personl knowledge...
> 
> In weight lifting "un arraché" - as opposed to "épaulé-jeté" - is translated as "snatch". So I'm wondering if _snatched off the floor_ would have made any sense, in Nil's context. Or is this only used in a sense of _to grab? _
> 
> And how about something like _want sent flying across the room_? A little too extreme, I suppose.


 
_went flying across the room_ is good. But for that description to be true, you would need to have a major earthquake hit or a Mack truck just having run into the side of the house!


----------



## Nicomon

wildan1 said:


> _went flying across the room_ is good. But for that description to be true, you would need to have a major earthquake hit or a Mack truck just having run into the side of the house!


 
Thank you Wildan. I actually meant to write was sent flying (I just corrected my typo). I admit that this one was farfetched -even in a figurative way-and I gather that in the absence of a comment, _snatched off_ doesn't work either. 

So _yanked off_ it is.


----------



## mally pense

Nicomon said:


> As a non native, I'm not contesting the usage of "yanked off", which sounds right to me.
> 
> However for my personl knowledge...
> 
> In weight lifting "un arraché" - as opposed to "épaulé-jeté" - is translated as "snatch". So I'm wondering if _snatched off the floor_ would have made any sense, in Nil's context. Or is this only used in a sense of _to grab? _
> 
> And how about something like _was sent flying across the room_? A little too extreme, I suppose.


 
_"Snatched off the floor"_ might make sense to a weightlifter when contemplating something as heavy as a desk/bureau, but for the rest of us mere mortals, a table could no more be snatched than a car. "Snatch" and "grab" really only apply in normal _non-figurative_ use to things that are small and light enough to be easily and quickly taken. Of the two, snatch probably has a weight limit equivalent to a large handbag, and grab something like a student rucksack (to use two rather unfortunate but perhaps apt examples).

"Sent flying across the room" really implies being _hit_ by something of far greater weight than the object itself, as in Wildan's Mack truck example, or some catestrophic event such as an explosion.


----------



## mally pense

wildan1 said:


> But Nil and I still are right about the problematic choice of _jerked off_. It's as unambiguously suggestive in AE as _wanked off_ would be in BE...


 
Sorry to return to this, but even if the word _wanked_ was used _(I should say 'were used', but it sounds too formal)_, how much sense would _"the table was wanked off the floor"_ make? None in fact. I seriously question whether the objection to 'jerked" on account of a forced or naive misperception such as this makes any sense, particularly as "jerked" so far is the only valid alternative to "yanked" which has been suggested (even though I say so myself). Or is the word "jerked" to be forever banished from serious use because of such silliness?

And that is a serious question. Just to be clear, "jerked off" is as widely understood here in the slang/sexual sense as it is in the USA, so this is not a question of difference in regional perceptions.


----------



## Nicomon

mally pense said:


> _"Snatched off the floor"_ might make sense to a weightlifter when contemplating something as heavy as a desk/bureau, but for the rest of us mere mortals, a table could no more be snatched than a car. "Snatch" and "grab" really only apply in normal _non-figurative_ use to things that are small and light enough to be easily and quickly taken. Of the two, snatch probably has a weight limit equivalent to a large handbag, and grab something like a student rucksack (to use two rather unfortunate but perhaps apt examples).
> 
> "Sent flying across the room" really implies being _hit_ by something of far greater weight than the object itself, as in Wildan's Mack truck example, or some catestrophic event such as an explosion.


 
Thank you Mally. This is crystal clear.


----------



## Suehil

I'm a bit late in this discussion, but how about 'He wrenched the desk from the floor and heaved it across the room' ?


----------



## mally pense

Suehil said:


> I'm a bit late in this discussion, but how about 'He wrenched the desk from the floor and heaved it across the room' ?


 
I realise that _wrenched_ is one of the possible translations of _arraché_, but to me _wrenched_ normally implies some sort of twisting action in addition to the pulling/lifting action, like for example when the twist is an essential part of freeing something from its physical constraints or from someone's grip. We already know there are no physical constraints in this example, and we can perhaps safely assume there is no-one trying to hold the desk down, so perhaps _wrenched_ isn't the most appropriate choice here, though who knows, actually seeing the event happening, it's just possible it might 'fit the bill'.

Note: the earlier suggestion of _ripped off_ can probably be discounted on the same basis as it also implies physical constraints being broken (or torn).

As for _heaved it across_ the floor, well it certainly sounds plausible for what happens next, but I think that isn't the subject of this discussion if we're being strict about the forum rules (not that I'm not given to initiating such diversions myself from time to time).


----------



## Perdue

I don't like the use of 'yank' - it is more suitable to something being pulled, eg. 'the rope was yanked hard.'

Why not 'the desk was violently thrown [across the room]


----------



## Geordie_Wilber

mally pense said:


> I realise that _wrenched_ is one of the possible translations of _arraché_, but to me _wrenched_ normally implies some sort of twisting action in addition to the pulling/lifting action, like for example when the twist is an essential part of freeing something from its physical constraints or from someone's grip. We already know there are no physical constraints in this example, and we can perhaps safely assume there is no-one trying to hold the desk down, so perhaps _wrenched_ isn't the most appropriate choice here, though who knows, actually seeing the event happening, it's just possible it might 'fit the bill'.
> 
> Note: the earlier suggestion of _ripped off_ can probably be discounted on the same basis as it also implies physical constraints being broken (or torn).
> 
> As for _heaved it across_ the floor, well it certainly sounds plausible for what happens next, but I think that isn't the subject of this discussion if we're being strict about the forum rules (not that I'm not given to initiating such diversions myself from time to time).



Well I'm even later into this one but perhaps:

"The desk was heaved from the floor and flung/slung across the room"?


----------



## Geordie_Wilber

Dragged from the floor and hurled across the room?

I'll keep trying


----------



## Nil-the-Frogg

Thank you all! I'm not only dirty minded but also perverse, since I like to trigger such dense discussions. 

Now, I'll make you scream but from what I read here, "the desk was snatched off the floor and thrown away through the room..." is my favorite. Looks like this is nicely emphasizing the brute strength of the guy lifting it.


----------



## Geordie_Wilber

Nil-the-Frogg said:


> Thank you all! I'm not only dirty minded but also perverse, since I like to trigger such dense discussions.
> 
> Now, I'll make you scream but from what I read here, "the desk was snatched off the floor and thrown away through the room..." is my favorite. Looks like this is nicely emphasizing the brute strength of the guy lifting it.



I'm more than happy with a bit of snatching Nil and I enjoy a bit of hard discourse , but "thrown away" is anything but brutish... Also, it would be "across" and not "through" the room...

Hurled is a wonderful word which, to my mind, best brings to mind the burly nature of the guy...


----------



## Nil-the-Frogg

Geordie_Wilber said:


> I'm more than happy with a bit of snatching Nil and I enjoy a bit of hard discourse , but "thrown away" is anything but brutish... Also, it would be "across" and not "through" the room...
> 
> Hurled is a wonderful word which, to my mind, best brings to mind the burly nature of the guy...


Thank you so much!


----------



## wildan1

mally pense said:


> Sorry to return to this, but even if the word _wanked_ was used how much sense would _"the table was wanked off the floor"_ make?
> 
> And that is a serious question. Just to be clear, "jerked off" is as widely understood here in the slang/sexual sense as it is in the USA, so this is not a question of difference in regional perceptions.


 
My point wasn't that it would be a good choice, it was that the term _jerk off_ is as unambiguous in AE _(se branler) _as _wank off_ is in BE. You could use this term to describe this desk's action, but choosing it would be arresting--and completely distracting from what meaning was intended.


----------



## Perdue

You can only really 'snatch' something small, eg. he snatched the pen off the desk. Unless the person who is 'snatching' the desk is a giant, I don't think that verb will work!


----------



## Geordie_Wilber

Perdue said:


> You can only really 'snatch' something small, eg. he snatched the pen off the desk. Unless the person who is 'snatching' the desk is a giant, I don't think that verb will work!



I think that is the point - although not strictly a 'giant', the person 'snatching' the desk is obviously endowed of great strength, perhaps 'the strength of many men', which the choice of verb reinforces in this context.


----------



## Nil-the-Frogg

Geordie_Wilber said:


> I think that is the point - although not strictly a 'giant', the person 'snatching' the desk is obviously endowed of great strength, perhaps 'the strength of many men', which the choice of verb reinforces in this context.


Indeed.  As a matter of fact, hurling (or even throwing  )  the desk across the room afterwards would be just as impossible without exceptional strength.


----------



## mally pense

Geordie_Wilber said:


> I think that is the point - although not strictly a 'giant', the person 'snatching' the desk is obviously endowed of great strength, perhaps 'the strength of many men', which the choice of verb reinforces in this context.


 
We seem to have gone from someone "very strong" (post #9) to someone with apparently superhuman powers. As such, the suggestions are becoming as extreme as they were when we were assuming that the table was being lifted by some sort of paranormal phenomenon.  Yes, the strength and size is relevant because the appropriateness of a lot of these verbs depends on the relative size and strength of the subject and object, and in fact using one that would normally be used on something smaller can help convey the sense of the greater strength (and perhaps size - we don't know this) of the person, but really to go from this to "the strength of many men" is possibly again getting out of hand, unless Nil wishes to clarify that this is indeed the case.


----------



## Nil-the-Frogg

Well, the guy in question is very big and heavy but, more importantly, he is demented and has a fair percentage of drugs in his blood and can thus be considered "superhuman", or at least extraordinarily strong. If you've ever seen someone with a serious crisis of epilepsy (not to say that epileptics are demented drug addicts!), you may understand what I mean... If not, allow me to give you a hint: do not even try to physically bring this person under control if you don't know what you're doing, for your own safety.


----------



## Perdue

Geordie_Wilber said:


> I think that is the point - although not strictly a 'giant', the person 'snatching' the desk is obviously endowed of great strength, perhaps 'the strength of many men', which the choice of verb reinforces in this context.


 
I disagree - the verb is not reinforced, but is still completely wrong in this context! A desk could not be snatched up by a human, regardless of how many press-ups they did in the morning!


----------



## mally pense

wildan1 said:


> My point wasn't that it would be a good choice, it was that the term _jerk off_ is as unambiguous in AE _(se branler) _as _wank off_ is in BE. You could use this term to describe this desk's action, but choosing it would be arresting--and completely distracting from what meaning was intended.


 
Sorry to return to this, but I think the only reason there's even a remote possibility of misinterpreting this in the overall context of Nil's prose is because it is presented so out of context in discussions such as this. Even in my own post I didn't quote the full sentence. Seriously, even if a native speaker somehow manages to associate the "off" with the verb rather than the object phrase and ends up thinking "jerk off" instead of "jerk", and even if they think somehow the sentence is about a desk doing something to a floor, even then, surely the scenario is so absurd (_a desk masturbating a floor???)_ that not even a mischievous schoolkid would bother trying to get a _double-entendre_ out of it?

Or are we to forever banish the use of the word "jerk" forever just to allow for such absurb possibilities, however remote?

PS. As I've said, there is no difference in the use and comprehension of this phrase either side of the Atlantic, so any suggestion that there are regional differences coming into play here are erroneous.


----------



## Arrius

Everybody else beat me to it with _le mot juste_ _yanked off the floor_, but I was just wondering if_ bureau_ might really mean _office_ here, in which case we may be dealing with Superman. Captain Marvel, or Desperate Dan of the "Beano", which could affect our choice of verb. (_Sol_ also means_ ground_). ???


----------



## wildan1

mally pense said:


> Sorry to return to this, but I think the only reason there's even a remote possibility of misinterpreting this in the overall context of Nil's prose is because it is presented so out of context in discussions such as this. Even in my own post I didn't quote the full sentence. Seriously, even if a native speaker somehow manages to associate the "off" with the verb rather than the object phrase and ends up thinking "jerk off" instead of "jerk", and even if they think somehow the sentence is about a desk doing something to a floor, even then, surely the scenario is so absurd (_a desk masturbating a floor???)_ that not even a mischievous schoolkid would bother trying to get a _double-entendre_ out of it.
> 
> Or are we to forever banish the use of the word "jerk" forever just to allow for such absurb possibilities, however remote?


 

It's all in the ear of the beholder, I think, mally. If your BE ear is deaf to the impact of this, you can't possibly "get it." 

Jerk off (not just jerk) really is pretty much one thing in AE. You may not catch that, just as the words _bloody _and _bugger_ are quite innocuous-sounding to many an AE-speaker's ear. You'll often hear a doting grandparent here refer to a grandchild as _a cute little bugger_. And intend this word to be a term of endearment.


----------



## Nil-the-Frogg

Arrius said:


> Everybody else beat me to it with _le mot juste_ _yanked off the floor_, but I was just wondering if_ bureau_ might really mean _office_ here, in which case we may be dealing with Superman. Captain Marvel, or Desperate Dan of the "Beano", which could affect our choice of verb. (_Sol_ also means_ ground_). ???


No, no, it's definitely a desk!


----------



## mally pense

No, I think my post was out of order, and I hereby apologise to Wildan. Of course I cannot know how the sentence sounds to American ears either, even if we use the same phrase here (and I most certainly _do_ get it), perhaps it is even more pervasive in American culture so I should not jump to conclusions. Unreserved apologies. I would delete the post but it has already been quoted.

(I meant the word "jerk" when used in accidental conjunction with "off" by the way, just to clarify. In fact the word "jerk" is also used widely here to describe someone who is a bit of a w*nker, and this is common with the USA I believe? In fact in the US I believe it's also used as a noun in the name of the band "The Circle Jerks", perhaps with an even more specific interpretation?).


----------



## Nicomon

Perdue said:


> Why not 'the desk was violently thrown [across the room]


 
That would be "Le bureau a été lancé violemment" (which I believe Nil decided to use "hurled" for). Yet an average human wouldn't be able to do that either. 



Perdue said:


> I disagree - the verb is not reinforced, but is still completely wrong in this context! A desk could not be snatched up by a human, regardless of how many press-ups they did in the morning!


 
"Snatch" here is used to translate "*arracher*". And "arraché" as a noun - and as suggested in post #18" - is a common weight lifting term, which in English is a "snatch". Hence the suggestion. 



> Owada snatched 42.5 kilograms, or about 95 pounds. To snatch means to lift a barbell off the floor and over one's head in one motion, holding the weight above the head for at least two seconds.


Now there are barbells heavier than 95 pounds, which certainly can weigh as much as a desk. And different sizes/weights of desks too.


----------



## mally pense

Nicomon said:


> "Snatch" here is used to translate "*arracher*". And "arraché" as a noun - and as suggested in post #18" - is a common weight lifting term, which in English is a "snatch". Hence the suggestion.


 
It may be a common weightlifting term, but that usage is not commonly known _outside_ the weightlifting community _(context again!)_. Its usual usage is for something which is small and light enough to be quickly and easily taken. _(Or as slang for vagina of course)_.

But to return to an earlier point of mine _(no, not *that *one!)_, the very fact of using 'snatch' for such a heavy object does immediately convey the impression to the reader that the lifter must indeed be very strong otherwise 'snatch' would be inappropriate. For that reason, 'snatch' could well find its place in the translation.


----------

