# chupar / se lo chuparon



## maria vecchi

Hello,
I am translating an interview from Italian into English. One of the interlocutors is from Argentina, and in the original he uses the expression "se lo chuparon" about a guy who was kidnapped (a desaparecido). How would you translate this particular use of chupar, which I understand means "to smoke"? I understand a little Spanish but I may miss something from the WordRef vocabulary item.... Thanks.


----------



## sergio_h

Podrías usar "se esfumó"

Un saludo.


----------



## maria vecchi

Yeah, thanks, I must not have been clear... I was wondering how to say that in English, without losing the colour of the expression. I am not Spanish-speaking.


----------



## sergio_h

Que tal "the guy vanished without trace".


----------



## cacarulo

No se esfumó ni se desvaneció. Hubo una acción de otras personas (los secuestradores). Por lo tanto, yo usaría "they ..... him". Quizás kidnapped, quizá abducted...


----------



## UZIKATKILLKILL

Kidnapped = se lo chuparon estoy de acuerdo con Cacarulo. En Argentina se usa para cuando secuestran o hacen desaparecer a alguien por la fuerza, en general el estado se lo chupa ,se lo traga, como si se lo chupara la tierra. La autoridad chupa, no es usado: delincuente común se chupo a un hombre. La policia se lo chupo, los militares se lo chuparon (hicieron desaparecer)


----------



## k-in-sc

"Chupar" literally means "suck." 
They snatched him, maybe.


----------



## UZIKATKILLKILL

k-in-sc said:


> "Chupar" literally means "suck."
> They snatched him, maybe.


Sí, creo que es lo correcto snatch. El ejemplo de chupar en este sentido sería como una aspiradora succiona y hace que desaparezca algo que tendría que ser visto. Nadie lo pudo ver.


----------



## Gabriel

I'd say that "se lo chuparon" is applied to a person who has disappeared but it is know or believed that he/she has been kidnapped by an official or para-official institution, like the police, the army, etc, who in turn would not admit it.

That's the story of the "desaparecidos" during the "dictadura": there are dozens of thousand of them that are believed to have been kidnapped and / or killed but there is no official information of their whereabouts. To each of them "se lo chupaparon" (los milicos, la cana, etc...)


----------



## UZIKATKILLKILL

Gabriel said:


> I'd say that "se lo chuparon" is applied to a person who has disappeared but it is know or believed that he/she has been kidnapped by an official or para-official institution, like the police, the army, etc, who in turn would not admit it.
> 
> That's the story of the "desaparecidos" during the "dictadura": there are dozens of thousand of them that are believed to have been kidnapped and / or killed but there is no official information of their whereabouts. To each of them "se lo chupaparon" (los milicos, la cana, etc...)


Si se lo chuparon es lo secuestraron o se lo llevaron y nadie vio nada (porque lo hace la autoridad) nadie habla, ni sale de testigo por miedo . Lo secuestran rápido o a escondidas  por una orden de alguna autoridad. De ahi la frase.


----------



## chileno

La idea es raptar/robar.


----------



## maria vecchi

Thank you all, again, I was wondering if - as Spanish or English natives - someone knew a more idiomatical translation than "kidnapped". The meaning of se lo chuparon was already made clear in the source text. I think I'll go with "vanish without trace" then. Bye!


----------



## loudspeaker

maria vecchi said:


> "vanish without trace" then. Bye!



Without *a* trace.


----------



## k-in-sc

"Vanished without a trace" implies he disappeared by himself. "Lo chuparon" means "they" disappeared him.


----------



## loudspeaker

k-in-sc said:


> "Vanished without a trace" implies he disappeared by himself. "Lo chuparon" means "they" disappeared him.


Dunno. I'm not familiar with that expression ( se lo chuparon). It seems to me that's not Spain Spanish.


----------



## maria vecchi

Hello, I made clear from the beginning of this thread that the speaker is from Argentina... So k-in-sc, I did notice your remark the first time, but what can I do to keep this very colourful expression? Smoked him away? Sucked him away? (I don't think so...) Also, the context makes clear that the guy did not disappear of his own will.


----------



## sound shift

Well, if you want the sort of colourful British English used by old blokes like me (no doubt the younger members will find it "archaic", "quaint" or something of the sort), I suggest "They've nabbed him."


----------



## maria vecchi

yes sound shift, I was looking for some colourful English, so your colloquial - I don't know about archaic - proposal sounds very good!


----------



## Chispa123

These aren't as colorful, but you could say, "They vanished him. or They disappeared him."


----------



## UZIKATKILLKILL

Como les suena swoop?


----------



## Gabriel

After reviewing the different proposals in this thread, I think there is a handful of suitable options:

They('ve) snatched/nabbed/vanished/disappeared him.


----------



## maria vecchi

I agree, Gabriel.
Thank you all


----------



## sound shift

UZIKATKILLKILL said:


> Como les suena swoop?


No funciona en nuestro contexto: "swoop" es intransitivo, así que no se puede decir *"They've swooped him" ni *"He's been swooped".


----------



## maria vecchi

I thought so, sound shift, yet at least two of the above solutions (see Gabriel) are traditionally intransitive. But then certain rules can be bent, others can't...


----------



## sound shift

Yes, maria, "disappear" is intransitive, but some time during my life time it became possible to say "They disappeared him". As I recall, the catalyst for this was Argentinian transitive usage of "desaparecer" at the time of the Junta. "They vanished him" works by analogy with "they disappeared him". People actually say "They disappeared him" and I believe I have heard "They vanished him".

I have never heard "They swooped him" and there may be a good reason for this: "They disappeared him" means "They caused him to disappear", which is a meaningful sentence in our context; and "They vanished him" means "They caused him to vanish", which is also a meaningful sentence in our context; but "They caused him to swoop" does not fit our context: "swoop" does not mean "disappear". "Swoop" requires a preposition, usually "on". This preposition must be stated or implied, but if we say "They caused him to swoop" it is neither stated nor implied.


----------



## DLW1984

I think that the fact of the matter is that there is not an equivalent phrase in English. You could use 'swooped' or 'nabbed', however they do not necessarily have connotations of somebody being disappeared by an authority. Both words could be applied to kidnappings undertaken by the police, government, gangsters, common delinquents, anybody. That being said they are casual and colloquial words and for that reason I believe that they transmit well the casual register which the speaker seems to be employing.

I would not personally use 'he vanished without a trace' as, as previously mentioned by kn-i-c, it does not imply that people believe they know who was responsible for the disappearance of the subject.


My personal recommendation would be (if it is already clear that he/ she has been kidnapped by the state): 'they just swooped him'. I believe it conveys well how Argentinians speak about the events of the dictatorship.


You could watch the documentary 'Missing Generation' for inspiration/ guidance if you are interested, it is mainly comprised of Argentinians speaking about the disappearance of family members. It is in Spanish with English subtitles, so includes many translations of a similar nature.


----------



## maria vecchi

I'm impressed! Thank you so much, natives from all over the world!


----------



## k-in-sc

"Swooped" doesn't work. There is already a vocabulary in English for talking about the events of the dictatorship. There's no need to invent questionable-sounding verbs, especially for a translation.


----------



## cacarulo

Una rápida búsqueda en Google respecto de un hecho similar, pero ocurrido hace poco en Europa (el secuestro por parte de agentes de la CIA de un imán milanés, Abú Omar), muestra resultados con they snatched him, they nabbed him y they abducted him, pero no they disappeared him ni they vanished him.
También hay algún swooped in y swooped down.


----------



## Mely5862

"They (we)  snatched him up"   This implies force might have been used. In law enforcement we use this term when we arrest someone who is going about their normal everyday business in public  and we surprise them with an arrest.  It is slang and we would not use it in any kind formal speech or situation.  "We had enought probable cause (to arrest),  so we snatched him up while he was at the store."  You could use this in your example of kidnapping as well.


----------



## JorgeHoracio

The expression is obviously recent slang from Argentina (may be used also in Uruguay and Chile, don't know about that) and refers to events from a concrete historical, political and social context. It may be still used in the present for analogous events. For example as a threat.

As you see, people from Spain may not even recognize the expression.

In my opinion it's impossible to find an expression in English with the same connotations.  It I had to translate I'd probably use the Spanish word, with an explanation.  For example, 

_"se lo chuparon" (=they sucked him; in Argentina a usual slang expression for kidnappings carried out by military or paramilitary forces)_


----------



## k-in-sc

That's a good idea, but I would translate it literally as "= they sucked him *up.*"


----------



## carriep

Chispa123 said:


> These aren't as colorful, but you could say, "They vanished him. or They disappeared him."



I personally have never heard nor would ever use either of these expressions in English.  Simply, "He vanished" or "He disappeared", but never as transitive verbs.

I suppose you could say, "They made him vanish" or "They made him disappear", but there are far better ways of expressing this.


----------



## k-in-sc

Transitive constructions such as "they disappeared him" are standard when discussing political abductions like the ones that took place under the Argentine dictatorship. "Vanished" is not used in the same way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_disappearance


----------

