# I'm not allowed to say it, but I'm allowed to think it



## Charlie Parker

Voici le contexte. J'ai répondu au message #12 de pointvirgule ici. J'ai essayé de plaisanter. La phrase en titre me vient spontanément en anglais, mais je ne suis pas sûr comment l'exprimer en français. J'ai écrit 





> Je n'ai pas le droit de le dire, mais je me permets d'y penser.


 En anglais, on peut dire "think it" ou "think about it." Les deux fonctionnent. Est-ce que je peux dire : «..., mais j'ai le droit de le 
penser.» ?


----------



## Lacuzon

Bonjour,

Je dirais presque la même phrase :
Je n'ai pas le droit de le dire, mais je me permets *de le* penser.
ou plus court
Je n'ai pas le droit de le dire, mais je le pense très fort. (Comme il y a _ne pas avoir le droit de_ dans la principale, on sous-entend forcément _avoir le droit de_ dans la subordonnée, aussi, j'omettrais de le répéter dans la subordonnée.)


----------



## Charlie Parker

Merci Lacuzon. Je suis content d'avoir posé la question. J'ai appris quelque chose.


----------



## SunnyS

But why "*me *permets"? That's not what the original says.


----------



## Foxynet

BOnjour, 

Une tournure peut être plus idiomatique (pour la seconde partie de la phrase) : "je ne peux pas le dire/je ne dis rien, mais je n'en pense pas moins".

SunnysS : je permets de le penser = je permets aux autres de le penser
je me permets de le penser = je permets à moi-même de le penser


----------



## Lacuzon

SunnyS said:


> But why "*me *permets"? That's not what the original says.


You're right, the original says Je suis autorisé à penser. But être autorisé à penser sounds very weird in French (except for politicians) since we do not need to be allowed to think. To talk, to say, to do... all right but not to think!

That is why we say rather je me permets or je m'autorise à penser or shorter je le pense.

Foxynet has got a good idomatic sentence.


----------



## SunnyS

Foxynet said:


> BOnjour,
> 
> Une tournure peut être plus idiomatique (pour la seconde partie de la phrase) : "je ne peux pas le dire/je ne dis rien, mais je n'en pense pas moins".
> 
> SunnysS : je permets de le penser = je permets aux autres de le penser
> je me permets de le penser = je permets à moi-même de le penser



I know this is a small detail, but you have confirmed my point. In the English original, it's someone else external to you doing the "allowing," both for the speaking and the thinking.

The translation in French actually changed:  *I'm not allowed to say it, but I allow myself to think it*

It's different.


----------



## Lacuzon

Just look at my previous answer I was making while you were making yours.


----------



## SunnyS

Lacuzon said:


> You're right, the original says Je suis autorisé à penser. But être autorisé à penser sounds very weird in French (except for politicians) since we do not need to be allowed to think.



Perhaps we disagree then. I think that's the whole point of this sentence. 

The person is being repressed into their own internal personal sphere, where it's the only place where they are allowed to voice their thoughts (since no one else will hear). 

So it's not a question of the individual allowing themselves to think, because they were never forbidding it in the first place.

Whether it sounds strange or not in French to say someone else is telling you what to think, from a usage perspective, is another issue. 

But changing the core meaning of the sentence would be a grave translation mistake, IMO. 

There is however another interpretation to this French "me permet." I could understand this as a declaration of defiance: you don't allow me to speak, but I go ahead and think it anyways, allowing myself to think. 

I still don't like it too much though.


----------



## The Prof

I have to say that I agree with SunnyS.

When we use this expression in English, we are saying 'I'm not allowed to say it (possibly because it isn't considered politically correct),* but they can't stop me thinking it*!'

To me, the suggestions so far don't _quite_ feel to convey what we feel when we use it. 
However, I think that a combination of what has been offered comes close to it:
"_Je n'ai pas le droit de le dire, mais je n'en pense pas mo_ins!"

(IMHO)


----------



## Nicomon

Salut Charlie (et les autres),

Spontanément, j'aurais dit : 
_Je n'ai pas le droit de le dire, mais rien ne m'empêche de le penser. _

_Autre idée :_
_On peut m'interdire de le dire, mais on ne peut m'empêcher de le penser._

J'aime aussi :_ ... mais je n'en pense pas moins._


----------



## Lacuzon

I'm afraid I do not understand very well, clearly enough, the nuance you make between _but they can't stop me thinking it, but I allow myself to think it_ and _I'm allowed to think it._ I probably do not master English well enough .

Could you clarify* that point?

Perhaps, _ça ne se dit pas mais c'est ce que je pense_ would fit better?

EDIT: Perhaps I'm beginning to understand what you mean.
Does _I'm not allowed to say it, but I'm allowed to think it_ mean _I haven't got a right to say it but I've got a right to think it_? (regardless to any else person)
and
does _I'm not allowed to say it, but I allow myself to think it_ mean _you don't allow me to speak, but I go ahead and think it anyways. (with regards to someone else)_

If it is the case; in order to translate the last sentence it would be necessary, in French, to add an adverb or a locution to convey a defiance idea (because _je me permets de le penser_ is not strong enough to convey that idea) Like in _Je le pense *quand même/de toute façon/pourtant*_

According to those precisions, je me permets de le penser (with regards to only myself) is between _I've got a right to think it_ and _I go ahead and think it anyways_.

Other idea : _Je n'ai pas le droit de le dire mais j'ai celui de le penser_.

Be that as it may, _Je suis autorisé à penser_ makes no sense in French.

* Thanks to SunnyS


----------



## The Prof

For me, Nicomon's suggestions feel exactly right.  
As she is a native speaker, I assume that her version is ok, at least in Canada. Does it sound ok to the French, too?


----------



## Lacuzon

I've already said at #6 that foxynet's suggestion sounded ok to me .


----------



## Punky Zoé

Hi there !

Ma suggestion : je ne suis pas autorisé à l'exprimer, mais je m'autorise à le penser !


----------



## Nicomon

Et ma version simplifiée :

_Je n'oserais pas le dire tout haut, mais je peux bien le penser tout bas._


----------



## SunnyS

Lacuzon said:


> EDIT: Perhaps I'm beginning to understand what you mean.
> 
> If it is the case; in order to translate the last sentence it would be necessary, in French, to add an adverb or a locution to convey a defiance idea (because _je me permets de le penser_ is not strong enough to convey that idea) Like in _Je le pense *quand même/de toute façon/pourtant*_
> 
> According to those precisions, je me permets de le penser (with regards to only myself) is between _I've got a right to think it_ and _I go ahead and think it anyways_.
> 
> Other idea : _Je n'ai pas le droit de le dire mais j'ai celui de le penser_.
> 
> *Be that as it may, Je suis autorisé à penser makes no sense in French.*



Mais j'imagine que _1984 _fut traduit en français quand même. 

La question du problème de la traduction fut: pourquoi irais-tu dire que tu te permets de penser quelque chose si tu n'étais pas en train de l'interdire, à aucun moment ?

De plus, comme je ne connais pas trop le français, je ne peux pas faire un commentaire à l’égard de votre deuxième question. En anglais, c'est pas une discussion des droits. C'est que quelqu'un vous interdit de faire une chose (sans parler de forme explicite des droits). 

Voilà, ça marche :
_Je le pense *quand même/de toute façon/pourtant*_

Ainsi comme :
Spontanément, j'aurais dit : 
_1) Je n'ai pas le droit de le dire, mais rien ne m'empêche de le penser.  _

_Autre idée :_
_2) On peut m'interdire de le dire, mais on ne peut m'empêcher de le  penser._

Even though I like 1 better, it's actually 2 that really precisely translates what was said in the original. Because it's never stated in the original that the person doesn't have a _right _to speech, but that they are being censored.


----------



## Nicomon

@ SunnyS... It wouldn't be my first choice, but this is what « _se permettre de_ » means, in context (and it's not wrong) : 





> _Se permettre de (+ infinitif)_ : *prendre la liberté de. *Je ne me suis pas permis de mettre en doute ses résolutions. Puis-je me permettre de vous accompagner?


  That is... _taking the liberty of_. Another way of saying it would be... _mais j'ose le penser._

Avoir le droit de (as copied from TLFI) = 





> _Avoir le droit de. _Avoir légitimement ou légalement *la liberté, la possibilité de*


 If you're still not convinced that  « _Avoir le droit_ » is right (no pun intended) have a look at *this dictionary* (under #3),  and this *other one*  (near the top, right under prerogative). You'll see one beside the other :   _To be allowed = Avoir le droit de_

Now if you want to argue that dictionaries are all wrong as well... that's your prerogative.


----------



## Lacuzon

Bonjour,



SunnyS said:


> Mais j'imagine que _1984 _fut traduit en français quand même.


Ah ah ! Were you watching me? In that specific case, you are right . That is a good point! Nevertheless, I hope Charlie Parker does not teach in (at?) a Big Brother's school!



> La question du problème de la traduction fut: pourquoi irais-tu dire que tu te permets de penser quelque chose si tu n'étais pas en train de l'interdire, à aucun moment ?


I think it is just a way of speaking, _Je me permets de XXX_ means In the case you would have forgotten it, (I remember you that) I am allowed to XXX or as Nicomon said I take the liberty to (remember you that I can )XXX.


> _2) On peut m'interdire de le dire, *mais on ne peut m'empêcher de le penser.*_
> 
> Even though I like 1 better, it's actually 2 that really precisely translates what was said in the original.


So you do not know Big Brother either .



> Because it's never stated in the original that the person doesn't have a _right _to speech, but that they are being censored.


Well, I think I see what you mean.


----------



## SunnyS

Nicomon said:


> Avoir le droit de (as copied from TLFI) =  If you're still not convinced that  « _Avoir le droit_ » is right (no pun intended) have a look at *this dictionary* (under #3),  and this *other one*  (near the top, right under prerogative). You'll see one beside the other :   _To be allowed = Avoir le droit de_
> 
> Now if you want to argue that dictionaries are all wrong as well... that's your prerogative.



I can only speak for the English meaning. In English, you can have a right to something, and yet have someone else forbid you to exercise your right. This does not undo the fact that you are entitled to certains rights, but that you are not being allowed to exercise the right that is rightfully yours. 

I don't know of any EN-EN dictionary that contradicts what I've just said. 

To have a right and to be able to exercise the right are two different things. 

When one says in English: I have a right to speech but I am not being allowed to speak, they have just stated a perfectly coherent and logical sentence. This is why I said the OP's original is not about expliciting what rights this person has or doesn't have. 

What I can't comment on is what happens when you translate this to French using "avoir le droit de le dire" for both "I  have the right" and "I am  allowed to do it."

_1) Je n'ai pas le droit de le dire, mais rien ne m'empêche de le  penser.  

_Is it always clear in the above that you are saying "I"m not allowed" and not "I don't have the right" to say something?


----------



## SunnyS

Lacuzon said:


> Ah ah ! Were you watching me?



Hey, you never know... 



Lacuzon said:


> I think it is just a way of speaking, _Je me permets de XXX_ means  In the case you would have forgotten it, (I remember you that) I am  allowed to XXX or as Nicomon said I take the liberty to (remember you  that I can )XXX.



D'accord. I didn't see your answer while I was writing my last reply to Nico.


----------



## Lacuzon

Bonjour,


SunnyS said:


> When one says in English: I have a right to speech but I am not being allowed to speak, they have just stated a perfectly coherent and logical sentence. This is why I said the OP's original is not about expliciting what rights this person has or doesn't have.
> 
> What I can't comment on is what happens when you translate this to French using "avoir le droit de le dire" for both "I have the right" and "I am allowed to do it."


I see, the problem is that in French _avoir le droit de_ et _être autorisé à_ both have the same meaning (At least in France), it means I have a right and am allowed to use it.

I understand that you mean you can have an inalienable right but something or someone is not allowing you to exercise that right. But precisely in that case, in French, it means that, obviously, commonly speaking, you have not that right any more. It could be about a soldier or a civil servant who is not allowed to say whatever he would like for instance? We call that devoir de réserve.


----------



## Nicomon

Lacuzon said:


> I see, the problem is that in French _avoir le droit de_ et _être autorisé à_ both have the same meaning (At least in France), it means I have a right and am allowed to use it.


  Not only in France. 

By the way_, _SunnyS  _: right to speech = droit de parole.

_Donc : _j'ai le droit de parole, mais je n'ai pas le droit de dire n'importe quoi. 
_
Pour garder la même structure  que l'anglais (deux verbes identiques) _
- Les règles de la décence m'empêchent de dire - _fill in the blanks_ - mais rien ne m'empêche de le penser. 
_
Simply said :_ 
Je ne peux peut-être pas le dire... mais je peux quand même le penser.
I'm not really at liberty to say it... but I'm still at liberty to think it. 

_I'm signing off of this thread.  I think.


----------



## SunnyS

Lacuzon said:


> Bonjour,
> 
> I see, the problem is that in French _avoir le droit de_ et _être autorisé à_ both have the same meaning (At least in France), it means I have a right and am allowed to use it.
> 
> I understand that you mean you can have an inalienable right but something or someone is not allowing you to exercise that right. But precisely in that case, in French, it means that, obviously, commonly speaking, you have not that right any more.



If I understood you correctly, it changes nothing concerning your rights in French: you continue to have the right even if "vous n'avez pas le droit de le faire." 

It's just that you use the same expression to convey either "to have a right" and "to be allowed." And unless the context makes it quite clear which meaning is being employed, you could set up your reader for a misunderstanding. This was my concern all along with some of the suggestions offered here.

Aside from the other issue of who is the agent of the "allowing" action, which got incorrectly changed in French.


----------



## pointvirgule

Oh, btw - Une trad évidente qui n'avait pas encore été suggérée :

_Je n'ai pas le droit de le dire, mais je suis libre de le penser. _


----------



## Charlie Parker

Merci beaucoup pointvirgule. J'aime toujours connaître toutes les possibilités.


----------



## Lacuzon

SunnyS said:


> If I understood you correctly, it changes nothing concerning your rights in French: you continue to have the right even if "vous n'avez pas le droit de le faire."


I would say rather If I am not allowed to do something then it means that je n'ai plus le droit de le faire.



> It's just that you use the same expression to convey either "to have a right" and "to be allowed." And unless the context makes it quite clear which meaning is being employed, you could set up your reader for a misunderstanding. This was my concern all along with some of the suggestions offered here.


 Probably it could set up an English reader for a misunderstanding. And it obviously did.

That is why it is interresting to know the way other people is used to reckon.

If I were a dog living among cats, I would better be aware that when a cat is waging its tail it does not mean that it wants to play but it means that it is angry. Of course, it does not mean that cats are wrong to wag their tail to inform that they are angry and it does not mean that dogs are wrong to wag their tail to inform that they want to play. I just means that cats and dogs are not used to react the same way.

Aren't you agree?


----------



## SunnyS

Lacuzon said:


> I would say rather If I am not allowed to do something then it means that je n'ai plus le droit de le faire.
> 
> Probably it could set up an English reader for a misunderstanding.



And isn't that the primary audience of any French text, anyways? 
========

p.s. Aren't you agree? 

Don't you agree?


----------



## Lacuzon

> And isn't that the primary audience of any French text, anyways?


I do hope it is! 

Don't, of course ! I'm still wondering how I made that mistake! Thanks for correcting.


----------



## Nicomon

pointvirgule said:


> Oh, btw - Une trad évidente qui n'avait pas encore été suggérée :
> 
> _Je n'ai pas le droit de le dire, mais je suis libre de le penser. _


 Ben oui!  
Du coup, je m'en veux de ne pas y avoir... pensé, justement. Surtout après avoir cité le TLFI (post #18 - liberté/possibilité) et  mentionné "at liberty".


----------



## pointvirgule

Nicomon said:


> Du coup, je m'en veux de ne pas y avoir... pensé, justement. Surtout après avoir cité le TLFI (post #18 - liberté/possibilité) et  mentionné "at liberty".


C'est justement ton post qui m'y a fait penser, alors la moitié du pouce est pour toi.


----------

