I woke up this morning to find the following email message in my inbox:
Cher Monsieur, je viens juste d'examiner un peu votre travail : c'est (assez) nul ; nous n'avons pas besoin de penseurs américains nuls (nous avons déjà assez de problèmes avec nos penseurs, influencés par les américains) ; vous pouvez lire ou relire Tocqueville (et Marx) et quitter ce pays, merci, bien cordialement, Jean-Pierre Joffrin
Susie and I leave for our last trip to Paris two weeks from today. Not everyone in that lovely city is eagerly awaiting our return!
...
30 comments:
Sacre bleu!
For the less sophisticated of your readers, perhaps a translation?
On a separate note, it appears that relations between Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas have deteriorated over whether to overturn Roe v. Wade.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/politics/clarence-thomas-john-roberts-supreme-court-roe-wade/index.html
Roe may still survive, but with a reduced time span protecting the right to an abortion.
Professor Wolff, You are right: This trolling sounds pretty bad in English:
"Dear Sir, I have just examined your work a little: it is (pretty) bad; we don't need lame American thinkers (we have enough trouble with our American-influenced thinkers); you can read or reread Tocqueville (and Marx) and leave this country."
David,
Thank you for the translation.
Yes, the French version sounds more diplomatic - they can tell you to go to hell in a way that you actually look forward to the trip.
Macron made some comments a while ago about the negative influence of U.S. woke philosophy on
French culture, but Professor Wolff isn't a woke philosopher by any means.
So it appears that Monsieur Joffrin has not studied Professor Wolff's work with much attention. Let's give him a C-, to be diplomatic and to avoid aggravating the crisis.
I don't speak French (though I read an academic book in French every year or so), and feel I may be missing the force of a colloquialism in the intriguing sentence 'c'est (assez) nul." I took the sentence to mean roughly 'It's quite/rather/pretty nothing'. But what is the force of putting 'assez' in parentheses? Should we translate as 'It's nothing (I mean, quite enough of nothing)'? Is this an allusion to Bob Dylan's Basement Tapes existentialist 'Too Much of Nothing'?--But if, following the professor's translation, we take 'nul' as silly, then surely the whole message becomes rather more positive, as it plainly alludes to and plays upon Wittgenstein's stricture ((from memory) in English in Culture and Value):'Always descend from the barren heights of sublimity into the green valleys of silliness.'
Marc
I read most of that Joan Biskupic CNN column you linked to.
Frankly, I don't think her analysis makes a whole lot of sense.
The only way Roberts could both salvage some of Roe *and* uphold Mississippi's 15 week ban is to say: there's still a constitutional right to an abortion, but only during the first trimester plus a few weeks (the first trimester is roughly 12 weeks). I doubt anyone else on the Court is going to go for that. And even if he does get Barrett and Kavanaugh, you'll end up w no majority opinion (Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh on one; Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas on another; Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer on the third). It will be Casey all over again, i.e., a mess. It wd be marginally better than the Alito draft becoming the majority opinion, I suppose.
I read French fairly well and I believe that David Zimmerman's translation of "nul" as "lame" is more accurate than "silly". "Assez" is just an adverb that intensifies the original meaning. The usage seems normal "put down" language, without literary allusions.
LFC,
If the Dobbs decision leaving the state of abortion law with Casey as the last word, it would, frankly, be a godsend. Planned Parenthood, and millions of women, would rejoice.
Post-Script:
With J. Breyer retiring, J. Thomas will be the oldest member of the Court, at 74. If it turns out that J. Roberts prevents Roe v. Wade from being overturned, then the Court will be at a stalemate. The only way to break the stalemate in favor of the liberals is to make sure the Democrats win the next election in order to replace Thomas with a liberal Justice if he decides to retire. Even if a Republican is elected, replacing Thomas with another conservative Justice will not break the stalemate. The Democrats therefore have an opportunity to restore some balance to the S. Ct. This means no 3rd Party candidate on the left should run in order to prevent dividing the Democratic vote. No Naders, no Sanders, no Green Party candidates. Let’s use our heads this time around.
Thanks for the clarification, S. Wallerstein. I continue to wonder about the parenthesis. I cannot resist noting that a couple of years ago I was informed by a very high level academic, a professor at UCLA, that 'we' may no longer use the word 'lame'. I trust that I need not tell you why. I asked her what we should sing in place of Dylan's "All these people that you mention/Yes I know them, they are quite lame," and for once she had no answer.
Dylan uses several words which are no longer kosher, including one in Hurricane that one cannot even mention these days, much less use.
Marc,
Sanders was not a third party candidate.
This is an impressive performance. Hurricane live 1975.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm6xCwNKtnQ
What is amazing is that this version of Hurricane runs over 8 minutes, and he never stumbles, or pauses to remember the lyrics, at the same time that he is strumming his guitar. And the lyrics recreate the evidence in the case. Phenomenal memory.
Zimmerman's translation looks suspiciously a lot like the Google Translate translation - just sayin'
David,
You have been accused, on a public blog site, of having committed plagiarism.
If you are interested in suing, I am available, pro bono.
There are a few details I need first.
Is what Anonymous is accusing you of true, or false?
If false, Anonymous, please provide me with your actual name and address so that I can serve you with the papers.
Anonymous @1:10 p.m.
D. Zimmerman has lived and taught in Canada for a long time, I believe. He's probably bilingual or close to it. He wd have no need to use Google Translate.
Anyway that particular slice of French is not hard. I knew (roughly) what it meant, and my French reading, while ok, is not fluent.
You guys are hilarious
To all:
I am having a "George Washington in the orchard" moment.
BUSTED!
I got lazy this morning and used Google Translate. I cannot tell a lie.
So, "Anonymous" is quite correct.... Plagiarist that I am, I will not be able to avail myself of Marc's pro bono services.
It is true, as reported, that I have lived in Canada for a long time.... 50 years in the country, and for almost 3 in Quebec .... But my French remains tres faible, though it is improving.
Stay masked in planes and in France, Professor Wolff.
Cheers to all.
Sacre bleu!
David Zimmerman,
I don't see it as plagiarism. You didn't claim that it was your translation. Lots of times when we're conversing or debating in this blog, I look up things in Google. In fact, my English being a bit rusty, at times I have to look up spellings. I don't see any reason to footnote that nor for you or anyone else to footnote a Google translation.
To S. Wallerstein:
Many thanks for your defence of me from one of the cardinal sins of a writer.
Cheers to you in Chile from me in French Quebec.
And thanks to Marc for his offer of free legal representation...should I ever need it in the future.
So, I will have to stay away from any defamation suits....
It is a very good things that my wife any I have a much more congenial relationship than the Depp and Heard creatures who are so cluttering up the airwaves....
Who doesn't?
David Zimmerman,
As I see it, Marc S. asked for help with the French in Professor Wolff's post. In an act of generosity, you googled the paragraph in French and then copied it in the comment's section. That was a laudable act on your part to help Marc understand the French. It took you a couple of minutes and all of us are presssed for time, especially in early hours of the morning when one sees emails that one has to answer, etc.
Anonymous, looking for something to complain about, guesses that you googled the paragraph and checks it out. He or she, probably a he, should have worked for the Stasi. You did nothing wrong, you helped Marc and Anonymous jumps on your case for that. What's more, unlike the French troll in question who at least signs his name, he does that without identifying himself (I assume it's a "he").
Yes, this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot, to use an old phrase.
To change topics: I do a rather poor job of following events in Latin America, but I caught something on the radio program 'The World' the other night about the Colombian presidential elections. The vice-presidential candidate on the leading (and leftish) ticket, who was the focus of the piece, sounds almost too good to be true. If I recall correctly, she comes out of a poor indigenous community and won a prize for her environmental activism.
On the subject of elections, I learned something new about Australia on PBS News the other day. They are having an election in Australia. Voting is mandatory in Australia. If you are eligible to vote, and fail to vote, you get fined.
Anonymous didn’t guess anything; they had used Google Translate themselves before Zimmerman had posted the translation and recognised the text. But it was obviously just an innocuous comment, no need to accuse anyone of trolling, complaining, or else.
Anonymous,
Ok. I was a bit harsh with you yesterday and I offer you my apologies.
However, there was no reason to point out that David Zimmerman had used Google. He never claimed it was his original work and he was just helping Marc Susselman.
"On the subject of elections..."
Given the results, it would seem the Murdocks haven't rendered Oz politics totally dysfunctional. Then there's the US and the UK...
Post a Comment