This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
To kergap: Really, I think that Roman is the one who solved this for you, not me. I put a variation on his entry in the glossary, not my initial version.
Thank you for those kind words. If you mean that you chose "by the rulebook," then OK. But if you chose my initial version, "the way xxx sees it," that is simply incorrect. It's not a question of colloquial or not, but of the sense. For "the way xxx sees it" to be right, the original had to have been "Собянина", but it was "Собянин", as somebody pointed out. So therefore "по понятиям" is a separate phrase, and it has this criminal origin that Roman identified - "by the criminal code" or, in my more flexible version, "by the rulebook."
Mariusz, of course "a friend of ours" or "friends of ours" are normal expressions. What is NOT normal is "of THE friends of ours", using the definite article when the phrase is not followed by some specification beginning with "who" or "that". But, anyway, my purpose here is not to give English lessons. I just think that translators might consider being a little less categorical about asserting that this or that phrase is or is not standard English, when they have a non-native command of the target language's grammar and usage. Turn the situation around: suppose I came to some Russian guy and declared that someone should write "по мнению наших друзьям" in some context or other. He would be quite right to tell me that "наших друзьям" is not normal Russian, and it would be silly of me to object - "я удвилена, что Вы отрицаете русское происхождение словосочетания "наши друзья".
I mentioned the "made men" in Wikipedia not for "made men" themselves but because the phrase "a friend of ours" is specifically quoted there, after "Five Families: the Rise, Decline, and Resurgence of America's Most Powerful Mafia Empires", by Selwyn Raab. Macmillan, 2005, so I am somewhat surprised that you have reservations about an English provenience of that phrase.
Mariusz, I don't know why I should read Wikipedia about "made men." I know what it means, although many readers might not, because my husband happens to have a collection of 20 or 30 books on the New York and New Jersey mafias! But, since you mention it: in addition to likely not being recognized by readers in the criminal sense (it does have other meanings), I think it's too specific. As I wrote before, it seems better not to embellish.
Oleg, if you native speakers can't tell whether the author really wanted to insinuate that Sobyanin is following a criminal code, or if he just was playing around with an expression that originates in that realm, far be it from me to get into a discussion of which one is the case. What I said is that "going by the rulebook" covers both cases.
It seems likely that your diplomats said "of our friends" or "of friends of ours," not "of the friends of ours." But, quite apart from that rogue article, I don't think "friends of ours" works here because - who would "we" be this context? In English it's by no means clear who "friends of ours" refers to.
...what's implicit? and what's explicit? (IN THIS PARTICULAR CONTEXT)?
Would (could?) it be to the benefit of (ALL?) translators addressing themselves to KudoZ?
Re: yours 'and "of the friends of ours" is not normal English at all' - probably, but I've learnt it in my 'verbal' communication with British, U.S. and Canadian diplomats. :-)
Oleg, the expression "by the rulebook" can refer to a literal code or an implicit one, so I wouldn't try to embellish it. It's nicely vague, like the original. But if one were to embellish, non-normal phrasing should be avoided: "by the verbal codes" sounds off, and "of the friends of ours" is not normal English at all.
...Принадлежит ли ХХХ к числу 'friends of ours'? Принадлежит ли его 'злейший враг' к числу 'friends of ours'? А может они оба принадлежат к числу 'friends of ours'?
Imho, цепочка все усиливающихся вариантов перевода могла бы быть такой:
Going by the rulebook (предложенная Rachel в комментарии к ответу Романа - probably, enhanced by 'the verbal rulebook') --> by the unwritten rules / by the [verbal] codes of the friends of ours.
Предложенные мною изначально в качестве 'запасного' (и самого сильного) варианта 'made men', я бы, по здравом размышлении, В ДАННОМ (ДОСТАТОЧНО РАСПЛЫВЧАТОМ) КОНТЕКСТЕ не использовал - с учетом того, imho, какую роль играют и ХХХ, и тот второй ('который не успел'). :-)
Согласен с Максом, не совсем ясно какие "понятия" имеются в виду - воровские или вообще общие представления обывателей. Комментаторы в блогах любят играться с жаргоном. Но я не очень разбираюсь в российских персоналиях, упомянутых в статье, поэтому не уверен, следует ли давать переводу "воровской" оттенок.
Ессно, "расплывчато, неточно"! А какой журналист (российский) захочет пойти под уголовную статью 128.1 по недавно принятому 'закону о клевете' - http://www.zakonrf.info/uk/128.1/
Да и переводчикам, imho, следует это учитывать - отсюда мое the codes of the friends of ours (не our friends) Если ASKER'у захочется усилить - то 'made men' :-))
Конечно, если регулярно смотреть новости по "зомбоящику", то весь народ живет "по понятиям". Вопросы к социологам: "Какой процент народа (public) регулярно "смотрит ящик?" И что именно? Новости?
Я имел ввиду, что ответ Романа был ближе всего к правде среди представленных (на тот момент).
Однако в статье фраза употреблена как-то расплывчато, неточно. Не могу понять — то ли автор имеет ввиду именно воровские понятия, то ли какие-то абстрактные понятия современного русского общества.
there should be put А по понятиям xxx -- благообразный чиновник, по доброте душевной пожалевший злейшего врага. or: А по понятиям -- xxx благообразный чиновник, по доброте душевной пожалевший злейшего врага. So the sense of the phrase substantially depends of the position of the missing hyphen imho.
first, of course, a comma is missing there but if we look at it from the point of view of grammar, it seems that xxx is the grammatical subject of the sentence rather than a grammatical object, therefore it's not his perception that it is about, it is a perception in respect of him. See also: "Путин дал такой сигнал ворам. Теперь для них уголовная статья — не уголовно наказуемая. Теперь для них — простор для распила и хищений. Пришел пахан. Жизнь пошла — по понятиям." http://tinyurl.com/qcv45cm. Therefore, Roman is right, QED.
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
26 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +3
and in terms of public perception, xxx comes across as a ...
Explanation: and in terms of public perception, xxx comes across as a [благообразный чиновник]
Roman Bardachev Canada Local time: 10:48 Works in field Native speaker of: Russian PRO pts in category: 20
peer agreement (net): +3