https://www.proz.com/kudoz/french-to-english/general-conversation-greetings-letters/5939881-expliquant-la-faiblesse-si-ce-nest-labsence.html?phpv_redirected=1&phpv_redirected=2
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.
Cookie settings
la libération des souscriptions
en amont de
Sep 10, 2015 08:34
8 yrs ago
1 viewer *
French term

expliquant la faiblesse si ce n'est l'absence

Non-PRO French to English Bus/Financial General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters
This term has come up twice in the glossaries (one of which is mine!) but unfortunately this is a phrase that continues to cause me problems. This is taken from a paper about the financial system and certain paradigm shifts in the economic models by which we live:

La difficulté à critiquer ce modèle est qu’il semble aller de soi tant sa naturalisation a été forte et demeure forte à travers ses deux figures emblématiques que sont le marché et la propriété privée. Et pourtant les ouvrages ne manquent pas, expliquant la faiblesse si ce n’est l’absence de fondement des hypothèses mobilisées pour le justifier

The position of the comma before "expliquant" is throwing me slightly, and overall I cannot get my head round this phrase.

Thanks in advance.
Proposed translations (English)
4 +8 that explains the weakness, if not the lack of a basis
4 have little or no basis in fact
2 an non-native attempt below
Change log

Sep 10, 2015 09:59: mchd changed "Level" from "PRO" to "Non-PRO"

Votes to reclassify question as PRO/non-PRO:

Non-PRO (3): Rob Grayson, GILLES MEUNIER, mchd

When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.

How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:

An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)

A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).

Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.

When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.

* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.

Discussion

patrickfor Sep 12, 2015:
@phil
Didn't see it in the first place, but I think you're right...
Maybe putting it the other way around...
"explains the weakness and even the lack of basis sometimes"
???
philgoddard Sep 12, 2015:
I think you should avoid "if not". It's ambiguous. It could also mean that it explains the weakness, but it doesn't explain the lack of a basis.
Wendy Cummings (asker) Sep 10, 2015:
Thank you all -
patrickfor Sep 10, 2015:
@asker Abraham is absolutely right.
To quote you:

Let's break it down, simple style!:
> Il y a plusieurs ouvrages (qui tentent de critiquer le modèle).
les ouvrages ne tentent pas de critiquer, ils critiquent, en fait ils expliquent pourquoi
-> Ces ouvrages decrivent la faiblesse des hypothèses (évoquées pour soutenir ce modèle).
-> Ces ouvrages expliquent même dans certains cas l'absence de fondement de ces hypothèses.
Nikki Scott-Despaigne Sep 10, 2015:
You might like to start the sentence as follows :

"And yet there is no lack of sources explaining the weakness, if not the absence of ..."

You'll get a natural reading if you go with "lack" for "manquement" and then "weakness" and "absence" (rather than "lack") to follow.
Philippa Smith Sep 10, 2015:
@Wendy I think it's just the comma that's confusing you because we don't need it in English: plenty of publications that explain...
AbrahamS Sep 10, 2015:
@Asker Il y a plusieurs ouvrages (qui tentent de critiquer le modèle).
Ces ouvrages décrivent la faiblesse des hypothèses.
Elles vont peut-être même jusqu'à décrire l'absence de fondement de ces hypothèses.
Wendy Cummings (asker) Sep 10, 2015:
So the subject of "expliquant" is "ouvrages" - as I said, its the use of the comma that is throwing me slightly. Let's break it down, simple style!:

Il y a plusieurs ouvrages (qui tentent de critiquer le modele).
Ces ouvrages decrivent la faiblesse des hypotheses (evoquees pour soutenir ce modele).
Ces ouvrages n'expliquent pas necessairement l'absence de fondement de ces hypotheses.

I know this is being stupidly simplistic, but my mind just won't get round it otherwise, and its a useful trick I was taught way back at school!
patrickfor Sep 10, 2015:
@asker
You wrote "OK, so the phrase could be rewritten "...ne manquent pas, ce qui explique la faiblesse des hypotheses si ce n'est leur absence de fondement"
Pas exactement car le "ce" rend les ouvrages "responsables" et bien entendu ce n'est pas le cas.
Il faudrait plutôt écrire:
"...ne manquent pas, qui expliquent la faiblesse des hypothèses si ce n'est leur absence de fondement"
ou éventuellement
"...ne manquent pas, qui expliquent la faiblesse des hypothèses voire leur absence de fondement"

Proposed translations

+8
23 mins
French term (edited): expliquant la faiblesse si ce n\'est l\'absence de fondement
Selected

that explains the weakness, if not the lack of a basis

There might be a problem with the parsing here. In my opinion, "faiblesse" doesn't rely to "fondement" but to "hypothèses". So the phrase to translate is really: "expliquant la faiblesse si ce n'est l'absence de fondement".

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2015-09-10 09:50:07 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Rather: "...qui expliquent la faiblesse des hypotheses si ce n'est leur absence de fondement, ne manquent pas".

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2015-09-10 09:51:54 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

And obviously, that means that I should have written "explain" in the plural:
"that explains the weakness, if not the lack of a basis"

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2015-09-10 09:52:44 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

OMG! Once again:
"that EXPLAIN the weakness, if not the lack of a basis"
Note from asker:
OK, so the phrase could be rewritten "...ne manquent pas, ce qui explique la faiblesse des hypotheses si ce n'est leur absence de fondement"?
Peer comment(s):
agree patrickfor : Pas mieux ;-)
35 mins
Thanks! :-)
agree writeaway : everyday French and this is how it's usually translated. Don't see any real parsing issues. Just seems to be a matter of a bit of reading/comprehension confusion
56 mins
Thanks!
agree Barbara Cochran, MFA
2 hrs
Thanks!
agree Michele Fauble
5 hrs
Thanks!
agree acetran
8 hrs
Thanks!
agree Samantha Sperry
13 hrs
Thanks!
agree Susan Monnereau
20 hrs
Thanks!
agree Nikki Scott-Despaigne : In the context of the whole sentence, a natural reading might be sthng along the lines of : "And yet there is no lack of sources explaining the weakness, if not the absence of ..." Given "manquement" at the start, the sentence needs adjusting.
1 day 1 hr
Yes, thanks!
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "Selected automatically based on peer agreement."
28 mins

an non-native attempt below

Even though we are not short of publications describing the feebleness of the assumptions made, if not lack thereof, to validate it (the model).

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 36 mins (2015-09-10 09:10:53 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Argh, what happened to 'absence de fondement'? Anyway, the Fr could indeed be rephrased as : ...la faiblesse, voire l'absence de fondement des hypothèses...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 50 mins (2015-09-10 09:24:57 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

My take: it's difficult to criticise the model despite the fact that a host of publications show that its validation is based on feeble or irrelevant assumptions
Something went wrong...
7 hrs

have little or no basis in fact

I don't disagree with Abraham's suggestion, but I just think this sounds better.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2015-09-10 16:33:23 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

The hypotheses used to justify it have little or no basis in fact.
Peer comment(s):
neutral Nikki Scott-Despaigne : I see what you mean, but a "fondement" can be a basis which is hypothetical, neither established nor claimed to be establisehd in fact. Could be a sort of "entorse", even a teensy weensy bit of an overtranslation.
17 hrs
Something went wrong...