jefrye t1_itinlbi wrote
>Even in bitter arguments, they would call each other sir, or madame, or use the other’s respective title.
So, here's the thing with French: the language has both informal/singular (tu) and formal/plural (vous) forms of "you," which does not exist in English but is kind of a big deal in French. (Some parts of the US do kind of have a plural form of "you" with "y'all," but that's not relevant here.)
This poses kind of a big translation problem when translating French into English. One solution is to convey the respect of "vous" by having the character instead address the other by an honorific (like sir, madame, etc.).
I can't say for sure that this is what your translator is doing in all cases, but it's likely. Sometimes the translator will address their handling of tu/vous in a translator's note at the front. That's not to say that the characters don't also use honorifics in the original text, but it might not be to the extent that you're seeing in your translation (though they are being just as respectful, just in a way that can't literally be translated to English).
......But that interesting tidbit aside, Dumas was probably not going for extreme realism. He wanted his characters to sound smart and cool and to make everything more heightened and dramatic, to say nothing of the need to streamline dialogue to make it readable and compelling in fiction. Most of the characters in Monte Cristo speak much more eloquently then is historically accurate. (But authors do this all the time, in every genre, so it's not a bad thing.)
foxdna OP t1_itioe4p wrote
Ahh I’m learning much about French society just from reading this book. Yeah, I was thinking that Dumas probably was making the dialogue more “dramatic”.
Glitz-1958 t1_itjpr7n wrote
Even today French can be much more flowery than English has been for some time. For example formulas to use in formal letter writing seem very elaborate in comparison. Plus people are much more likely to say sir or madam in a casual exchange. Merci, Madame. To which the reply is Je vous en prie.
MysteriousLie3841 t1_itkm1ym wrote
In French: Veuillez agréer, Madame, Monsieur, l'expression de mes sentiments les plus distingués.
In English: Sincerely,
Glitz-1958 t1_itkn96v wrote
Exactly
spyczech t1_itjqtpk wrote
A good note on the dramatic side is each chapter being a newspaper release originally, which makes the chapters flow really well for me and be nice and dramatic as he wanted folks to buy the next periodical to read it
MewsashiMeowimoto t1_itlji72 wrote
A lot of old books were published this way. I think Dickens was published in serial, too.
I always think about it whenever I'm watching netflix show episodes that end with a teaser that make you want to watch the next one.
VirtualMoneyLover t1_itkmwv8 wrote
Some of those novels were published in newspapers as a series. Writers got paid by lines, not by the book. So they fluffed up the dialogues.
Kradget t1_itl6swb wrote
Yeah, bear in mind that a lot of older works have what reads today as pretty stilted language, too, and it takes a bit of getting used to.
Edit: also, English is a very compact language, but there's also the lack of formal cases, so translation is kind of a whole thing.
Internauta29 t1_itjlwsu wrote
> So, here's the thing with French: the language has both informal/singular (tu) and formal/plural (vous) forms of "you," which does not exist in English but is kind of a big deal in French. (Some parts of the US do kind of have a plural form of "you" with "y'all," but that's not relevant here.)
All romance languages have an informal pronoun, "you", and a formal pronoun, "vous", to address people. English used to have it too if I'm not mistaken, as "thou" was the informal "you" and "you" was actually formal.
As for characters' eloquence, fully agree. It also gets worse/better depending on your preference the further back you go in French, Spanish, Italian. Troubadours wrote incomprehensible poetry for the average person nowadays, Dante made literal homeless people speak the highest form of language expressions. I honestly like it a lot, but that's just me. I think it can be an acquired taste for other people.
nim_opet t1_itjq30g wrote
All Slavic and Germanic languages except for English and Swedish have it too.
Sabbath90 t1_itknqv5 wrote
We did have it in Sweden but it fell out of fashion mid 1900's, now people will look at you funny if you use the formal/plural "ni" when speaking to someone. Unless it's the king, that's the one exception.
blacksombrero t1_itlbwf7 wrote
You are no longer the Knights who say "Ni"?
nim_opet t1_itkqvyx wrote
Oh well, at least for the King then :)
Sacred_Root t1_itk0m44 wrote
English does but isn't emphasized as much as in the romance languages. Also probably why the non-binary movement is so big in the US, also.
nim_opet t1_itk1bcm wrote
What does non-binary have to do with distinction between singular and plural “you”?
Sacred_Root t1_itk1l5g wrote
That's one of their reasonings for the non binary pronouns.
nim_opet t1_itk5fzw wrote
No it isn’t. Gendered pronouns have nothing to do with 2nd person plural one.
Sacred_Root t1_itkkc1m wrote
You misunderstood what I was saying and i have no invested interest in trying to explain it to you. Idgaf about the topic enough to care either way.
Sacred_Root t1_itk1sd3 wrote
Identifying by they/them instead of he or she.
nim_opet t1_itk5ixt wrote
None of that has anything to do with the polite version of “you”. Those are genders of third person personal pronouns. The “tu/vous” distinction is specifically about the 2nd person pronoun and how it changes in singular vs. plural. 2nd person pronoun is not gendered.
Sacred_Root t1_itm02ae wrote
We're not talking about the same thing.
Sacred_Root t1_itm0kjp wrote
I never said it did.
Sacred_Root t1_itkjrkj wrote
Tell them that. Not me. You misunderstood what I was saying, anyway.
Nice_Sun_7018 t1_itl66a0 wrote
I guess we all misunderstood you then lol. “They/them” is in use because English doesn’t have a gender-neutral singular pronoun. If we did, we would use it. Since we don’t, we use the plural gender-neutral term (and we have always done this when the gender of the singular subject is unknown, too, not just for non-binary people).
This, as others have tried to tell you, has nothing to do with a language having a formal versus non-formal word for “you” (which typically comes in both singular and plural forms).
Emily_Ge t1_itjpl9h wrote
Yea they had both a long time ago, German kept Du/Sie.
Same with Dutch, but Dutch is much further on the path to unification of the two, German not so much.
Also both German and Dutch are moving towards only using the informal jij/je/Du instead of English which went with the formal as the standard form.
In German the two are still used pretty much, and you‘ll have twenty year olds saying Sie to other twenty year olds in formal settings. While in Dutch it‘s virtually disused under forty.
Also in German formal Settings there‘s still some rules about the higher ranking person offering the informal first before those get used like again in a business context, whereas in Dutch the change is basically fluid, going to informal from formal ‚on your own‘.
Though it very much depends on individual culture, like the German internet does not use Sie. Unless you got an utterly clueless lunatic on eBay Kleinanzeigen thinking they are being disrespected.
Same way that I’ve never had any complaints for just using the informal at work for anyone under 40 either.
And meeting someone outside of business/bureaucracy going informal is pretty much standard, unless it‘s a 90 year old neighbor still running on the old ruleset.
Also I find the informal variant extremely disrespectful (and am not alone with that interpretation) because it creates a massive ‚distance‘ and is usually used in dehumanizing context anyway.
Cautious_Ad8025 t1_itjugc5 wrote
So you everyone just uses the informal and it’s cool, but you personally find this very offensive?
mongreldogchild t1_itklxkw wrote
Not really a crazy take. I have had three friends who are Spanish speakers, for instance, who found formal language directed at them disrespectful because it's like "I don't know you". There's a certain "distance" that can be read as disrespect or insult, there.
I'm not sure, because I don't speak the languages the other replier knows about, but the "distance" they are talking about could be that the informal version has a dehumanizing context like calling someone else "it" instead of "they/he/she". Languages evolve, so as these languages evolve there's going to be a wide range of discourse on it.
Internauta29 t1_itkgiqw wrote
All very interesting information, thank you.
Personally, I can speak for romance languages and English because those are the ones I currently speak abd have an insight on their culture.
English is the least formal in pronouns, but this only shifts the burden of formality to the whole rest of the phrase with specific verbs or constructions preference in a formal setting, which adds subtlety and nuance but also makes it harder to master than, say, French where it's a pretty straightforward distinction, though of course you still have to modulate your tone and language to a certain degree.
Spanish is nore forgiving than French linguistically, not as much culturally as you can still feel the old dons culture of respect in lots of Spanish speaking countries, so you need to tread carefully with your language and mostly with your actions so as not to be rude.
Italian is kind of a mixed bag. The distinction used to be very similar to French with "tu" being informal "you", and "voi" being formal "you". It's very old fashioned though as nowadays people use "lei", 3rd person pronoun, to express formal "you". I'd say most of the rules you mentioned in German culture apply to Italian culture too. There's generally a shift to more informal language, but in business, bureaucracy, university, government, and anything professional really, you're strongly advised to be formal. Good etiquette suggests you refer formally to older people and superiors, strangers too, especially the older you are. Older people tend to be much more formal and keep it that way until they have a close relationship with the person they're speaking to, though back in the days they would never have shifted to informal language even in this case. If you're on the younger end, you generally should never switch to formal language unless prompted by the older person. Younger generations tend to forgo most formal rules apart from the basics, and this contributes to generational divide as older generations think poorly of this kind behaviour.
Personally, I too think people shouldn't just jump to informal as hastily and unprompted as they do, not because I'm keen on social hierarchies based on age, merit, or career. I just think specific settings require a certain behaviour, composure, and decorum. And as someone generally distrustful of others and keen on his personal space, I'm also not fond of the implication of closeness informal language has.
Verytinynanosomethin t1_itkrwni wrote
It's a bit regional though. In Flemish (Belgian) Dutch, the formal "u" is used significantly more than in the Netherlands (though still not to the extent that the French use it).
It was a bit jarring for me when serving personnel in a restaurant in the Netherlands immediately addressed me as "jij".
drparkland t1_itrw940 wrote
but germans love unification
Jack-Campin t1_itk5aw4 wrote
Troubadours wrote in Provençal, not French. Their language is still pretty easy to understand for a modern Provençal or Catalan speaker.
lilmammamia t1_itkypm6 wrote
I’m French and while I haven’t yet read The Count of Monte Cristo I read mostly 19th century authors and it is common for characters in books of that time to address each other as “madame” and “monsieur” so it is likely in the original text and wasn’t added in translation simply to convey the formality of “vous”.
French literature can be so formal, not all of it but a lot, I have read novels written in the first half of the 20th century where couples who live together use the formal “vous” to each other.
DoctorGuvnor t1_itk8sgz wrote
You will find in Boswell's book on Dr Johnson that Johnson habitually uses 'Sir' even when being really, really rude and verbally vicious. "Your wife, sir, while pretending to run a bawdy house is actually a receiver of stolen property'. (1709-1784)
kmmontandon t1_itlh0bc wrote
> Dumas was probably not going for extreme realism.
He was also padding the word count.
GFVeggie t1_itnb7yw wrote
I know The Inferno and The Tao differ greatly depending on who did the interpretation. Would this be the same with The Count off Monte Cristo and if so which would you suggest
jefrye t1_itnczrm wrote
Robin Buss is the gold standard for Monte Cristo translators and is the one everyone will recommend, unless you have your heart set on an abridgement in which case I've heard good things about Lowell Blair. Definitely stay away from nineteenth century translations because they're often bowdlerized.
herbw t1_itld5l3 wrote
well, well, well. Try calling someone you don't know very well, "du" in German, rather than the Sie and see what happens?
Sure you know some Romance languages, or say you do. I speak, read 7, including Deutsch & ancient pharoanic Khemetan. and can translate more simply by having a good lexicon . That comes in handy with Scandivanian lingo, esp. in genealogy. russki, as well.
The HUGE point you miss about Inglischen is that we have NO gender for not biological nouns. Romance languages, for port or door, have gender. And must match 100k's of nouns with articles and 100K's of adjectives with the gender. Which adds mistakes & processin time.
Nouns in English outside of biologically, have NO gender, makin Ingles 70% more efficient than all romance languages & some like Deutsch which do.
Put Dat fact in yer pipe and smoke it. Dat huge, vast efficiency is why English wins, globally.
jefrye t1_itmh0h8 wrote
I think you responded to the wrong person.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments