@LPH I have never EVER seen except here participants telling others to remove their answers OR even to change them. This is simply not on, as the Brits say. It is coercive and people don't do it on other sites. I personally think it is good to leave it as an example. That's my opinion and no one need agree with it. ///I noticed that here one can't flag comments. Too bad. Some of them deserve flagging.

But to pressure me when the pressuring party has mistakes and refuses to acknowledge them is a bit much. Good night. I'm off to watch my telenovela.

@Lambie There are also participants who accept feedback and change their posts.

ELU has a much bigger user base, so you will not get the same treatment. There will be more voting and poor content will sink faster.

ELU does not deal with learners' content and therefore there is less of a concern for leading learners astray.

ELU has tons of academics making up its user base, so there will be more deference show towards answers.

No one on ELU goes there to take a stance against spoken, or slang language or deny varieties of the language, or constantly lecture people about proper language. They've grown up past these prescriptive barriers a long time ago.

No one goes to ELU or Portuguese or what not specifically making a point to NOT translate to English or Portuguese. That point has been made here.

Right not like on FSE where native french speakers are told by non-native french speakers that they don't have a right to say this or that because it's faux, archi-faux.

No one goes to ELU and just voices random opinions about women in their content.

Yeah.

There are many differences. Also, lots of users on ELU have bad habits. One being answering in comments. And ELU has acknowledged this, and taking steps to convert more threads into chatrooms etc.

Academia means many of these academics are used to writing articles in periodicals and to own these contributions. Many don't grasp what free content means and what the licence entails. They think it's like their periodicals but just free of charge. They don't understand remix.

It doesn't belong on the SE network imho.

On U&L, if someone provides an answer, and this answer goes against all best practices and is a dangerous implementation, a user who knows this should be able to go into the content and edit and add warnings and such, irrespective of being a buddy or what not.

With a huge user base, voting might bring the answer very low and there may be less of a need for this. Here the number of users who frequently use the site is but a handful.

It's easy to call me out. But what about improving your content? What about not having these attitudes of entitlement. This agenda of obfuscating part of the language. This overtly ridiculous stance of not translating to French etc.

And why should this place be like ELU? It has a different user base, number of users, scope etc.

Answers are not articles you write in some university. You are the initial author but every single other user has prerogatives on the content you contributed.

They do not need your consent to change it.

Your initial contribution is kept in the revision history tool.

This is a consequence of the remix prerogative in the CC by SA licence.

It will not be denied. Otherwise it's not cc BY SA.

My trying to convince folks to improve their content is a courtesy.

I understand the terms of this licence better than most. And people have resorted to behaving like they do in academia and all. Fuck this.

It's wrong, unacceptable and unbecoming of the terms of the licence.

This place is not an extension of periodicals contributions in academia.

It is free content under the Creative Commons licence.

It means fuckin' FREE.

There are no fuckin' strings attached.

Deal with it.

@Kamala-1FTW @Kamala-1FTW There is no attempt at salvaging anything but an attempt at just evaluation, and I hope I show that if the translation is in the end rather untenable there is an idea that is not fundamentally wrong: what are we to say of images such as "mitraillé de fleurs"? Can you hear the sharp impacts of the flowers hitting their target? I can't.

Things like that deserve much discussion, and let's not discourage those that feel free to invest their time in them.

Who are you to know how she hears and what remains of what she hears, and how it can be distorted? It happens that one of the sounds is strangely like what is needed. On the contrary, a careful examination of the facts is often the key to truth.

@Kamala-1FTW @Kamala-1FTW Have you fathomed the complexity of the mistake? What have you said? That is what you said: "It's wrong, change it.". In other words you advocate a sort of learning that is acquired by rote, no reasonning, no correction of the thought processes that are not correct, no knowledge of where exactly the error is. Of course, I can't agree with you. You say "not disguise the components", but that is not what is called "correction",

modification", "addition", and these are the ways that everyone know as useful in order to make what is not quite right finally right in some cases. Useless talk. Moreover, before you know something can't be modified, often, you have to try to modify it. Your talk is useless.

@Kamala-1FTW @Kamala-1FTW To begin with what is called "tapage rythmique" in the case of hail is nothing rhythmical; there is no pattern of beats, and that is an imprecision in the original text; secondly, someone who knows the noise of hail hitting a metallic surface, which a patternless beat, can associate it with other such beats. The noise in the second video is not of that type but that in the first is. You have to take that into account.

@Kamala-1FTW @Kamala-1FTW Exageration! This gross error, as you say, is not gross; I can hear in that first video a sound of rain on a surface of some sort, which I am ready to identify to a sound of light hail if someone tells me it is in fact hail. You should listen to it, it is inescapable. How do you know what she hears and how it is transformed in her mind when she has to remember it.

All your speculations are worthless, inasmuch as the basis of the evidence is there, in that first video. There is an evident relation.

@Kamala-1FTW @Kamala-1FTW I do not retain the translations as acceptable, none of them; I merely conclude that all I can think of is too approximate, to removed from reality and what people can identify to. Where is the camouflage? In the recognition that nevertheless you have to contend with a good try? No, no camouflage in that.

@Kamala-1FTW @Kamala-1FTW Such exercices are necessary if you want to understand; that is how you can determine why and why not, and they are nothing else than thinking. Who are you to say where thinking starts and end?

@LPH Following your logic, translating odeur de chair brûlée by smell of a burnt chair made out of old bones could be valid, despite being based on a gross mistranslation. Your logic is deeply flawed in my opinion. It allows the specific, the anecdotal, to supersede the general, and argues out of ignorance, based on the idea that because we can't prove precisely that the result is totally false, not completely inaccurate, then it can be true. Based on pure subjectivity.

But we know the choice of tatouage IS based on not knowing the meaning of tattooing and therefore it is wrong from the onset.

It was never based on them thinking that the sound of a tattooing machine is comparable to drumming.

Hence the fallacy from what I understand of your reasoning.

The dots are connected ex post facto, despite these errors.

Sure, the person did not know the meaning of the verb. But they soon did thereafter, so this is not a "good try to contend with". I'm all for debating ideas, exploring other views etc. But I don't agree there is a systematic counterpoint to every point, that every goal post should be moved at every turn, or arguing ad nauseam about a far fetched possibility that in an alternate reality might have been accurate.

These constant debates don't show in my opinion a willingness to discuss, but rather that we have way too much time on our hands and that we can't come to terms with reality.

Also, your reference to rythmic not being rythmic because there is no specific pattern is just nonsense. It's a sustained pattern, just like a drum rolling and such rolls are part of a tattoo. Anyways, arguing the sound of a tattooing machine could be more closely related to the sound of hail hitting the plane as opposed to the sound of a tattoo I find to be out of this world.

We would have had the time to build a real house here instead of a house of cards with all these discussions since this question was asked in the first place, years ago. What a waste. How has all of this helped further our knowledge of the French language or anything. It is all mindless drivel and intellectual masturbation in the guise of some elevated thinking.

Anyways, cheers.

@Kamala-1FTW The coincidence of the two forms is not incidental, one word suggested randomly the other, but that changes nothing to the facts that result ; she did not know the word "tattoo" in English as meaning "beating on drums" (roughly), and she had to know the other meaning and the fact that there is a noise associated with the action. Perhaps she was influenced in thinking that the noise could be somewhat like that of hail; so what?

That is no reason for saying the idea is grossly improper: it is not good enough but there is in it something that is right: tatoo machines do make a noise and it can be compared with that of hail, except for the fact that the comparison is not a felicitous one. The idea is certainly not like a comparison of the noise of hail to pink ribbons in little girls hairs.

Rhythm is the repetition of a pattern; the noise of hail beating on a surface, and of rain for that matter, is nothing more than a haphazard succession of events; there is no recurrence of a "tic-tic-toc-tac" or "tic-tic-tac-tic" or whatever pattern of that sort (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythm); this as if you spoke of rhythm in relation to the sizzling sound of a frying pan;

the noise of rain is very much like that, a haphazard phenomenon. I will not join the bunch of people that see rhythm in the noise of rain.

As the motion of molecules in a gas is constant random motion, so is the noise of rain and hail and hash from a radio or sizzling sound from a frying pan: constant random noise.

Can you hear the rain and no rhythm?

radio hash; I am not going to say that you can hear the rain now, but that is constant random noise all the same.

The smell of a burnt chair made out of the bones of an alien whose characteristics differ from 99% of their peers.

Je trouve tout ça ésotérique @LPH. On salue l'effort. Mais vu ta capacité de déchiffrer et de te projeter dans la peau du contributeur, peut-être peux-tu analyser la réponse sur l'intimé. J'avais du mal à dormir et j'ai analysé longuement comment à partir du propos X de la question, on pouvait comprendre quelque chose qui nous amène à répondre « La raison est juridique » puis à répéter X. Mon intellect semble insuffisant à la tache.

« the comparison is not a felicitous one ». Ça, tu l'as dit !

Je dirais tordu et bancal. Mais bon. Entk. Salut !

p.s. salut Cowperkettle !

@Kamala-1FTW Salut!

@Kamala-1FTW En français il me semble qu'on ne parle pas (encore ?) de “critogenesis” and “litigation response syndrome”, termes semble-t-il employés en psychiatrie états-unienne, et que celui qui a posé la question a transcrit en français comme il/elle a pu (je ne pense pas non plus que l'anglais soit a langue maternelle) Je trouve pas évident de remettre la dernière phrase en français clair.

« Toute judiciarisation d'un litige entraine des dégâts sur la santé mentale et des blessures psychologiques ». Merci pour vos remarques et @Frank aussi (et relecture attentive @Frank). Des fois c'est à se demander si on a bien lu...

@LPH Thank you for the comic relief (pink ribbons) Yes, I was influenced by the idea that it was like hail. It seems that no matter what I say, it provides an opportunity for being snarled at.:)

@None Est-ce que la question contenait cette dernière phrase auparavant? En tout cas, "litigation" est une maladie américaine et espérons que cela ne saute pas par-dessus l'étang. Chose peu probable étant donné la différence entre les systèmes juridiques (common law v. civil law). Cela dit, ces processus (de judiciarisation des litiges) touchent l'intimité des personnes. C'est sûr....

@Lambie La seule modification apportée à la question est l'ajout du tag vocabulaire. Rien n'a été modifiée dans le titre ou le corps de la question. La suite des modifs est accessible à tous en cliquant sur "edited".

Je le sais. Je l'ai vu. En tout cas, j'ai mal lu la question la première fois. Merci.

Oui, la judiciarisation de la vie aux EU ça doit pas être drôle. En France c'est en train d'arriver lentement mais sûrement (on le sent dans l'école et le système médical par exemple). Encore une influence des EU !!!! ;)

Je trouve bien de corriger les non francophones mais là j'ai vraiment du mal avec la dernière phrase. Dégâts - damage ça c'est le BA ba mais « iatrogenèse légale » ? (on a iatrogénèse en français mais je parie que très peu de gens connaissent le mot) et surtout "critogènes" je vois bien que c'est (un peu) employé en anglais mais je ne l'ai pas rencontré en français...

Sure, iatrogenesis is when medical help/treatment that was supposed to help makes you sick. Litigation is supposed to help you legally, but it can make you feel worse. What a word though, critogenic. Live and learn. Anyway, think of people affected by bad water in that state (Wisconsin?), not only sick physically but probably negatively affected by the litigation.

@None Ca dépend. On peut y couper aussi si on se tient tranquille hahaha

On ne peut pas dire "iatrogenèse légale", parce que dans "iatrogenèse" il y a la racine grecque pour docteur spécifiquement ("iatros"). Il faudrait remplacer par une racine du domaine légal. Sinon, c'est ridicule.

OMG, it's just an explanation for critogenesis. Not a "thing".

@None Bien l'article cité (canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2017CanLIIDocs137#!fragment/…) traite de coûts, répercussions et aspects défavorables, mais comme justement on a cet article qui renseigne sur ce dont parle la personne, je trouve ça moins important de réécrire ça. Je ne connais pas les termes discutés, jamais entendus.

Concernant les poursuites, bien j'ai une opinion au cas par cas. Aux États-Unis c'est important de pouvoir attaquer la constitutionnalité des lois qui viennent interférer avec les droits des femmes sur leur corps et la recherche reliée à la fécondité etc. C'est aussi ça le litige. Puis on a les gens qui sont victimes d'agressions et qui veulent bénéficier du standard moins onéreux de la prépondérance ou balance des probabilités ou de la preuve au civil par opposition au pénal.

Aussi au Québec on vient d'avoir une cause où une locataire veut recevoir l'aide médicale à mourir et la propriétaire a tenté d'invoquer des convictions religieuses pour s'opposer et a tenté d'effectuer une reprise du logement mais le tribunal a qualifié la reprise de reprise déguisée et a confirmé le droit du locataire.

D'autre part quand ce sont des gens syndiqués qui font l'objet de poursuites, on a des appuis et ils seront épaulés.

Quand on a des poursuites baillons etc. on peut condamner ça et les médias ont un rôle à jouer pour exposer de telles poursuites.

Mais le droit est omniprésent dans toutes les sphères et toutes les institutions, de l'état civil, à la propriété, à la responsabilité, à la vente, la location, le mariage, la minorité, la mort, les successions etc. etc. avec tous les litiges associés.

Je sais pas exactement à quoi on réfère par judiciarisation etc. Les poursuites font avancer le droit des consommateurs, par exemple. Pour moi c'est du cas par cas.

Mais oui il y a des coûts, financiers évidemment, puis émotionnels, et c'est long et on doit témoigner et ça peut être très dur et c'est public. Et les réseaux sociaux viennent s'en mêler.

L'appareil judiciaire dispose de mécanismes pour empêcher que trop de résultats aberrants ne perdurent, ou pour limiter la propension de certains plaideurs à la quérulence etc. On a l'appel, puis la quérulence, on a des groupes qui peuvent intervenir pour défendre des intérêts. Pour moi c'est difficile de poser un jugement sur une tendance, américaine ou autre.

Si il y a abus les règles peuvent être modifiées. Le droit est en mouvement.

Si les gens ne veulent pas exercer leurs droits civils de bonne foi, il faut un litige et qu'on tranche. Les gens sont de moins en moins raisonnables, à mon avis une bonne partie du problème est là.

Puis il y a de plus en plus de gens qui font valoir leurs droits, brimés, et c'est très médiatisé. C'est sans doute une bonne chose dans bien des cas, comme j'ai dit précédemment.

Probablement que de nouvelles règles touchant la (non) prescription des recours encouragent ça aussi.

Bof, je sais pas trop.

Peut-être qu'il faut plus de médiation obligatoire, et au Québec on a ça pour certaines catégories de litige. C'est un sujet nuancé. J'ai peur que l'actualité motive un jugement. Je ne sais pas.

Les litiges ce sont des histoires humaines, des traces d'un vécu, d'une dialectique. J'aime bien l'aspect patrimonial du litige.

@Lambie More often than not it's annoyance, not anger. I mean it's hard to imagine one being willingly wrong and finding inspiration from something unrelated when the corresponding word in French (tatouage) can't mean what it means in English (tattoo, the drumming kind). Or that you can misread a question, then when asked why you don't explain why not say that the question doesn't ask this, but instead use another answer to explain yet ask from that contributor whether they do answer or not...

...something you have not understood in the first place etc. It's so convoluted it's even hard to explain how this would make sense etc. But whatever.

Or why you never EVER EVER FOREVER translate to French yet you've done so countless times, including in the tattoo question.

Souvent j'ai l'impression d'être pris pour une valise.

Vaut mieux en rire qu'en pleurer sans doute.

@Kamala-1FTW La "judiciarisation" c'est parce qu'aux US, beaucoup plus de processus finissent par être arbitrés par des procédures légales qu'en France.

C'est où que vous discutez de tout ça à part ici?

Je crois que la différence common law_/_pas common law en France.

... y est aussi pour quelque chose. Dans les systèmes "common law", on dirait que tout est laissé en suspens pour que ça finisse par une procédure judiciaire par défaut.

La caricature est que les Américains appellent leur lawyer pour un oui ou our non, ce qui serait inconnu en France. Sans rapport direct, on me dit aussi que les Français sont plus familiers avec le système judiciaire américain qu'avec le français, en raison des films et séries US.

@Frank Objection, votre honneur !

@jlliagre Ah bon? Tu vas appeler ton lawyer pour qu'il règle ça avec le mien?

@Frank Tu es trop premier degré :-)

@jlliagre Hehe.

Objection, votre honneur s'entend parfois dans des tribunaux français, ce qui ne lasse pas de faire enrager les juges :-)

Parce que ça n'existe pas en France?

Non.

Ni objection, ni votre honneur.

Je ne connais pas les détails, on m'a juste dit que les Français étaient beaucoup trop influencés par les films américains.

Les séries aussi, et on n'est pas les seuls.

On ne peut pas "objecter" en France puisque c'est le juge qui interroge à tour de rôle.

Et le juge, ce n'est pas Votre honneur mais Monsieur le juge / Madame la juge.