Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2020 January 16

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 16

French translation

Can someone help translate Je vous laisse d’ailleurs le soin, si vous le jugez convenable, de prévenir Tuarii que si elle nous crée la moindre difficulté sa pension lui est retirée, car elle ne la doit qu’à notre extrême bienveillance en sa faveur from French? KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

leave you besides the care, if you judge it suitable, to warn Tuarii that if she creates us the least difficulty her pension is withdrawn to her, because she owes it only to our extreme benevolence in her favor. Anton. 81.131.40.58 (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think Kavebear is hoping for something better then a google translate cut and paste.

"I leave it to you, if you find it appropriate, to warn Tuarii that if she creates any sort of difficulty, her pension will be withdrawn, given that she is only allowed it thanks to our extreme benevolence towards her. " --Lgriot (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

d’ailleurs = beside that/on the other side/anyway ... si elle nous crée la moindre difficulté = if she creates/makes/causes us the least difficulty 2003:F5:6F05:EC00:6006:E826:6CDF:2581 (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC) MPB

Anton's version may be overly literal but it is accurate, unlike some Google translations. —Tamfang (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Side question, I have never read or heard "cause the least difficulty" (and I would never say it, in fear of using a French-ism). Is it normal English? A bit dated?--1Lgriot (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Lgriot - it's perfectly acceptable in English. A Google Books search for that term brings sources as diverse as The American Journal of Psychology and the UK Parliament. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh but in all the examples coming out on that google book search, the meaning is different. In those books "the least" actually means "the smallest amount of". In the French text that we are translating here, it has a very specific meaning "any difficulty, big, medium or small, of any sort whatsoever". It is not the literal "least". It is very idiomatic. --Lgriot (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

"slightest" might be more idiomatic English, in such a context. —Tamfang (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Did the word "amendment" historically mean "any change for the better" or did it have a more limited meaning?

I've noticed that some proponents of the unconstitutional constitutional amendment theory--such as Yaniv Roznai and Walter F. Murphy--have argued that the word "amendment" means something along the lines of "a minor change for the better" or "a change for the better that is compatible with the bulk of the document that one is trying to change". Basically, they use this definition to argue that there are implicit (as opposed to explicit) limits on the constitutional amendment power. However, I've also noticed that Noah Webster's 1828 English dictionary defines the word "amendment" along the lines of "a change for the better" without actually putting any limits on the scope of this change:

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/amendment

"1. An alteration or change for the better; correction of a fault or faults; reformation of life, by quitting vices."

So, my question here is this--did the word "amendment" historically mean something along the lines of "any change for the better"? Or did it have a more limited meaning--as in "a minor change for the better" or "a change for the better that is compatible with the bulk of the document that one is trying to change"? Any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

wikt:amend provides some etymology. Jmar67 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

A quote from 1817 (Francis Augustus Cox, Female Scripture Biographies, Volume I; via COHA):

" We live without God in the world, " an omniscient Deity has no existence in our minds, and we inquire " Who will show us any good? " as if God were not the chief good, or could not supply our happiness. Alas! how often have we boasted of to-morrow by neglecting, in a religious sense, the most important business of to-day. It is not easy to imagine a more dangerous state of mind, than that of a person, whose resolutions of repentance and amendment all respect futurity, because he makes these very resolutions an excuse for his negligences, and even considers them as an expiation of the guilt of his procrastinating temper.

(My emphasis, of course.) I can't claim to understand this well; but so far as I do, I take "amendment" to mean a radical change. (I'm very open to being told that I've misunderstood.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "amendment" here appears to mean "change" -- without any reference to the scope of this change, as per the 1828 Webster's Dictionary definition of "amendment" above. Futurist110 (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps mistakenly, I inferred from the context (or anyway from my hazy understanding of it), that "a person" (i) would want to be go(o)dly (passport to the more desirable kind of afterlife, etc) rather than just different; and (b) thanks to his or her "negligences" (plural!), "procrastinating temper", and resolutions of repentance, would need to make a thoroughgoing change. ¶ If you're unimpressed by the example (and I wouldn't blame you), then see COHA, which has other examples from the 1810s, 1820s, 1830s.... -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

In the OED Online, which is possibly the best source for this sort of question, the first definition is always the oldest sense. And their entry for the word begins with:

The action of amending, whether in process, or as completed.

1. Removal of faults, correction, reformation.

a. of human conduct. absol. = self-reformation.

Where the abbreviation "absol." means absolute or absolutely. So they say there is no implication as to the size of the change. The first cite for this sense is dated 1297, by the way. Sub-senses b through d refer to the correction of errors in books, laws, etc. and are 300 years more recent. --142.112.159.101 (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

"Absol." does indeed mean "absolute", but it's a note on the syntax, not the semantics. It means that this use is without an object, as in the example "Men commonly think..that amendment is an expiation." But this is a quite separate meaning, so even if the word supported your argument, it would not necessarily transfer to other meanings. --ColinFine (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have always understood "amendment" to mean any change to a document. The question of "for the better" is one of intent, not of fact. I would assume that the proposer of an amendment would consider it an improvement, but the result of the amendment may be demonstrably negative. --Khajidha (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly so for me too. By the way, is it possible to change direktly the text of the USA Constitution, or any change can only take place in the form of an amendment? Thnks 2003:F5:6F05:EC00:6006:E826:6CDF:2581 (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC) MPB

The word "amendment" originally meant "improvement".[1] That theory doesn't always work out, e.g. Prohibition. And, no, there's no mechanism for directly changing the text of the US Constitution. However, a number of clauses have been replaced via the amendment process, one example being the way the president and vice president are elected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)