4 ms·

That is wrong. The french version stated: > Retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés lors du récent conflit. In this context, "des" mean

That is wrong. The french version stated: > Retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés lors du récent conflit. In this context, "des" means "de les". It is indeed a definite article.

Svip 7y ago
With context it is clear. But the way the author takes « des territoires » out of context, makes it look like it's the indefinite article. They should have translated it to 'of the territories'.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  Why not just concede that you were wrong? Even if, yes, the author could have made it a bit more difficult for you to be wrong?
  - microtherion 7y ago
    He's not really wrong. As a French speaker myself, seeing "from 'des territoires'" and a translation as a definite article was jarring, since the definite form of the article already contains the "from", so preceding the quote with the "from" strengthens the intuitive parse as an indefinite article.
dmurray 7y ago
Isn't it ambiguous? I would translate "withdraw from territories" and "withdraw from the territories" the same way (edit: so does Google Translate). It's a failure by the translator who should have worded it "retrait...de tous les territoires" or "retrait...de certaines territoires" (withdrawal from all, or some of the territories) as appropriate. It's clear in the context of a good-faith negotiation that Israel wasn't being given the option to withdraw from one square metre and keep the rest. But the language gives some plausible deniability to their supporters.
- duxat_staglatz 7y ago
  "withdraw from territories" would be translated as "Retrait des forces armées israéliennes _de_ territoires occupés lors du récent conflit" and "withdraw from the territories" as "Retrait des forces armées israéliennes _des_ territoires occupés lors du récent conflit". It is not ambiguous at all.
- tasogare 7y ago
  No, it’s not ambiguous (native speaker here).

Svip 7y ago

With context it is clear. But the way the author takes « des territoires » out of context, makes it look like it's the indefinite article. They should have translated it to 'of the territories'.

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
Why not just concede that you were wrong? Even if, yes, the author could have made it a bit more difficult for you to be wrong?
- microtherion 7y ago
  He's not really wrong. As a French speaker myself, seeing "from 'des territoires'" and a translation as a definite article was jarring, since the definite form of the article already contains the "from", so preceding the quote with the "from" strengthens the intuitive parse as an indefinite article.

dmurray 7y ago

Isn't it ambiguous? I would translate "withdraw from territories" and "withdraw from the territories" the same way (edit: so does Google Translate). It's a failure by the translator who should have worded it "retrait...de tous les territoires" or "retrait...de certaines territoires" (withdrawal from all, or some of the territories) as appropriate. It's clear in the context of a good-faith negotiation that Israel wasn't being given the option to withdraw from one square metre and keep the rest. But the language gives some plausible deniability to their supporters.

duxat_staglatz 7y ago
"withdraw from territories" would be translated as "Retrait des forces armées israéliennes _de_ territoires occupés lors du récent conflit" and "withdraw from the territories" as "Retrait des forces armées israéliennes _des_ territoires occupés lors du récent conflit". It is not ambiguous at all.
tasogare 7y ago
No, it’s not ambiguous (native speaker here).