(no subject)
I used to make up my own insults. Now I read The Economist.
Fog in the Channel
The British guide to what the French really mean has a narrower aim: it was written specifically for officials the meetings of the European Union's Council of Ministers, where diplomats haggle over legal texts. The boredom and frustration which this sort of exercise can induce comes through very clearly in the authors' sarcastic observations.
No less obvious is the fact that ideas about plain speaking do no travel easily across the Channel. As the Brits see things, a Frenchman who says "je serai clair" (which literally means "I will be clear") should be understood as meaning: "I will be rude". Also evident is the Anglo-Saxons' contempt for spectacular gestures a la franaise. The phrase "Il faut la visibilite Europeenne" ("We need European visibility") is rendered as: "The EU must indulge in some pointless, annoying and, with luck, damaging international grand-standing." The British also suggest that the sentence "Il faut trouver une solution pragmatique" (literal translation: "We must find a pragmatic solution") should be understood as meaning: "Warning: I am about to propose a highly complex, theoretical, legalistic and unworkable way forward."
The British, the French and Dutch are old sparring partners who know each other's little ways. So the capacity for misunderstanding is amplified when nationalities that are less familiar with each other come into contact. Often the problems are less to do with the meanings of words than with their unexpected impact on an audience. Take the European summit last December, when it fell to Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, to try to wrap up sensitive negotiations ore a proposed constitution for the European Union.
When EU leader filed into lunch, they were braced for tough negotiation; so they were startled when Mr Berlusconi suggested that they discuss "football and women" -- and that Gerhard Schroeder, the German chancellor should lead the discussion, as he has been married four times. Some European diplomats concluded that Mr Berlusconi must have been deliberately bating Mr Schroeder. But the when Italian leader was questioned about his chairmanship at a press conference, he grew hot under the collar, pointing out that he would hardly have become a billionaire unless he was fully capable of chairing a meeting. And indeed his defenders say that in Italian business circles it can be perfectly normal to set a jocular and relaxed tone before a difficult meeting, by discussing last night's football, or even teasing your colleagues about their love lives.
These sorts of misunderstandings are unlikely to erased even if all Europe's political leaders and bureaucrats were both willing and able to speak English. But the ever-inventive Brussles is coming up with a solution of sorts through the emergence of "Euro-speak" -- a form of dead, bureaucratic English.
The joy of phrases like "qualified majority voting", "the community method" and "the commission's sole right of initiative" is that they are completely meaningless to all ordinary Europeans -- whether in translation of in the original. But, crucially, they are crystal-clear to insiders.
From here.
Fog in the Channel
The British guide to what the French really mean has a narrower aim: it was written specifically for officials the meetings of the European Union's Council of Ministers, where diplomats haggle over legal texts. The boredom and frustration which this sort of exercise can induce comes through very clearly in the authors' sarcastic observations.
No less obvious is the fact that ideas about plain speaking do no travel easily across the Channel. As the Brits see things, a Frenchman who says "je serai clair" (which literally means "I will be clear") should be understood as meaning: "I will be rude". Also evident is the Anglo-Saxons' contempt for spectacular gestures a la franaise. The phrase "Il faut la visibilite Europeenne" ("We need European visibility") is rendered as: "The EU must indulge in some pointless, annoying and, with luck, damaging international grand-standing." The British also suggest that the sentence "Il faut trouver une solution pragmatique" (literal translation: "We must find a pragmatic solution") should be understood as meaning: "Warning: I am about to propose a highly complex, theoretical, legalistic and unworkable way forward."
The British, the French and Dutch are old sparring partners who know each other's little ways. So the capacity for misunderstanding is amplified when nationalities that are less familiar with each other come into contact. Often the problems are less to do with the meanings of words than with their unexpected impact on an audience. Take the European summit last December, when it fell to Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, to try to wrap up sensitive negotiations ore a proposed constitution for the European Union.
When EU leader filed into lunch, they were braced for tough negotiation; so they were startled when Mr Berlusconi suggested that they discuss "football and women" -- and that Gerhard Schroeder, the German chancellor should lead the discussion, as he has been married four times. Some European diplomats concluded that Mr Berlusconi must have been deliberately bating Mr Schroeder. But the when Italian leader was questioned about his chairmanship at a press conference, he grew hot under the collar, pointing out that he would hardly have become a billionaire unless he was fully capable of chairing a meeting. And indeed his defenders say that in Italian business circles it can be perfectly normal to set a jocular and relaxed tone before a difficult meeting, by discussing last night's football, or even teasing your colleagues about their love lives.
These sorts of misunderstandings are unlikely to erased even if all Europe's political leaders and bureaucrats were both willing and able to speak English. But the ever-inventive Brussles is coming up with a solution of sorts through the emergence of "Euro-speak" -- a form of dead, bureaucratic English.
The joy of phrases like "qualified majority voting", "the community method" and "the commission's sole right of initiative" is that they are completely meaningless to all ordinary Europeans -- whether in translation of in the original. But, crucially, they are crystal-clear to insiders.
From here.