Struggling to resolve what to me is an ambiguity

[graviton]

AngelicaDeAlquezar, thank you for posting your very well-argued point of vew, which I take very seriously. Let me ask you this question: if, instead of using 'apuntar', the author had used 'notar', would you then say that the policeman and not the judge was smiling? Is everything else about the sentence consistent with a “smiling policeman” interpretation, if the verb were 'notar'? And in fact, if the verb were 'notar', would the only interpretation be that the policeman was smiling?

[chileno]

Not "notar" but "anotar" which is the same as "apuntar" in this case.

[graviton]

Hi chileno! I deliberately chose 'notar' and NOT 'anotar' precisely because 'notar' means to 'notice', and doesn't involve writing something down. My question is: if the sentence had been written with 'notar', would you then interpret it to mean that the policeman, and not the judge, was smiling?

[chileno]

That is what Julvenzor and Angélica explained to you.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

So I understand this is what you want the sentence to be:

"Cuando es blanca y viene embotellada, suele tratarse de leche -respondió por fin, críptico, mas no tanto como para que el juez no apuntara notara una sonrisa."

Sorry, but this wouldn't make much sense. The word play and the smile should be closely related in the sentence in order to make them belong to the same person, but I fail to see how this "cryptic" sentence would have to be enough as to make the judge note a smile on the policeman's face. What's the relevance of the smile, when the word "críptico" is exclusively referring to the use of a word play? So how can it be related to a smile so far away in the text?


The only way to insert the verb "notar" in there, with the elements of the original sentence, and making the policeman the smiling character, it would be by completely altering the situation.

-...críptico, y el juez, que no entendió nada, notó una sonrisa en el policía.
-...críptico, lo suficiente para desconcertar al juez, quien le notó una sonrisa.
-...críptico, pero el juez, esforzándose por comprender, notó que esbozaba una sonrisa.

[graviton]

This post is for chileno. I see Angelica has just posted a response, which I'll get to next.


Okay, chileno, I just wanted to establish that the only facet of the sentence that makes you interpret it to mean the judge is smiling and not the policeman is the use of 'apuntar'. So then if the use of 'notar' would change the smiler from the judge to the policeman in your view, then the question becomes: can we ever use 'apuntar'—when meaning “to make a note of'—in a figurative sense, even if we usually mean it literally?


The English phrase “to make a note of” is often meant literally, but nonetheless can be used to mean “to make a mental note of” without actually saying the word 'mental'. Is this mental note-taking forbidden with 'apuntar' when it means 'to make a note of'? And bear in mind, human beings are remarkable in the way they say the most concretely literal things, and yet don't mean them literally. For example, if you say to someone you don't trust or like, who wants to borrow money from you, “Write this down! I'm never going to lend you money no matter how many times you ask!” you don't actually mean that he should 'write this down'. And what about differences between Latin American usage of 'apuntar' and European? The writer I quoted is from Spain. So even if, in Latin American Spanish 'apuntar' is NEVER used to mean 'make a mental note of', only literal, physical notes, does that mean figurative liberties are not taken with 'apuntar' by writers on the Continent?


And what about the frequency of usage of the various meanings of apuntar. 'Apuntar' meaning 'to make a note of' I believe occurs vastly more often than 'apuntar' meaning 'to suggest, hint at'. So even if figurative use of 'apuntar' to mean 'make a mental note of' is not common, its frequency might still be greater than the use of 'apuntar' to mean 'suggest'.


And remember, the judge—really an investigating magistrate—may as well be literally writing something down when he makes a mental note of it. He's a very meticulous observer and he carefully files away (mentally) what he's observed—that's an essential characteristic of someone in his profession. So the author might be inclined to use a verb that normally implies physical note-taking when describing the judge's mental note-taking.


And may I point out that 'apuntar' in the sense you want to use it, to mean 'suggest' or 'hint at' is also being used figuratively. Obviously, in your translation of 'apuntar', the judge is not literally suggesting a smile; rather, his face is giving a suggestion of a smile.


So we have a contest between two figurative uses of 'apuntar'. That's a stand-off. But then the argument must shift to the overall context (the details of which I presented in post #8), and in that case I think the weight of the evidence and logic is in favor of a smiling policeman.

[chileno]

This is easy:

In English:

How can I notice, myself, that I am smiling..... because someone else said something sacarstic and maybe I wasn't thinking about it?

See the problem now?
For example in Chile apuntarse/ anotarse un poroto is to get "a score/point", in this case would be something like ".... not cryptic enough for it not to stamp a smile on the judge's face", or something like that.


Would this help you?

Please reason it in English, and the Spanish version will become clearer.

[graviton]

Angelica, you are assuming that 'cryptic' refers exclusively to the words uttered by the policeman. Why? It is, I think, the policeman's entire response that is cryptic, or should I say his entire response is cryptic but with an important qualification—the judge observed a smile on the policeman's face, and that smile lessened the degree to which the policeman's response was cryptic. Why? Because in the context of the scene (see my post #8) a smile on the face of the policeman, combined with the light-heartedness of his comment about the milk, strongly conveyed that the policeman was not taking the matter very seriously, which powerfully suggests that he believed they were dealing with a mere suicide, not a murder. This is confirmed moments later to be exactly what the policeman believes.


And if your interpretation is to be judged the correct one, you would have to be able to answer the points raised in my post #8, which demonstrate the implausibility of the judge smiling in those particular circumstances. If it were simply a matter of the sentence itself, either interpretation would be legitimate. But the sentence in the context of that scene can have, I believe, only one meaning--a smiling policeman.


And Angelica, in your three possible alterations, you don't express what I'm actually saying the state of mind of the judge is. It's not that the judge is totally baffled by the policeman's comment—on the contrary, he correctly infers, based on the light-heartedness of the comment and the smile that accompanied it, that the policeman thinks it's merely a suicide, not a murder

Chileno, I must confess I'm not quite sure what you mean by “How can I notice, myself, that I am smiling..... because someone else said something sacarstic and maybe I wasn't thinking about it?” I'm not saying that under no circumstances could the judge be smiling. Rather, I'm saying that the sentence itself could be interpreted as the judge noticing a smile on the face of the policeman OR the judge himself smiling slightly. From the sentence alone, either possibility is plausible. But when you put the sentence in the context of the entire scene, the scene makes a lot of sense if the policeman is smiling and no sense at all if the judge is smiling. I don't know why everybody is ignoring the context. Context is always the key element in understanding meaning.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

As I said before, I think you are overinterpreting a simple situation and although the context helps to refer to the second character (now we know "policeman") and words ("suicide", "murder"), the relationship between both characters is apparent and the reader has a very clear idea of what the sentence says.

So, without any further context, it's plain to see that the one with the cryptical answer is stating he has a concluded business, and the judge is reacting with a smile to a specific instant which doesn't go any farther than the first speaker's reply. It's obvious too that it is not a frank or wide smile because the judge won't show empathy or agreement with the other, for reasons that only he knows. And this is not assuming, but reading what the Spanish sentence is saying.

The adjective "críptico" is addressed to the first speaker, by sarcastically describing his attitude while refusing to utter a straight answer, but using a an obvious word play. Whether he's smiling or not, doesn't add anything.

What I did by altering the sentences was for showing you that there was no way to insert "notar" in that paragraph without having to alter both the relationship of both characters and the situation, so the sentence would be semantically correct. Of course the judge is neither baffled nor confused, but he would have to be if he had to "notice" the other guy's smile.


Finally, I'm sorry to say this, but these sentences cannot mean what you want them to mean. If the extended explanations from four different persons does not satisfy you, I suggest you re-read them again and find the answers you are seeking, for they are all there.

[chileno]

Ok, you quoted the first part of my message. Do I have to assume you didn't see the latter part of it or that it didn;t help you to understand what's going on?

".... not cryptic enough for it not to stamp a smile on the judge's face", or something like that.

Would this particular part be of any help to you?