El pasado se nos muestra rico...

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by BenCondor

All of that noted, "formally in force" is actually a pretty good expression in English. "Formally" alerts the reader that something is a bit fishy about this democracy, without coming right out and saying it is null and void. Which isn't too far off, is it?

Then how about 'theoretically' or 'nominally' instead of 'formally'?

[BenCondor]

Re: English translation: Yeah, I knew there was a translation out there somewhere. I guess we've found it...

Yes, "nominally" is a good choice. My Spanish (and grasp of the Argentinian psyche) isn't developed enough to understand exactly why "formal" is being used and not, say, "nominal" (also a Spanish word) which is more what I'd expect given my understanding of his meaning. Still, I do have to say, in substituting "nominally" for "formally" here, it comes out sounding more like the whole thing is a sham. Formally conveys this a little more subtly.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by BenCondor

Still, I do have to say, in substituting "nominally" for "formally" here, it comes out sounding more like the whole thing is a sham. Formally conveys this a little more subtly.

Agreed - it's the degree of sham which you have to decide, and these words will mean different things to different people. In context I don't think 'formally' sounds quite right, but I can't offer a better alternative.

[BenCondor]

Yes, in looking at Brennan's translation I find a number of questionable points. First, is it correct to completely gloss over our, now famous, "las epocas de vigencia formal" and simply label them "periods of democratic rule". Lost from this is any sense that there is a merely "formal" aspect.

Second, he translates

en las que pueden perciberse, in nuce, las practicas que llevaron a la destruccion de un sistema institucional nunca del todo maduro

as:
"when there can be perceived in nuce practices that carried to destruction institutions which never fully matured"

My reading of the Spanish, especially given the commas, is that he is saying "when, in a nutshell, there can be perceived practices which brought to destruction institutions which weren't fully matured..."

But, by stripping away the commas and putting it next to practices he is saying this means "practices which were in nuce" i.e. the practices themselves were formative (formative or nascent being the alternate interpretation for in nuce).

I don't think this is what the author intended. Or is it?

[aleCcowaN]

I interpreted "in nuce" (not very common in Spanish texts) as a soft and concealed way to say "embrionariamente" and "enquistadamente" (more common and direct terms -and feisty-).

About Brenner's translation, I thought in the beginning that he was simplifying everything a bit, but after giving a thought to it I understood that there's a lot of nuances that are Argentine and Spanish specific and trying to translate them can make the English speaking reader confuse. His paragraphs as a whole really say basically the same, though a bit Baroque touch would make them more authentic. It all depends on the public you got in mind. You may think of the nuances in "períodos de vigencia formal de la democracia" as a sort of a cultural distillation that can't be translated and maybe as something the reader is going to learn by reading the book, so "democratic rule" is informative enough as no new democracy -or constantly disrupted democracy- has no obligation to be the best at the first attempt, so there's sort of justifiable "imperfect democracy" which includes elements that are not democratic or republican in essence and that is failing to evolve into a mature institutional system as in has in it the seed of disruptive practices, which is in the end the problem and the origin of the phrase.

By the way, if you really need a background on the Argentine way, I recommend you to read the preface and the epilogue (and maybe chapter I, the prelude to nationhood) of the book The Invention of Argentina by Nicholas Shumway. This brilliant analysis is written with the Anglo-Saxon Americas' public in mind. Part of this is available through the look inside feature of Amazon. I consider it to be a must if you have ahead the translation of a chapter or more.

[BenCondor]

I certainly sense a cultural divide which doesn't make for easy translation. I can say, without doubt, that any English teacher would hound mercilessly a student who wrote equivalent sentences in the English language. These would be considered far too discursive and hard to follow. So this poses a double challenge: first, the sentences are inherently hard to follow, and second of all they're written (from my perspective) in a foreign language.

In fact the "in nuce" sentence above is a good example of something hard to follow. The location of in nuce leaves the meaning rather ambiguous. Given the general meaning of the surrounding text I would expect him to be saying that the institutional system itself was destroyed in its infancy or nascent form. But if this was his intention, I would expect it to be written like this:

en las que pueden perciberse las practicas que llevaron a la destruccion, in nuce, de un sistema institucional nunca del todo maduro

no? The way it's written it seems like it is the perception which is nascent, and that doesn't seem to make any sense. This is why I opted for the "in a nutshell" theory for his use of in nuce. (Brenner has implicitly invoked a third theory: that in nuce applies to the practices, and this to me makes no sense either )

In any event, I am going to leave this as a "partially unsolved puzzle" and move on.

Hopefully I'll have time to check out Shumway's book.

Thanks all for the suggestions and input.

Ben

[aleCcowaN]

It's crystal clear: in nuce affects las prácticas, not el sistema institucional. It's like seeing Kristallnacht as an Auschwitz in nuce. In those prácticas the author finds the nascent stage of what would disrupt the whole system. Have no doubt.

Additionally to reading more about Argentina 1910-2010, which is a must in order to translate any political essay on the subject (by the way, preface and epilogue of Shumway's are available for registered users at Amazon.com), you can ask our opinion about historical figures and events, here and in other forums, so you can gather useful information without being told how to translate specific paragraphs.

[BenCondor]

Okay, so we've resolved where the in nuce is applied, which is certainly helpful. Gradually the author's intention will become clearer, I'm sure. And, yes, I'll read around so hopefully I won't have to resort to "being told" how to translate things

I did just take a glance at Shumway's book and I see immediately we are at two opposite ends of the spectrum of historical analysis. So if this analytical framework is indeed shared, to one degree or another, by Romero, it should indeed prove a challenging read!

Gracias,
Ben

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by BenCondor

I'll read around so hopefully I won't have to resort to "being told" how to translate things

I only meant it as a way to avoid the potential frustration of finding two or more translations that are possible from a linguistic point of view on something that has only one possible meaning within its cultural context.

Originally Posted by BenCondor

I did just take a glance at Shumway's book and I see immediately we are at two opposite ends of the spectrum of historical analysis. So if this analytical framework is indeed shared, to one degree or another, by Romero, it should indeed prove a challenging read!

I recommended Shumway not because Romero's works are a match -I've only read Romero a few times as a guest editorialist writing for a traditional newspaper of Buenos Aires- but because Shumway's work gives the clue of a structural conflict in the very fabric of our society and culture that reveals the inner workings of a permanent state of unresolved conflict. Besides, it provides deep sights of our history that are yet a good summary of local events the scholar needs to know in order to follow any sociological and political analysis.

I have no doubt Romero and many more Argentine authors have and have had a deeper knowledge of every of the infinite facets of our daily strain, but, as the proverb tells, the keenest eye can't see itself, so Shumway provides natives and foreigners a systemic and plausible way for charting the tides of mess.

[BenCondor]

Hi,
Shumway's book is, from my vantage point, built on a false premise: that myths are responsible for, or at least are very important for, the construction of nations. This is a deeply misguided viewpoint irrespective of the specific locale (United States, Bosnia, Mexico, Argentina) to which it is applied. Believe me, I had to read mountains of this type of analysis in college and it drove me nuts!