El pasado se nos muestra rico...

[BenCondor]

Hi,
Okay, given the following text

En este caso, el pasado se nos muestra rico en conflictos, pero no es fácil contabilizar en él demasiados logros, ni siquiera en las épocas de vigencia formal de la democracia, en las que pueden percibirse, in nuce, las practicas que llevaron a la destruccion de un sistema institucional.....


The core problem is the expression "vigencia formal"

vigencia - validity, force, effect; also norm, convention
formal - formal; also reliable, dependable

Translation so far:
In this case, the past shows us to be rich in conflicts, but it is not easy to count among them too many achievements, not even in the times of [reliable conventions? formal effects?] of democracy, in those which one can perceive, in a nutshell, the practices which come from the destruction of an institutional system...

I've stopped quoting from there because the rest of the sentence (for the most part) makes sense to me. But I can include it if more context is needed.

How would "vigencia formal" be translated? Is the rest of the translation okay?

Thanks for any input:)

Ben

[aleCcowaN]

el pasado se nos muestra rico en conflictos: the past shows it to be one plenty of conflicts

ni siquiera en las épocas de vigencia formal de la democracia: not even in periods of constitutional representative democracy

which Argentines try to mean by "vigencia formal de la democracia" is that all the chapters in our constitution that relate to separation of powers plus the use of some kind of electoral law offering two or more alternatives to the citizen in order to elect president and congress are being respected in the letter (not necessarily in spirit). In fact, periods of "vigencia formal de la democracia" are not plenty democratic nor other periods are completely undemocratic (or better said, antirepublican). Anyway, those immature periods of democracy -including the present one- have been more democratic than the others, though the aspirations for a true republic and a true democracy are yet to be fulfilled (unless you have "la sartén por el mango y el mango también", then we're in glory).

[BenCondor]

Hi,
Thanks for the reply.
1)

el pasado se nos muestra rico en conflictos: the past shows it to be one plenty of conflicts. Not quite right in English. You could say: "the past shows it to be one with plenty of conflicts." But more likely "the past reveals itself as being rife with conflict". In either case I'm not quite sure where the "nos" is being rendered, if at all. Perhaps in English it is assumed that in showing, it is showing us. Or at least this assumption is more likely to be made. Not sure.

2)

Okay, the "vigencia formal" makes more sense. I've seen this:

(la ley) goza de plena vigencia formal y material > (the law) is in full force and effectwhich might mean vigencia "distributes" to formal and material, or at least that is one way I've tried to understand the translation. That is, it could also be written as:

"(la ley) goza de plena vigencia formal y vigencia material."

In which case, "vigencia formal" combined could mean "force". But I'm still feeling there is something Aristotelian that's not perhaps quite translatable, or is it mere coincidence that "formal" and "material" are the first two of Aristotle's causes.

[chileno]

vigencia formal = formally in force

:)

[BenCondor]

Thanks, chileno, that does make sense.

A new attempt:

In this case, the past has shown itself to be rife with conflicts, but it is not easy to count among them too many achievements, not even in the times when democracy is formally in force; in those which one can perceive, in a nutshell, the practices which come from the destruction of an institutional system...

[pjt33]

In either case I'm not quite sure where the "nos" is being rendered, if at all. Perhaps in English it is assumed that in showing, it is showing us.
I think this is one of the not uncommon cases where Spanish typically uses a reflexive and English typically uses a passive: the past is shown to be rich in conflict. If you take that route you have to take for granted the object of that demonstration, because there isn't a natural way of working it in, but I think the objectification universalises it, so we are shown just as everyone else is shown.

If you're willing to take a more dynamic approach to translation then you could perhaps make it explicit with we see the past to be rife with conflict.

[BenCondor]

Yes, that could also work. I agree that, once rendered in passive, you can't really get the "us" incorporated without an unintended sense that we, personally, are involved. In this case, my initial translation seems to suggest that the author and the reader are personally involved in the conflict, which I don't think was intended.

[aleCcowaN]

Well, the nos gives a twist of "it is apparent to us" with "us" being the author/s. I'm sure all those subtleties are carried in English by means of vocabulary.

And don't infere from my lack of proficiency in English that I can't see the differences between the real meaning of the original texts and their intended translations. It's not my expectation to see those paragraph laid out and worded that way when translated into English.

About "vigencia formal", there's a mix-up there of vocabulary level. The concept there is "vigencia de la democracia", then it is modified to "vigencia formal de la democracia" with and adjective added not to mix it up with legalese "vigencia formal" but to understand that "formal" adds a nuance about the depth, colour and circumstances of that "vigencia". Besides "vigencia formal de la democracia" is a set phrase in sociology and political science in Argentina for more than half a century and it doesn't need to be reduced to its atoms to know what it means.

[BenCondor]

Hi,
Yes, one possible translation of "En este caso, el pasado se nos muestra rico en conflictos" is "In this case, the past shows us that our history is rife with conflict" which renders the sense that we as a people are involved, which may be the most accurate way to express this. The only problem here is that we're having to introduce "our history" to deflect, from the reader & author, a personal involvement which is probably not intended.

@Alec Yes, I read with great interest your comments about the history of "vigencia formal de la democracia" but I'm not sure how to render that. The gist of it, if I am understanding you, is that there were periods of democracy, including the present one, which were to some degree truly democratic, but not as much so as, say, France or England, due to more widespread corruption, or "cross contamination" between the legislative, judicial and executive branches. 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?

[aleCcowaN]

You are pretty right. It's difficult to render what our democracies lack, but in the end is about a democracy for everyone and all of us and also a democracy which inspires to be more democratic, without forgetting a democracy that looks after the common good without setting aside minorities and with plenty respect of the peculiarities of every group involved. So far, not very distinctive from what happens everywhere. But this is said from a position of being far from reaching it and with internal disturbances about what it is and how to get to it.

This is the paragraph as author/translator James P. Brennan translated into English in 2006:

"Above all, there is the question about what characteristics the political system should have to ensure democracy and make of it a practice with some social meaning. In this case, the past reveals itself rich in conflicts, but it is not easy to find in it very many accomplishments, not even in periods of democratic rule, when there can be perceived in nuce practices that carried to destruction institutions that had never fully matured and whose reconstruction appears now a Herculean task. Perhaps for that reason the last question is today the first one: What is the future of our democracy and of the tradition that nourishes it? We must return to Sarmiento and Alberdi and a task that we a bit naively considered to have been finished and whose accomplishments today seem fragile and vulnerable"

[Perikles]

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]

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 maduroas:
"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 :thinking:)

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]

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.


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!