From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: territories vs the territories
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:50:03 GMT

In article <11102@crackers.clearpoint.com> martillo@stars.clearpoint.com (Joachim Martillo) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.150911.9744@cbfsb.cb.att.com> hillel@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (hillel.e.markowitz) writes:
>>In article <37312@imag.imag.fr> oueichek@ngulu (Ibaa Oueichek) writes:
>>>analyst@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>>>: Does anyone have access to the official French version of Resolution
>>>: 242?  It would be interesting to see how that part was expressed in
>>>: the usually very precise French. Or it may be, since French was "the
>>>: language of diplomacy" that the French have even more elegant ways of
>>>: waffling "the territories" than we do.
>
>>>  I'll try to find the official version somewhere, all what i have handy is a
>>>magazine called historama (a very serious one) and the text mentionned is
>>>"retrait DES territoires occupes". Notice that this DES is a combinaison of
>>>two articles : DE + LES which leaves no doubt that the French version means
>>>THE territories, if i can find enough time i'll try to check it in a more
>>>"serious" source.
>>>  BTW, the term used frequently here by the media and by politicians is the
>>>same as above. 
>
>>The following was copied from a message which appeared earlier
>
>>------------------- Begin included message -----------------------------
>
>>I am only discussing a point of English grammar here.
>
>>I want croissants == Je veux des croissants == I want some croissants.
>
>>It does not mean
>
>>Je veux les croissants == I want the (specified) croissants.
>
>>Nor does it mean
>
>>Je veux tous les croissants == I want (all) the croissants.
>
>>English plurals can function comparable to partitives in French and other
>>languages -- a source of never ending agony for translators.
>
>>Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
>>------------------- End Included Message ---------------------------
>
>>This appears to define "retrait DES territoires occupes" as meaning
>>"some" (unspecified amount) territories.
>
>I am only entering this discussion from the standpoint of grammar
>because I know that I take some to court and rant about legality
>when I am trying to punish someone not when I am trying to
>solve a problem.
>
>Anyway, I am not a native French speaker but I know enough grammar
>to be unhappy with the use of my comment to support an invalid
>interpretation.
>
>se retirer du monde == to retire from, withdraw from the world.
>
>retrait du monde == retirement, withdrawal from the world.
>
>Hence
>
>se retirer des territoires == to withdraw from *the* territories
>(non-partitive).
>
>retrait des territoires == withdrawal from *the* territories
>(non-partitive).
>
>Ibaa Oueichek is correct that this is a different *des*.

I would disagree, since the example used is a singular case requiring
specificity.  In any case the question of wording in French is rather
pointless, since the resolution was debated and drafted in English,
therefore the English text is the official wording by the UN's own
rules.  End of story.


-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman  <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> or <eric@lyra.Colorado.EDU> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder