Translation problem

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Neil Coffey on August 6, 2011 at 4:25pm

It seeks you-'ve mis-heard it. Could the bit after "pour" have been the name of the head of the law firm?

• ▶ Reply

EducatorPermalink Reply by stu harris on August 6, 2011 at 6:25pm

I bet it's pendant cinq ans.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by izzarina on August 6, 2011 at 6:33pm

I agree....either "pendent" or "depuis".  But definitely not "pour".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neil Coffey on August 6, 2011 at 11:31pm

But that means mishearing "pendant" or "depuis" as "pour"....?

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by izzarina on August 7, 2011 at 3:34pm

The thing is that a native speaker would never use "pour" in this context. So while I know it seems to be far fetched to have mis-heard "pendant" or "depuis" as "pour", it's really the only explanation, as far as *I* know. "Pour" just doesn't make sense when used in this way.

• ▶ Reply

EducatorPermalink Reply by stu harris on August 7, 2011 at 4:23pm

It mean mishearing pour mon for pendant. That's my guess.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by izzarina on August 7, 2011 at 4:55pm

I agree, Stu....travaillait is in the imparfait, therefore the only logical choice would be pendant. And if someone is speaking French rapidly, it doesn't seem too far fetched that the pendant could be misheard as pour mon.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neil Coffey on August 7, 2011 at 5:19pm

I agree that "pour" seems unlikely before a phrase such as "cinq ans" in this case. But at the same time, it seems unlikely that a word such as "pendant" would be misheard as "pour".

 

So this is why I speculatd that it could have been "pour" + a name of the business.

 

Of course, this speculation seems a bit futile as long as we can't hear the section of the recording in question.

• ▶ Reply