Translation problem

[Norman Frank Davey]

I have a problem transcribing from a recording  the CV of a French applicant. She is a Law graduate who 'travaillait comme assistante dans un cabinet d'avocat pour mon cinq ans. Does this make sense, or have I mis-heard it ?

[Neil Coffey]

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

[stu harris]

I bet it's pendant cinq ans.

[izzarina]

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

[Neil Coffey]

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

 

[izzarina]

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.

[stu harris]

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

[izzarina]

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.

[Neil Coffey]

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.