Unfinished Sentences...?

[Joseph K.]

My brother and I were trying to translate this passage...

 

"Globalization does not aim to conquer other nations but to conquer the market. In other words, it encourages the encroachment of wealth. However a number of disturbing consequences accompany such a takeover. Businesses all over the world collapse abruptly and as a result social maladies such as mass unemployment, job insecurity, social unrest and social isolation emerge."

 

 

Well, this is my brother's translation...

 

"La mondialisation ne vise pas a conquerir des pays, mais elle favorise la conquete des marches, c'est-a-dire la prise de possession des richesses. Pourtant, cette conqeute s'accompagne de plusieurs aspects preoccupants. Des industries entieres sont brutalement effondrees dans toutes les regions. Avec les souffrances sociales qui en resultent : chomage massif, precarite de l'emploi, instabilite sociale, exclusion dans la societe."

 

My problem with this translation is that the last sentence is in fact not a sentence. Yet, my brother asserts that it is in fact a more natural translation, that it is more idiomatic...is he right?

I should think that it wouldn't hurt to actually connect the two last sentences together like

 

"Des industries entieres sont brutalement effondrees dans toutes les regions, avec les souffrances sociales qui en resultent : ..."

 

Please tell me who the winner of our argument is ^^;;

[Neil Coffey]

I think it's just a stylistic preference. It's quite common-- maybe moreso in French than English-- to end up with "sentences" which aren't sentences in some strict sense, e.g. not having an explicit main verb. However, that's really just a preconception of what a "sentence" or "thing between full stops" should consist of.

Ultimately, I would say what matters is whether your text achieves its purpose. But it's not at all unusual in French to make "sentences" that are kind of remarks on a previous sentence starting with phrases such as Ceci avec..., Cela dans..., and which don't actually contain a main verb. (Some linguistis would argue that a verb doesn't have to be overt, though, so the absence of an explicit verb when your brain still interprets one doesn't make something any less of a "sentence".)

Incidentally, I think your brother probably meant se sont effondrées.

[Ed la mouette]

Hello,
The whole text being in the present tense, it should be "s'effondrent".
By the way, "souffrances sociales" doesn't really make sense to me. I'd rather say "conséquences sociales"

About the main question, connecting the sentences would give a more formal style to the passage. Phrases without a verb are acceptable in informal language, but not really in things such newspapers articles or other serious documents.