The place of this 'qui'

[Thinkpad]

Hi!

I'm reading this sentence.

Mais un fantasme de traduction parfaite prend la relevé de ce banal rêve qui serait l'original redoublé.

I feel that "qui serait l'original redoublé" should modify "fantasme" rather than "rêve."

My question is, in principle, how to tell which one is modified. Can we tell it from the grammatical point of view alone without taking into account the context?

Thank you very much :)

[George Hunt]

I agree with you -it seems to modify "fantasme".

Grammatically I think it could modify  "rêve".

However , apart from the context  I feel that it would also be stylistically  more clumsy  to associate it with "rêve" as ,to my mind  by modifying "fantasme" it seems to tie the sentence up more neatly than have it drag out as it does with "rêve".

ps "prend la relevé"

But that is a subjective impression. 

ps "prend la relevé" looks like a misspelling to me (?) .

[Chantal Savignat]

Hello.

yes, there is a misspelling in "relevé", isn't it rather "relève" ?

And I don't think that "qui serait l'original redoublé" is modifying"fantasme".

If it was that, the sentence would be  (independently of meaning) "Mais un fantasme de traduction parfaite / qui serait l'original redoublé /prend la relève de ce banal rêve/

independently of the meaning because written like that (out of a context), this sentence isn't easy, and can't be modify easily to change position of the words.

The full text may give clues in original or unusual writing styles, but in general "qui" refers to the preceding principal noun.

[Thinkpad]

George and Chantal, thank you very much for your kindness :)

Your replies are very helpful. Anyway, sorry for the misspelling. 

I have two further questions. Is it grammatically possible to modify "fantasme" by putting "qui" after "rêve"? 

And, if it should be like Chantal's suggestion, will it simply look like this ("/" is simply removed)?

"Mais un fantasme de traduction parfaite qui serait l'original redoublé prend la relève de ce banal rêve/

Thank you very much :)

[George Hunt]

 I think Chantal is saying that  if you have the "qui" after "rêve" then  it wants to modify "rêve" even though the  context might call for it to modify "fantasme"

I think you can say "Mais un fantasme de traduction parfaite qui serait l'original redoublé prend la relève de ce banal rêve"  as she suggests  but I wonder if it is also possible to  write it this way also:

"Mais un fantasme de traduction parfaite  prend la relève de ce banal rêve , ce qui serait l'original redoublé " where the "ce"  refers back to  "fantasme".

Or maybe "Mais un fantasme de traduction parfaite  prend la relève de ce banal rêve , et celui-là serait l'original redoublé " where the "celui-là"  refers back to  "fantasme"

I am not quite sure whether those will work.

[Chantal Savignat]

Is it grammatically possible to modify "fantasme" by putting "qui" after "rêve"? No, not with "qui"

Mais un fantasme de traduction parfaite qui serait l'original redoublé prend la relève de ce banal rêve. => this sentence is ok but has a different meaning than the first one.

Mais un fantasme de traduction parfaite  prend la relève de ce banal rêve , et celui-là serait l'original redoublé => "celui là" refers to "rêve" too.

to have "l'original redoublé" that refers to "fantasme " :

Mais un fantasme de traduction parfaite prend la relève de ce banal rêve et en est l'original redoublé.

[Robert]

How would you make any sense out of this, regardless whether qui refers to fantasme or rêve ?

Fantasy (fantasme) is about something.
Dream (rêve) is also about something.
But l'original is a tangible thing which, as such, can not be connected to fantasme or rêve through être.
Le fantasme est l'original redoublé. (Makes no sense)
Ce rêve est l'original redoublé. (Makes no sense)

What you think is the English translation of this?

[Chantal Savignat]

yes ! without the full text and the context, this sentence is weird.

But sometimes ... in some psychological study ...

[George Hunt]

Yes I was also going to say that I don't understand the sentence but I have found the context on the internet

http://www.scribd.com/doc/32978238/Paul-Ricoeur-Sur-La-Traduction

and so I would attempt  this:

.

"But a wild idea of a perfect translation takes over from the  commonplace ambition of a  simple  copy of the original."

It is a talk  about the difficulties of  translating   a book  into another language.(and I think 

 the author ,Paul Ricoeur  was interested in translation in a wider philosophical sense-at least according to Richard Kearney who has written an introduction) 

Actually you can find a complete translation here (by Eileen Brennan) 

http://www.itcanet.ir/ITCA/e-books/Translation/On%20Translation.pdf

The passage you have  shown us is translated there  as 

"But a fantasy of perfect translation takes over from this banal dream of the duplicated original"

[Robert]

That makes sense- especially as it also makes sense of the placement of the 'qui...' clause (To quote Chantal, ' ....modify "fantasme" by putting "qui" after "rêve"? No, not with "qui" ')

Still, a question: is that 'good' French to native speakers ?

[Chantal Savignat]

do you want to say : is the full text  "good" French ?

It's a philosophical text. So ....

Reading the first time this text, the third sentence begins to be difficult, the 5th one is completly obscure ...

After 3th reading, the text begins understandable.

This text is in elevated language, as most of philosophical texts. This text is for very good readers or listeners, with a high level of culture and understanding.

Nobody speaks like that in every day life. (except philosophers)

[Thinkpad]

Thank you so very much, everyone! It's so fruitful. Now, I feel sure about where "qui" should be, grammatically.

I wonder why the translation is not

"...commonplace ambition that would be a  simple  copy of the original."

or

"... this banal dream that would be the duplicated original."

That doesn't make sense at all?

 

[Robert]

I think that your question,'why the translation is not...?' says **a lot** . I might ask the same question slightly differently: why does the English version **need** to look so unlike the French text? It looks as though the translator actually sets out to **correct** a poorly written text even as he translates it.

High culture or no, this French text is no model of good writing at all.