Display:
You have the term præsident in Danish. What term do you usually use to describe foreign presidents?

(e.g. Bush; Sarkozy)

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Feb 4th, 2008 at 06:29:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The term "præsident" is used to describe - say - Sarkozy or Bush. But the word "præsident" does not appear in the Danish version of the Lisbon treaty, except in reference to the Court - presumably to avoid charges from Euroskeptics of creating the United States of Europe. The term 'formand' (chairman) is universally used where 'præsident' could have been applicable.

From a purely semantic point of view, both are possible in Danish: The person who heads, say, a board of directors can be either president or chairman, although chairman the more common usage. We tend to reserve the term "præsident" for presidents of actual states, which the Union officially is not.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Feb 4th, 2008 at 09:03:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it's better to use the word which appears in the Danish version of the treaty.

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Mon Feb 4th, 2008 at 09:11:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's what I figured too, so that's what I used. But if we're putting it in scare quotes anyway to indicate that we're talking about the public perception of the position, then præsident might actually be closer to home. I don't know. The treaty itself didn't get a lot of press coverage (the focus was on the parliamentary games over whether we were going to get a referendum on it), so there's no terminology with real public name-recognition.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Feb 4th, 2008 at 09:19:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Danish version of the treaty is not legally relevant. The only official languages are German, French and English. The ECJ goes by those, mostly by the French version.

I had/have the same issue with the Dutch version. I think the translation ("voorzitter") is euphemistic, so I would not like to use it.

In German it is also possible to use the term 'Vorsitzende', but the treaty simply says 'Präsident'.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Feb 4th, 2008 at 03:28:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That is not my understanding of the legal status. AFAIK (but IANAL) in any given country, the official local translation takes precedence over the other versions. Of course, in the day-to-day workings of the European institutions - and very much in our international affairs - the versions you mention will be the working papers.

As I said, a case can be made for using both, and either will be viewed as politicising by one or more camps in the domestic Danish debate. That being said, a 'råd' (counsil) does not, in usual Danish parlance, have a 'præsident' (president) - it has a 'formand' (chairman). A court or a country has a president.

As such, in the title, 'præsident' may be more appropriate for the meaning we want to convey, but in the bulk text - where the context is clearly the European Counsil - chairman is the appropriate word, both relative to the treaty and according to normal Danish conventions. Calling it president would stick out far more than in other languages.

And I'm not sure that we want to have ambiguities in the wording by using two different words for the same post. So in the end I'll have to throw in with chairman.

The use of chairman instead of president is likely to piss off euroskeptics, but many Danish euroskeptics are going to be inclined to sign it anyway if they see it, because Tony Bliar isn't particularly popular with most Danish euroskeptics (and those he is popular with are going to be pissed off with the paragraphs about Vietraq anyway). Pissing off the eurocentrists would be a more dicey proposition, because they don't seem to me to hold Bliar in quite as high disregard.

Now, on the political side of things, of course it's an euphemism, and a transparent one at that, and for the record, I sympathise with your disgust at the use of such transparent propaganda schemes. But that's kinda beside the point here. Not getting Bliar in a big-wig role in the Union leadership is the point, irrespective of my stand on other Union matters. And retiring Bliar - preferably to a sunny beach somewhere near Basra - is a deal more important to me than whatever semantic objections I might have to the text.

Anyway, it's a simple change to make - neither 'formand' nor 'præsident' appear in any other sense in the text, so the final editors can simply do a global search-replace with them if they so please.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Feb 5th, 2008 at 01:46:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Would it be bad to use præsident in the title, though? The title is supposed to be in scare quotes either way. And Tony Blair will probably be reported as præsident in the news anyway.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Feb 5th, 2008 at 06:09:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Feb 5th, 2008 at 06:13:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I second your suggestion. Præsident in the scare quotes in the title, formand everywhere else.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Feb 5th, 2008 at 07:08:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Given the news reports quoted above, I agree that 'præsident' is suitable for the title.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Feb 5th, 2008 at 07:26:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Excellent. I'll do the same for the Dutch version.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Feb 5th, 2008 at 07:54:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We tend to reserve the term "præsident" for presidents of actual states, which the Union officially is not.

Yes. That is precisely the problem. The term used is euphemistic, and probably purely employed for political reasons, without actually having any significance.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Feb 4th, 2008 at 03:32:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series