MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK Ambassador Kent interview in La Nacion is not accurate
Political and diplomatic analyst from Argentine newspaper La Nacion has altered an online version of an interview due to his inaccurate reporting of an interview with the British Ambassador in Argentina. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“it had not been done deliberately or in bad faith”
Feb 17th, 2017 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse +3Yeah - OK we believe you.
The issue, and the irony, is that La Nacion is considered by argentine nacionalists and peronists a “pro-british” newspaper.....
Feb 17th, 2017 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +3So what is the point of 'misinterpreting' the quotes? Just wishful thinking? Or trying to gain support for Macri by suggesting his approach is working? Seems pointless to get people's hopes up only to dash them.
Feb 17th, 2017 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +3People hear what they want to hear. At least he accepted that he was wrong and acknowledged the corrections.
Feb 17th, 2017 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Think?- care to correct your earlier comment
Feb 17th, 2017 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Of course he won't , there is one thing Think, Voice and Mr Kohen have in common, they are all hit and run merchants....
Feb 17th, 2017 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +8Im sure the argentine papers stated that he said Argentina owned everything and had sovereignty over everyone,
Feb 17th, 2017 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +3I could be wrong of course lol.
Mr. Isander1
Feb 17th, 2017 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -8I will be happy to correct anything in my earlier comment..., if wrong...
I'll repeat my early comment below... Would you be so kind to read it and point me where it does need any correction...?
- ”1) Mr. Mark Kent..., UK ambassador to Argentina, who..., besides Engrish..., speaks Spanish..., Portuguese..., French..., Dutch..., Vietnamese and Thai..., gave this specific interview in SPANISH to an Argentinean newspaper...
2) All evidence shows (and the parts agree) that what Mr. Kent said, in SPANISH was...:
- “Pero tenemos muchas cosas que podemos trabajar en conjunto, APARTE DEL tema de la soberanía.”
3) Some correct Engrish translations of the above phrase would be...:
- a) But we can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, OTHER THAN the sovereignty issue.
- b) But we can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, ASIDE FROM the sovereignty issue.
- c) But we can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, AS WELL AS CONSIDERING the sovereignty issue.
- d) ”But we can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, IN ADDITION FROM the sovereignty issue.
http://www.linguee.cl/espanol-ingles/traduccion/aparte+del+tema.html
4) The “British Embassy Revised” version of Mr. Kent's words reads now...:
- ”But we can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, leaving the sovereignty issue to one side”.
In Spanish that would read..:
- Pero tenemos muchas cosas que podemos trabajar en conjunto, DEJANDO DE LADO el tema de la soberanía.
Those were NOT Ambassador Kent's actual words..., laddie...
Not close...
British Brainwash anybody...? -”
Thanks in advance for your attention..., looking forward for your imput...
Yours
El Think...
Sure, Think/voice,
Feb 17th, 2017 - 10:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +5You're never wrong.
Liar
Ah Mr Think, I think you tried that bull on another thread, here is my response to that very same post.....
Feb 17th, 2017 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Let us just put 'Aside' or 'to one side' what your learned and esteemed compatriot Mr. Marcelo Kohen has said in order to clarify your statements....
1) Notice the use of those two phrases/words 'aside' and 'to one side', they have the same meaning do they not?
2) Thank you for providing 'some' of the translations for the phrase in question, it provides us with clear evidence that there are many ways to translate a phrase in certain instances without having to use a different word/words.
3) Just to clarify, the British Embassy provided the actual wording of the original interview in Spanish, it was not revised. A revision would suggest that it was changed by the British Embassy and as we all agree it was changed by the Argentine reporter transcribing Spanish to Spanish.
4) The fact that the British Embassy used the phrase 'to one side' in their translation as opposed to what you would deem an acceptable translation of 'Aside' is pedantic, puerile and frankly just clutching at straws. It is clearly an attempt to divert from the fact that a far greater and deliberate mistake had been made in changing the original Spanish to Spanish version.
You pick up on the smallest of details in a translation, while ignoring the far greater inaccuracy that was a calculated, deliberate and underhand misrepresentation of the original Spanish version by your fellow ‘Malvanistic’ country man, yet we are the “Brainwashed”.
It's coming to something when the ambassador feels he has to make his own recordings of interviews just to make sure that the journos are reporting accurately.
Feb 18th, 2017 - 01:20 am - Link - Report abuse +5“Mr Dinatale expressed his apologies and said it was what he had heard on his own recording, and it had not been done deliberately or in bad faith.”
Feb 18th, 2017 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse +4Give me a break, this bloke is supposed to be a professional journalist! His recording was a false account of what the Ambassador said. The fact that the journos 'alternative truth' version fits neatly into the Argentine paradigm regarding the Falklands is just too convenient.
Some Argentines are incapable of accepting reality when it comes to the Falkland’s and sovereignty. So, among other things, they feel compelled to tell lies, falsely claim that certain UN resolutions support their claim, ignore the UN laws that support the rights of the Islanders to self-determination and even alter records of interviews.
Has the online version of the interview been amended to the Ambassador's version Think, or has it not?
Feb 18th, 2017 - 03:43 am - Link - Report abuse +5Think
Feb 18th, 2017 - 06:55 am - Link - Report abuse +6As Andy Capp would say - more jibber jabber!
Mr. Lorton..
Feb 18th, 2017 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse -10Glad you ask..., lad...
Yes..., the article has been ammended to what the Ambassador actually said in Spanish...
(NOT to what some at the Embassy would wish he had said in Engrish...)
But don' take me word for it... Read for yourself...:
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1983943-mark-kent-podemos-trabajar-en-muchos-temas-bilaterales-antes-de-hablar-de-la-soberania-de-las-islas
As you can read..., the title now is..:
“Tenemos muchas cosas que podemos trabajar en conjunto aparte del tema de la soberanía de las islas”
Some CORRECT translations into Engrish of the above phrase would/could be...:
- a) But we can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, OTHER THAN the sovereignty issue.
- b) But we can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, ASIDE FROM the sovereignty issue.
- c) But we can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, AS WELL AS CONSIDERING the sovereignty issue.
- d) ”But we can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, IN ADDITION FROM the sovereignty issue.
One INCORRECT Engrish translation of the above phrase IS, however, the “British Embassy Revised” version of Mr. Kent's words..:
- ”But we can work together on a lot of bilateral issues, leaving the sovereignty issue to one side”.
PS...:
The Engrish ambassador himself has vouched for the correctness of the article via Twitter...:
Mark Kent (@KentArgentina) | Twitter
twitter.com › kentargentina
4 days ago - “My interview with La Nación this weekend contained inaccuracies. A revised versión has now ... @ KentArgentina. British Ambassador to the Argentine Republic...”
@Think
Feb 18th, 2017 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse +6Translations are necessarily not exact, as you've just shown, and 'aside from' and 'leaving to one side' mean the same thing, so what's the problem with using the latter?
And it still doesn't explain why the reporter changed the phrase when he had no need to translate anything! Why do you think he he did so?
Mr. DemonTree...
Feb 18th, 2017 - 10:52 am - Link - Report abuse -5You ask...:
“...why the reporter changed the phrase when he had no need to translate anything! Why do you think he he did so?”
I say...:
Because of the same reasons the British Embassy had when incorrectly translating into Engrish the Spanish words from ambassador Kent...
I would suggest him to express himself in Engrish from now on...
Specially in such delicate matters where words count...
His Oxford Spanish ain't good enough...
Sorry Think your version 'C', in the context of what Mr Kent said is incorrect as it means something entirely different to what was inferred. So that just blows your whole argument out the water, showing clearly that a translation can be interpreted in a variety of ways in the other language and mean something entirely different .
Feb 18th, 2017 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse +7One translation you missed, was to translate 'aparte del' as 'apart from', which would in this context and version, be the most accurate.
'Apart from', 'Aside', 'To one side' and 'other than' all have the same meaning. 'As well as considering' is a completely different meaning and as an English translation would be wrong in this context. 'Apart from considering' would be correct, but that would use a different spanish phrase would it not?
Mr Kents office revised the incorrect version published in La Nacion to reflect the truth, in the same way the interviewer revised the correct version to produce his fantasy work. Not to difficult to understand Mr Think, even for you.
Now tell us all why you think the reporter had to change the text, for what purpose. Surely that transgression is of far more importance, no?
Just as well that we all speak Engrish, Think :-)
Feb 18th, 2017 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Mr. Lorton
Feb 18th, 2017 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -5;-)
@Think
Feb 18th, 2017 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +6No, that doesn't explain it. The Embassy directly represents Britain and has good reason to be as clear as possible, as well as knowing exactly what was meant. But La Nación isn't state-owned and can't deliver what wasn't actually promised. What benefit do they get from misleading their readers?
And if the ambassador spoke in English the reporter would be able to translate it as he pleased; that's hardly an improvement!
So the reporter was just writing what he wished Mr Kent had said, is that what you are saying Think....and that is OK is it Think, of course, because he is your fellow Argentine and you obviously set the bar far lower for the behaviour of your own countrymen. What a pathetic argument.
Feb 18th, 2017 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +6The only problem with your protest, is that the story revolves around the misrepresentation and of an interview in Spanish and transcribed and published in Spanish, not the English translation that is an 'aside' to the real issue and on no importance. The translation as has been pointed out, it is in fact perfectly acceptable and correct in the context. It does not try to change the inference or meaning of the phrase, unlike the Spanish to Spanish version.
To date, I have not seen any complaints about the reply from the Embassy, except for our 'in house' self proclaimed language expert Think, who has tried in vain to play the 'Argentine victim card' to deflect from the real issue.... 'Look what you Engrish wrote, you bad Engrish, it's all your fault they made the reporter do it'.
Yeah we are certainly Brainwashed Think.....
Think/Voice claims to be a Scotch, Norwegian Spanish speaking Argie - how confusing is that? Could you trust any such creature to translate anything correctly?
Feb 18th, 2017 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +6England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Feb 19th, 2017 - 02:13 am - Link - Report abuse -6Let's put this one to bed. I said that both sides had made their positions clear on sovereignty. But aside from this there were areas we could cooperate on. Our position on sovereignty is long established and clear. There's no way I would change that in a press interview. End of.
Feb 19th, 2017 - 02:34 am - Link - Report abuse +4Mr. MarkK
Feb 19th, 2017 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse -7I would wish the current British ambassador to Argentina would follow your good example and speak clearly to us Argetineans in Engrish..., a language he..., hopefully..., masters...
And.., by the way..., it wold be nice that the current British ambassador to Argentina acknowledged that it “Takes two to Tango”...
So..., when speaking about the future of them Islands we have to recognise the Argentinean..., recognise their rights..., their hopes..., their fears...
Capisce...?
Respectfully yours...
El Think..., Chubut..., Argentina...
Trouble is Think you live in an unstable country with colonialist ambitions and everyone knows, from your recent history, that your government can change in the blink of an eye. That means:-
Feb 19th, 2017 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +7A Junta can re-appear
A gang of barmy aggressive Peronists who term the islanders as 'squatters' like you have, can suddenly appear.
Its an Argentinian habit to say one thing and slyly do another.
In other words whatever you say we don't trust you. So, we Think the Falkland Islands and Argentina should simply be friendly neighbours. Until you have been friendly neighbours for a very long time, the Naval Patrols, Air Defence Exercises and military presence will remain. Meanwhile the Falkland Islanders continue to enjoy peace and prosperity as a British Overseas Territory.
Hope thats clear
Respectfully yours…
Think/voice
Feb 19th, 2017 - 02:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“So..., when speaking about the future of them Islands we have to recognise the Argentinean..., recognise their rights..., their hopes..., their fears...”
What a load of nonsense!
As a condition of trade, Neither the Falklanders, nor the U.K. have to abide by or recognize the wishes of a bitter group coveting the islands who are contemptuous of the Islanders and rightful owners.
That is an issue of Argentina's own creation and something Argentina's government may need to contend with.
Or then again, why bother?
They and you, are merely jealous and irrelevant.
BTW,
A professional journalist is honour bound to to report the news accurately as observed, regardless of language.
Altering the truth is at best sensationalizing the news to sell papers, or at worst, propagandizing with political motives - just like you do.
Perhaps Argentina should change their constitution as an act of good faith.
Feb 19th, 2017 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“ act of good faith ” Argentinas politicians do not know the meaning of “ good faith ” or it is being mis-translated
Feb 19th, 2017 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Well, to be fair, they inserted it, so they can remove it.
Feb 20th, 2017 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse +3Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!