Faire la route à

< Previous | Next >

Randisi.

Senior Member
American English; USA
Salut, tout le monde!

The author is discussing how we come to know other people more fundamentally through our thingly/elemental and animal natures than through our intellectual nature.

Voici la phrase:

"Nous-choses faisons la route à nous autres, nous-bêtes creusons le chemin vers le nous bientôt intelligents…"

We-things build the road toward us [others], we-animals blaze the path toward the soon-to-be intelligent us…

Is 'faire la route à' merely 'make our way toward'?

But the 'creusons le chemin' that follows perhaps suggests a more active approach, we-things are building the road.

What do you think?

Thanks
 
  • heydzatsmi

    Senior Member
    Francais
    really bizar....
    maybe something like that is better :
    Nous, les choses (<- dont really understand that...) tracent le chemin à nous autres, nous, les bêtes qui sont en nous (<- maybe i dont really understand too....) creusent le chemin vers le "nous" qui tend à être intelligent.

    But it may be too phylosophic 4 me lol
     

    mgarizona

    Senior Member
    US - American English
    Maybe something like

    Thing-we follows the road at the end of which is more of us, animal-we blazes a trail at the end of which is us on the brink of intelligence ...

    The distinction I think is between a well-worn 'path of least resistance' and trail-blazing.
     

    Randisi.

    Senior Member
    American English; USA
    Hi, MgAZ.

    Interesting interpretation. Part of the problem is that it is something of a 'throw-away' passage, just tossed off in the middle of something tangentially related. So it's hard to give it any definite interpretation, such as your - again - interesting distinction between well-worn paths and trail-blazing.

    'Nous autres' is particularly difficult, since just before he was describing how two lovers come to know each other through their animal and elemental natures. So it suggests that 'nous' refers to the formation of a couple, a society perhaps, one that leads to others, but to others that are us as well.
     

    mgarizona

    Senior Member
    US - American English
    Sorry, just noted that thing-us and animal-us are both viewed positively, opposed to intellect-us.

    More of the sentence/paragraph might help.
     

    Randisi.

    Senior Member
    American English; USA
    Earlier in the paragraph he says that others make and are mixed with our flesh.

    More context, as requested:

    "Mais il me semble mieux te comprendre si je commence par tes passions, ta colère de tigresse, ta paresse de terre, ton orgueil de montagne, ton avarice de coléoptère, ta tendresse reptilienne, ta lascivité d'ânesse et si je te montre ma brûlure et ma lenteur de séquoia, tu me comprendras, tant il devient plus facile d'accéder l'un à l'autre par nos quatre natures de base, minérales, végétales, animales, mondiales. Nous-choses faisons la route à nous autres, nous-bêtes creusons le chemin vers le nous bientôt intelligents… je t'aime, parfois, comme un chien sa chienne, par pur odorat, comme une pieuvre ondoie des huit bras, comme un arbre enlace ses branches au vent. Métamorphoses du corps épris: l'amour universel passe par le sable, les jeux floraux et les courses animales;"


    The ellipsis is the author's.
     

    mgarizona

    Senior Member
    US - American English
    And you know what M. Ducasse said about ellipses!*

    I like it, even agree with it, so much of it as I can understand at least.

    As for the passage in question, could it be as simple as 'our thingness connects us, our animality links us via trails along which our intelligence lags behind ...'

    Is that at least the sense?



    * : Les trois points terminateurs me font hausser les épaules de pitié. A-t-on besoin de cela pour prouver que l'on est un homme d'esprit, c'est-à-dire un imbécile? Comme si la clarté ne valait pas le vague, à propos de points!
     

    Randisi.

    Senior Member
    American English; USA
    Is that Isidor or some other Ducasse? God knows Serres loves his ellipses…

    Could it be that simple? Maybe. Probably not…

    I'm still trying to figure out whether 'nous' refers solely to the couple or also applies universally. Both I'm sure… Things are rarely so simple…

    There seems to be a definite pyramidal hierarchy building from things to plants/animals, to intelligence, showing among other things… that intelligence is not the base of knowledge. Interestingly, understanding or comprehension is a much broader term than intelligence.

    I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of intelligence 'lagging behind.' Am I missing something? I may very well be… My reading is that intelligence isn't even involved - or evolved - yet, though a physical understanding most definitely is.

    Thanks.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top