remet la revue sur l’étagère


Senior Member
Français. Québec¸Canada.

Voici ma phrase en français pour le contexte :

Un JEUNE HOMME regarde à gauche et à droite, saisit une revue pornographique, puis et la regarde avec plaisir et avidité avec un sourire ravi.
La caissière le regarde de travers. Le jeune homme sursaute, remet la revue sur l’étagère, puis s’éloigne vers une allée.

Et ma traduction anglaise :

A YOUNG MAN looks around, grabs a pornographic magazine, then examines it eagerly with delight. T
he cashier is frowning at him.
The young man starts, puts back the magazine on the shelf, then walks away towards an aisle.

Ma réviseuse a remplacée "puts" back par "replace" ?

Qui a raison s.v.p.

Merci:) .
  • Schmoo

    English, Canada
    to "put something back" is generally not as proper as to "replace something" although they mean the same thing in this context. I would say that you have your choice of either one, depending on how you want it to sound. 'Puts back' sounds less formal, however, here in Canada we use them both interchangeably (at least I do, as a university student in her 20s).


    Senior Member
    Finnish - Finland
    As a foreigner, I understand "put back" immediately but for "replace" my first idea is that the young man has put something else on the shelf, il a remplacé...

    My idea may be wrong, but in those texts that I translate, "replace" always means "remplacer". That's why I'd say "put back".


    Senior Member
    English - England
    If you want to use "put back", viera's word order is better. Mais j'ai l'impression que ta réviseuse a raison: "replaces" is equally correct but it reads better. It does not, as Hakro suggests, mean "remplace" in this context.


    Senior Member
    England & English (UK version)
    I have to disagree, Broglet, sorry! I think "puts back" reads much better (and I don't really think it is informal). "Replaces" suggests putting back carefully.
    < Previous | Next >