Good morning! (Or evening, this side of the Atlantic)
The French for it would very probably depend on the context in which it was used. If you let us know what the context is you might get some sensible replies.
(Also, we like it if you propose an attempt of your own to get us going).
The context deals with entrepreneurs that deals with business. The sentense is "Financial skills are often in short supply and balance sheets and audit committees should truck to no nonsense."
I cannot find anywhere the translation of this expression.
I understand it by "...les commissions d'audit ne permettent aucune faille" but I am not sure.
Thank you for your help
I know the expression "to have no truck with" (= to have nothing to do with something/ to have no dealings with somebody etc), but not to "truck no nonsense" (though it does sound less odd than the original truck "to" no nonsense)
Maybe something like: ....ne devraient pas accepter n'importe quoi?
I made a mistake when I wrote should truck to no nonsense, it is SHOULD TRUCK NO NONSENSE.
I don't think the author made a mistake. The article is from the guardian.
What do you think of the translation "ne permettent aucune erreur (or manquement)" "doivent être irréprochable"? I can't translate word for word with the context.
Does someone have a better idea?
I have found the article. http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/aug/04/workandcareers.executivesalaries . Like Keith Bradford, I find "should truck no nonsense" idiosyncratic. Before I came to this thread, I had never seen "to truck" used in this way. I agree with Keith's analysis; I believe this means "should tolerate no nonsense". Google finds 10,000 occurrences of "truck no nonsense", but only six of them are on UK websites. "The Guardian" is of course a British newspaper, but I think the writer of the article has been exposed to some other variety of English in addition to British English.
I suppose the author meant "convey" (i.e. truck no nonsense = convey no nonsense) .....which implies that the following words might be used for translation: transmettre, permettre, introduire, faire passer ... ...just my guess ...
As I said, it does sound strange to me (English journalist, originally from Yorkshire). The only standard phrase is : to have no truck with, as far as I know. But I can understand what the writer means, and yes, it is presumably along the lines of "to have nothing to do with" "to not accept" "to not tolerate" etc. "Truck" in this sense originally meant to exchange or barter or trade etc (it's connected with "troquer" or "troc" in French). Though the meaning is plain I really do find this usage odd, whether it's in the Guardian or not. To imagine variations, would you really say : "He was someone who trucked no nonsense" or "I don't truck any dishonesty" etc ?
Hmmm... Orlando, you and I are Yorkshiremen both, we should agree on this!
I just googled "trucks no" to see if the structure would come up with anything at all... and it didn't. So I've changed my mind, I think Keith Bradford (another Yorkshireman?) is right: it's a confusion with "have no truck with". But "brooks no" gives 103,000 hits.