KudoZ home » French to English » Architecture

construisaient...en dur

English translation: in stone or brick

Advertisement

Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
French term or phrase:construisaient...en dur
English translation:in stone or brick
Entered by: Barbara Cochran, MFA
Options:
- Contribute to this entry
- Include in personal glossary

02:26 Jan 21, 2008
French to English translations [PRO]
Architecture / History Book On Charlemagne
French term or phrase: construisaient...en dur
Contexte:

"À l'époque de Charlemagne et certainement jusqu'au XIIème siècle, on construisait beaucoup en bois en Austrasie/Lotharingie du Nord. Mais les romains constuisaient leurs monuments **en dur.**

Does this just mean "in stone?"

Merci!

femme
Barbara Cochran, MFA
United States
Local time: 19:27
in stone or brick
Explanation:
"en dur" often means "permanent construction", even if the first two little piggies' houses were actually intended to be as permanent as the third, and probably would have come pretty close (with appropriate maintenance) had it not been for the Big Bad Wolf.

And whatever other durable materials the Romans might have built with, not that I can think of any, unless you start counting things like clay roof tiles ...

Mineral materials as opposed to organic.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 20 hrs (2008-01-21 22:37:38 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

While it is true that in many European cities, we still have medieval stone buildings while timber constructions have not survived, there are also towns where timber and earth construction has survived. Apart from fire, the main reason for the disappearance of these "temporary" constructions, is not so much their "non-permanent" nature, but rather the fact that they were not grand and important, were not the homes and institutions of the wealthy and the governing class, just the houses and shops of ordinary people, so when someone wanted to broaden a street so his carriage could drive down it, he pretexted insalubrity to flatten whole districts. Nothing changes.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 20 hrs (2008-01-21 22:45:50 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Another difficulty with "permanent" as I see it is the difference in meaning it has taken on over the years. A timber-framed house these days is intended to be just as "permanent" as one made of brick and/or concrete.

But in the distant past, timber-framed houses were designed to be relocatable. The original half-timbered houses of Normandy, for example, were brought here by the Vikings in their longboats for wintering over (the Scandinavians didn't have flat-pack furniture yet, but they did have flat-pack houses). The framing was assembled with wooden dowels and the gaps filled in with all available materials: sod, stone, dung, etc. While the house itself might have been "permanent", they were not initially intended to be permanently installed in a given place. These days, though, you can still have a permanent half-timbered house built with nothing holding it together but mortise and tenon and wooden dowels.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days11 hrs (2008-01-23 14:25:41 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

OK for the Pantheon using concrete but:

The dome was constructed primarily of concrete, a material RARELY used at that time for anything besides foundations
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/phy03/sci/phys/mfw/b...


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 days (2008-01-26 15:24:29 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Aaaahhh! Vindication! ;-)
Selected response from:

xxxBourth
Local time: 01:27
Grading comment
Yes indeed! "Stone and brick" turned up later in the manuscript.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer

Advertisement


Summary of answers provided
3 +6in stone or brickxxxBourth
5 +3built ... of masonry
B D Finch
5...built in more duable materials (stone, brick, concrete)...
Christopher Crockett
3 +1would build permanent monuments/would build monuments which were permanentMatthewLaSon


Discussion entries: 17





  

Answers


18 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): +1
would build permanent monuments/would build monuments which were permanent


Explanation:
Hello,

I always thought that "en dur" in the context of building meant "permanent."

I could be wrong...

I hope this hopes.

MatthewLaSon
Local time: 19:27
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 16

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Miranda Joubioux: This is definitely what Robert & Collins gives.
14 hrs
  -> Thanks, Miranda. Why do we need to be specific? The French isn't...
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

7 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): +3
built ... of masonry


Explanation:
This covers stone, brick AND concrete.

B D Finch
France
Local time: 01:27
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 128

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Miranda Joubioux: why not - yes
6 hrs
  -> Thanks Miranda

agree  Najib Aloui
7 hrs
  -> Thanks Najib

agree  Michael GREEN: Good suggestion - concise, and covers all options (and as you rightly remind us, the Romans did great things with concrete)
2 days32 mins
  -> Thanks Michael
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 day14 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5
...built in more duable materials (stone, brick, concrete)...


Explanation:
Of course, while it is true that most all pre-12th c. buildings (except for some churches and fewer "castles") were built of wood, it is also obvious that the impression which the author seems to convey that the Romans *largely* built in more durable materials is purely a function of the "accidents of preservation," esp. considering that any Roman buildings would be a thousand years older than any 9th-12th c. ones.

Christopher Crockett
Local time: 19:27
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 79
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

17 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): +6
in stone or brick


Explanation:
"en dur" often means "permanent construction", even if the first two little piggies' houses were actually intended to be as permanent as the third, and probably would have come pretty close (with appropriate maintenance) had it not been for the Big Bad Wolf.

And whatever other durable materials the Romans might have built with, not that I can think of any, unless you start counting things like clay roof tiles ...

Mineral materials as opposed to organic.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 20 hrs (2008-01-21 22:37:38 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

While it is true that in many European cities, we still have medieval stone buildings while timber constructions have not survived, there are also towns where timber and earth construction has survived. Apart from fire, the main reason for the disappearance of these "temporary" constructions, is not so much their "non-permanent" nature, but rather the fact that they were not grand and important, were not the homes and institutions of the wealthy and the governing class, just the houses and shops of ordinary people, so when someone wanted to broaden a street so his carriage could drive down it, he pretexted insalubrity to flatten whole districts. Nothing changes.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 20 hrs (2008-01-21 22:45:50 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Another difficulty with "permanent" as I see it is the difference in meaning it has taken on over the years. A timber-framed house these days is intended to be just as "permanent" as one made of brick and/or concrete.

But in the distant past, timber-framed houses were designed to be relocatable. The original half-timbered houses of Normandy, for example, were brought here by the Vikings in their longboats for wintering over (the Scandinavians didn't have flat-pack furniture yet, but they did have flat-pack houses). The framing was assembled with wooden dowels and the gaps filled in with all available materials: sod, stone, dung, etc. While the house itself might have been "permanent", they were not initially intended to be permanently installed in a given place. These days, though, you can still have a permanent half-timbered house built with nothing holding it together but mortise and tenon and wooden dowels.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days11 hrs (2008-01-23 14:25:41 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

OK for the Pantheon using concrete but:

The dome was constructed primarily of concrete, a material RARELY used at that time for anything besides foundations
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/phy03/sci/phys/mfw/b...


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 days (2008-01-26 15:24:29 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Aaaahhh! Vindication! ;-)

xxxBourth
Local time: 01:27
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 539
Grading comment
Yes indeed! "Stone and brick" turned up later in the manuscript.

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Michael GREEN
4 hrs

agree  Bashiqa: You mean that with your depth of knowledge you weren't around at the time. Have a nice day.
5 hrs
  -> Gee, thanks! I don't mind sounding 2000 yrs old so much, I just hope I don't look it.

agree  Charles Hawtrey: Yes. Unfortunately this is one expression there doesn't seem to be a shorter translation for in EN!
7 hrs

neutral  B D Finch: The Romans used concrete too!
7 hrs
  -> I wasn't prepared to stick my neck out on that one. They used pozzolanic materials but I'm not sure it could really be called concrete, and I don't know if it was used to any great extent. Not like concrete today, though, I think would be a safe bet.

agree  Mary Carroll Richer LaFlèche: arches and vaults also; http://www.enco-journal.com/antico/8.html; http://www.activitaly.it/monument/pantheon.htm;
12 hrs
  -> Thanks for that. It says "Roman concrete" was NOT used for "construction" as such, but for substructures, foundations, and harbour works. Not walls or arches.

agree  Miranda Joubioux
13 hrs

neutral  MatthewLaSon: I agree with BD Finch. No reason to be specific here. The French isn't, so why should the English be? You're sure that "stone or brick" were the only materials used? That's my issue with your translation..lol
18 hrs
  -> It's not that the French is not being specific, it's just that they have this expression. When they say "baleines et cachalots" they are not being specific, they just have no other way of saying "whales". Same with us for "singes" vs "apes and monkeys".

agree  Christopher Crockett
1 day13 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)




Return to KudoZ list


Changes made by editors
Jan 26, 2008 - Changes made by Barbara Cochran, MFA:
Created KOG entryKudoZ term » KOG term


KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.



See also:



Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search