Interpreting Diplomatic Language in Arabic: C2 Conversation

Layla — journalist: Before us is a statement by delegations from the invented towns of Nawras and Zilal. Zilal proposed borrowing a copper lamp from the Nawras museum for six weeks. My colleague wrote a headline announcing agreement; I want to check it.

Rami — diplomat representing the fictional Nawras delegation: I represent the Nawras delegation, and the wording we approved is: we express our willingness to examine the request. The statement contains no wording authorising the lamp’s transfer, and no delivery date has been set. The headline goes beyond what the two delegations approved.

Yusra — interpreter: As the meeting’s interpreter, I distinguish willingness to examine something from willingness to carry it out. Dropping the word examine in translation changes what the willingness concerns, rather than merely its degree of enthusiasm.

Layla — journalist: But the second paragraph says: we understand the wish of Zilal’s residents to see the lamp. In the museum’s invented account, it was made by a craftsperson who lived in both towns. Does acknowledging that cultural connection not make approval more likely?

Rami — diplomat representing the fictional Nawras delegation: It makes the request understandable to us, which is not insignificant after it was initially described as strange. But understanding the wish does not mean approving the means. We also proposed displaying a replica made for this purpose, and the other delegation still prefers the original.

Yusra — interpreter: So we have a convergence in how the wish is described and a disagreement over how to meet it. If we translate understand as agree, we erase that disagreement. If we treat it as empty courtesy, we erase the change Rami described in how the request is regarded.

Layla — journalist: I fear that the distinctions you both mention may be a way of prolonging the discussion. Readers want to know what actually changed after the meeting. Did you come away with something I can name?

Rami — diplomat representing the fictional Nawras delegation: Yes: we agreed to exchange descriptions of the two exhibition rooms, and each delegation named someone to receive questions. Those are two specific actions that can be attributed to both delegations. The loan period and the choice between the original and a replica, however, remain subjects for discussion.

Yusra — interpreter: There is agreement here, but its scope is the exchange of information. If we said the delegations agreed and left readers to complete the sentence, they might fill the gap with the loan. The word can be accurate while omitting what it concerns is misleading.

Layla — journalist: The closing paragraph says that neither side ruled out the loan. If that door is open, is it not excessive to write that it has not been accepted? My reader may take my caution as an indication that the meeting failed.

Rami — diplomat representing the fictional Nawras delegation: The phrase has not yet been accepted is more accurate than was rejected. We have not ruled it out, and we have not accepted it; both statements describe our position together. The purpose of this meeting was to identify what we need to examine, rather than announce the final outcome.

Yusra — interpreter: If we add yet, we should preserve its temporal meaning. It says acceptance has not occurred up to now; it does not promise that it will occur later. Translating it with wording suggesting that acceptance is merely postponed adds a promise that is not there.

Layla — journalist: I admit my colleague’s headline went beyond that, but the statement itself may invite that reading. You gathered the expressions of convergence at the beginning and placed the unresolved matters at the end. Do you not share responsibility for the optimistic impression you created?

Rami — diplomat representing the fictional Nawras delegation: Yes: we wanted to show that the conversation continued after the disagreement over the replica. I cannot claim that the order of the paragraphs has no effect. But an optimistic effect does not turn the words into permission to transfer the object; you can criticise the order while preserving that distinction.

Yusra — interpreter: This distinguishes the expectation the text evokes from what it states explicitly. My task is not to turn the expectation into a commitment in translation, or to prevent the press from examining its cause.

Layla — journalist: I want to test another formulation: Nawras accepts the principle of the loan and postpones its details. It seems more cautious. Does willingness to examine the request allow that distinction between principle and details?

Rami — diplomat representing the fictional Nawras delegation: No, because choosing the original or a replica is not a detail that follows acceptance of the principle. It is part of a question we have not resolved. You can say we accepted discussing the loan, but you cannot remove discussing and replace it with the principle.

Yusra — interpreter: A formulation that seems more cautious may retain the same assumption. The word details puts the central decision outside the discussion, although here it remains within it.

Layla — journalist: Then I will write: the Nawras and Zilal delegations agree to exchange information, and the request for the lamp remains undecided. I will also mention their disagreement over the original and the replica. But I will not attribute your interpretation of the outcome to the other delegation without asking it.

Rami — diplomat representing the fictional Nawras delegation: That is fair. I speak about my delegation’s position and read the joint text to you; I do not speak for the others about their expectations. Our difference in assessment of the outcome can itself be news.

Yusra — interpreter: I will send you the approved wording of the statement so you can distinguish quotation from a summary of the position. What Rami added today is attributed to him, rather than retrospectively to the text.

Layla — journalist: One journalistic question remains, rather than a purely linguistic one: are you retaining this ambiguity to satisfy both those who want the loan and those who reject it? I can publish precise wording and still ask whether leaving the matter undecided is a convenient choice for the two delegations.

Rami — diplomat representing the fictional Nawras delegation: It may temporarily suit them, but it will not answer Zilal’s request. That is why we will send a written reply after exchanging the two descriptions. This is a commitment to reply, rather than to lend; if we delay, ask us about the reply we promised, rather than a lamp we did not promise.

Yusra — interpreter: This time the text allows us to name a commitment, because Rami has specified the promised action. Precision does not serve to weaken every statement, but to preserve its force and limits. I will translate we will send as a promise, and keep its object the written reply, as he said.

Layla — journalist: I will include that promise in the report, attributed to you, and ask the other delegation for comment. Its reader will know what was agreed, what remains open, and what I myself infer from the arrangement of the words.

Rami — diplomat representing the fictional Nawras delegation: And I will not ask you to make the report reassuring for us. I want you not to attribute a decision to us that we have not made, and I accept your asking what has delayed it. The statement may help us continue the discussion without excusing us from clarifying its outcome.

Yusra — interpreter: I will review only the quotation and leave the analysis attributed to you. The degrees between understanding and agreement are not a ladder the delegations will inevitably climb; they may stop or choose another path. A precise report establishes where they are now without writing their next step for them.