1

Il y a plus, l’auteur ne comprendrait pas qu’on ajoutât après coup des développements nouveaux à un ouvrage de ce genre.

(Victor Hugo, Notre-Dame de Paris)

Cette expression, il y a plus, est ainsi expliquée dans Larousse :

Il y a plus, il y a quelque chose de plus étonnant, de plus fort.

Si j'ai bien compris cette expression dans le contexte où je l'ai trouvée, elle devrait pouvoir être traduite en anglais comme furthermore.

Vous croyez que j'ai raison de la traduire comme ça ?

  • 4
    "Furthermore" doesn't carry the sense of « plus étonnant, plus fort » ; I would choose "What's more" (or "What is more"). – Luke Sawczak Apr 12 '17 at 15:10
  • 3
    Yes, what's more, not furthermore. Furthermore is a conjunction, this is a phrase. In English, in an essay where you are developing a series of ideas, you could translate this: And there's more or something else. Good luck, though, with après coup. :) Je ne comprends pas comment vous allez traduire la phrase en français comme furthermore. Vous voulez dire en anglais, n'est-ce pas? – Lambie Apr 12 '17 at 16:12
  • 1
    Why noone mentioned the word-for-word "there is more"? I'm pretty sure I've heard it many times in movies. – Destal Apr 13 '17 at 10:23
  • @Lambie Why is this idiom not translated in the English dictionaries? If it had been, I would not have had to ask this question to begin with. Besides, the French idiom de plus is translated as such in the English dictionaries, and it is this idiom that is rendered into English as "what's more." – ΥΣΕΡ26328 Apr 13 '17 at 11:42
1

Since an answer with "What's more" has not yet been put forward, here's one.

"What's more" would be a pretty good equivalent because it carries the sense that the thing added goes beyond whatever came before. Here's a typical use.

In the 1939 film adaptation of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, the character of Jehan Frollo is no longer a sixteen-year-old troublemaker but a judge. What's more, he assumes most of the traits his brother Claude possesses in the book, and effectively usurps that character's role in the plot.

On the other hand, "furthermore" is better suited to elaborating on an idea or pursuing an argument, and not necessarily by adding something stronger than the previous point.

Whether Hugo's claim that some of the chapters inserted in the later edition of Notre-Dame de Paris were in fact recovered originals is doubtful given their slight but noticeable difference in style. Furthermore, the excuse he gives for not including any of the other chapters he claims to have lost during the original composition of the novel is questionable: he states that he simply did not have the inclination to rewrite them after losing them and so moved on.
N.B. I don't know whether scholars actually doubt the claim. Just trying to use "furthermore".

According to this translation memory website, other human translations of "Il y a plus" include:

There is more.

That is not all.

It goes beyond that.

There is more to it than that.

Which exactly is the best translation for the NDdP sentence depends on the wider context and style. Among those, I think the best alternative here might be "That's not all".

0

Ça semble en effet raisonnable comme traduction, en tout cas en l'absence de plus de contexte avant "Il y a plus…".

0

A la réflexion ça me semblerait plus proche de "still more" que de "furthermore".

  • 1
    Still more is not grammatical at the beginning of a sentence like that.... – Lambie Apr 12 '17 at 23:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.