I think the major problem we are having here is, as William pointed out, that the sentence, as written, just doesn't make any sense, logically.

However, it does make sense, linguistically.

Therefore, I would say that the translator's job here is not to try and figure out what the hell the guy *means* or *meant to say* (unless that is not clear linguistically), but just to translate what the sentence he wrote actually *says,* in plain English.

Let the reader (French or English) make a judgement about the quality and clarity of the author's thought (or lack thereof) by what it is that the guy actually *wrote,* not what the translator thinks he *should* have written.

Jane's construction --"is indicative of"-- seems to me to be a good one; though "is a sign of" works almost as well and is closer to the literal French. (Although "is a sign of...nature" doesn't quite work, in English.)

Unless the construction "fait signe...vers" has a special sense which I'm not aware of (which is perfectly possible, though that still wouldn't help the inherently paradoxical logical sense of the sentence, hélas).

I find this sentance rather typical of much French scholarly writing : il marche *en principe.*

Sounds good, but don't think about it too hard or you're likely to get a mal a` te^te.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-12-29 21:07:20 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Ngmc\'s suggestion (below) as to broadening the meaning of the \"faire signe vers\" construction should be persued by him/her or anyone else with a command of French phrasiology more complete than mine (easy enough to do).

Certainly a quick glance at Robert, etc., seems to indicate that such a meaning is not impossible.

However, William\'s objection still holds, it seems to me : if \"universal,\" isn\'t \"primative warfare\" [what *is* that, btw??] more a question of \"nature\" than of \"culture\"?

Francis & Nikki\'s pleas for more context are --as all pleas for more context-- certainly relevant here.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-12-30 17:59:21 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Contradicting my original statement, I\'m not at all sure that Ngmc\'s attempt to make more sense out of the author\'s \"thought\" via a closer, more idiomatic reading of the French isn\'t a reasonable line of persuit.

Seems to me that getting to the gist of the meaning of this one sentence requires a reading of it within the much larger context of the fellow\'s oeuvre --both to see where he\'s comming from \"ideologically\" and to get a better feel for the way he uses his language to express his theses.

For that reason, I wish that the answer hadn\'t been chosen quite yet.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-12-30 18:00:15 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

But, thanks anyway, MSH.