Because it proves they were translating from Genoud’s French and not (as they claimed) Hitler’s German.

Ok. I did not see it as being important because I agreed with you about that (I should have made it explicit, instead of only saying that it did not change your conclusion), I only disagreed on whether their translation of “traffique” was correct or not.

Julien Rousseau:

What does it matter when we are trying to determine the meaning of what Genoud wrote and if it was translated properly?

Because it proves they were translating from Genoud’s French and not (as they claimed) Hitler’s German. The relevance of that is that the original German does not say what Genoud’s French translation claims, so by translating from the French instead, the English edition is wholly unreliable.

That’s true, in the intransitive. But not the transitive. Stevens and Cameron use the latter.

What does it matter when we are trying to determine the meaning of what Genoud wrote and if it was translated properly?

I haven’t studied grammar since school so maybe I am missing something but I am reading Genoud’s French in the way they translated it in English, to mean “to make commerce of”, not “to tamper”. To see it replace “traffique” with either “fait commerce” or “altérer”.

1. “Mais je ne dois rien à cette Eglise qui fait commerce du salut des âmes”.

2. “Mais je ne dois rien à cette Eglise qui altère le salut des âmes”.

I am reading the French as meaning 1 and thus correctly translated (regardless of whether the translators used a transitive or intransitive form in English, unless doing so changes the meaning in English too) and you seem to read it as 2 whereas for met to read it as 2 the French would have to be written:

“Mais je ne dois rien à cette Eglise qui traffique le salut des âmes”.

Like I said, Grammar is a long way off for me so I may be missing something here but I still don’t see what it is that I am missing.

Anyway, like i said it is just a minor point so I won’t belabor it any further than I already have but thanks for the answer.

That’s true, in the intransitive. But not the transitive. Stevens and Cameron use the latter.

I have one little correction about your paper. You said:

First, the English of Stevens and Cameron uses the word “trafficks”precisely where Genoud uses trafique. But though trafique sounds like traffick, it actually means “toy with, tamper with, to doctor,” not traffick (“to sell, deal with, trade in”). This makes their translation seem rather amateurish, as well as patently from the French, not the German, which doesn’t really suggest such a word.

In French Traffiquer also means “to sell, deal with, trade in”, for example “traffic de drogue”, thought it is mostly used for illicit trade in that sense rather than legal trade.

See definition 1 of the intransitive form here:
http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/trafiquer

It doesn’t change your conclusion but I thought you might appreciate the input.

Because he had no reason to lie in private, and his being a psychopath has no bearing on whether what he said was true. Indeed, to the contrary, it would go a long way toward explaining why he believed the things he said. Since his private statements substantially contradict his public statements, we have every reason to believe he was being honest in private; particularly when the context entails no reason for him to be anything but frank.

I’ve spoken at Stanford before. But I’d always be happy to be back. Recommend me to their organizers and have them get in touch with me if they are interested. My requirements are on my website.

But if he was a Psychopath and a Liar, why would his private statements necessarly be any better?

Yep. I was 33 in that Harry Potter picture. Ironically, shot in England.