hahahah. No, it's not that he is too smooth to say it as such. It's that the interpreter couldn't find a better word in the moment to express exactly what Putin said. Very likely that in Russian, he used a word that is quite nuanced, and one that may not have a related word in English that carries the exact same subtleties.
I fully expect that Putin would have used a 'smooth' way of expressing it. His attitude comes across quite well in the interview, I thought. But I'm saying, in native English, we would not have used the word "subtle" in that situation and context. It's a very archaic meaning of the word. However, it is a good example of how live interpreting is limited in what dimensions of meaning is conveyed.
Sometimes, in order to communicate the real subtleties (no pun intended), and interpreter will have to use a phrase, or a structure, that effectively communicates the sense in the target language, even though the original speaker might use one simple word in his own tongue.
That's just how it is. There is no real thing such as a one-to-one correspondence for 90% of the words between languages.
So it's important to recognize that Putin didn't call it "subtle". He used a Russian word, not an English one. The interpreter used "subtle". "Subtle" is English.
As for watching the interview, I enjoyed it very much, and watched the whole thing, which is pretty rare for me these days. You can pick up a lot from his expressions, manner of speaking, etc.
Also, note: it is possible that it was not a word, but a phrase, or expression. The interpreter grabbed 'subtle' from his lexicon but without being able to listen and understand Russian, we cannot know whether Putin used a single word, or the turn of phrase that the interpreter adopted.
What I do know is that the use of the English 'subtle' is unnatural, and I could sense the tell-tale signs that the interpreter was grasping for.
Note also: even a native Russian speaker may or may not be able to explain or clearly convey the nuances of what Putin said.
I would say its clear he was implying that Tucker's questions was smart, clever, but designed to get to a certain thing that he wanted Putin to answer or say. Aka he phrased his question in a certain way to achieve an end that may not necessarily have been the way that Putin himself sees the issue.
You can see that happen often in the interview, and its a natural aspect of interviewing. Tucker continually tried to create a context or way of looking at certain issues, and Putin fielded those question carefully, with strength and without stepping into frames that Tucker himself was offering.
I think they both did a pretty good job.
FWIW, I am a bit surprised that an interpreter who is not fluent in English was used. It is axiomatic that in translation and interpreting, listening and comprehending one's second language is far easier than expressing meaning in one's second language.
In the translation (text) industry, a native speaker of the target will always be used where possible.
hahahah. No, it's not that he is too smooth to say it as such. It's that the interpreter couldn't find a better word in the moment to express exactly what Putin said. Very likely that in Russian, he used a word that is quite nuanced, and one that may not have a related word in English that carries the exact same subtleties.
I fully expect that Putin would have used a 'smooth' way of expressing it. His attitude comes across quite well in the interview, I thought. But I'm saying, in native English, we would not have used the word "subtle" in that situation and context. It's a very archaic meaning of the word. However, it is a good example of how live interpreting is limited in what dimensions of meaning is conveyed.
Sometimes, in order to communicate the real subtleties (no pun intended), and interpreter will have to use a phrase, or a structure, that effectively communicates the sense in the target language, even though the original speaker might use one simple word in his own tongue.
That's just how it is. There is no real thing such as a one-to-one correspondence for 90% of the words between languages.
So it's important to recognize that Putin didn't call it "subtle". He used a Russian word, not an English one. The interpreter used "subtle". "Subtle" is English.
As for watching the interview, I enjoyed it very much, and watched the whole thing, which is pretty rare for me these days. You can pick up a lot from his expressions, manner of speaking, etc.
What was the Russian word that Putin used?
This, I do not know.
Also, note: it is possible that it was not a word, but a phrase, or expression. The interpreter grabbed 'subtle' from his lexicon but without being able to listen and understand Russian, we cannot know whether Putin used a single word, or the turn of phrase that the interpreter adopted.
What I do know is that the use of the English 'subtle' is unnatural, and I could sense the tell-tale signs that the interpreter was grasping for.
Note also: even a native Russian speaker may or may not be able to explain or clearly convey the nuances of what Putin said.
I would say its clear he was implying that Tucker's questions was smart, clever, but designed to get to a certain thing that he wanted Putin to answer or say. Aka he phrased his question in a certain way to achieve an end that may not necessarily have been the way that Putin himself sees the issue.
You can see that happen often in the interview, and its a natural aspect of interviewing. Tucker continually tried to create a context or way of looking at certain issues, and Putin fielded those question carefully, with strength and without stepping into frames that Tucker himself was offering.
I think they both did a pretty good job.
FWIW, I am a bit surprised that an interpreter who is not fluent in English was used. It is axiomatic that in translation and interpreting, listening and comprehending one's second language is far easier than expressing meaning in one's second language.
In the translation (text) industry, a native speaker of the target will always be used where possible.