From another forum.
I will quote first the FA document on the key point:
â90. Mr Evra's evidence was that, in response to his question "Why did you kick me?", Mr
Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro". Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that
comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean "Because you are a ******". He now says
that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black".â
End quote.
I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis SuĂĄrezâs way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes SuĂĄrez to appear using forms of Spanish SuĂĄrez just wouldn't use. SuĂĄrez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.
This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evraâs credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that SuĂĄrez would never say âporque tu eres negroâ (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less âporque tu es negroâ or âtues negroâ (as Comolly apparently stated), which are gramatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You donât use the verb âserâ (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said âporque SOS negroâ. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course donât say âpor que tu es negroâ (as supposedly Commoly reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence âesâ is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, âsosâ (and never, I repeat, âeresâ). Hence, I don't know what Comolly heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong--unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish...
What follows to these is that Evraâs report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts SuĂĄrez speaking in a form of Spanish SuĂĄrez just does not use.- SuĂĄrez cannot have said âporque tu eres negroâ. He would have said--if at all he said anything-- âporque sos negroâ. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports SuĂĄrez to have told him âporque tu eres negroâ which just sound unplausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb âserâ (to be) that way. In such a case we would say âporque sos negroâ. How come Evra reports SuĂĄrez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.
***
That said, letâs pay some attention to the incredibly sloppy way the FA has managed the Spanish language in their report.
â138. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He
said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him
"Don't touch me, South American" to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had
replied "Por que, tu eres negro?". (...) Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination
that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he
had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black"." Endquote.
âPor que, tu eres negro?ââŠ. ??!! This makes no sense. It is no Spanish. âPor quĂ©â means âwhyâ (and not âbecauseâ in this case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their official report (they donât seem to give a damn about Spanish, since they treat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannot be translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had to translate it, it would be something like this: âwhy, you are black?â I have no idea what that could mean.
And Mr Comolliâs version is VERY different from Suarezâs own statement. Letâs see what Suarez himself reported:
"141. Mr Suarez's version of this conversation was as follows. He said that Mr Comolli
explained to him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to the referee that
Mr Suarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. Mr Comolli asked Mr
Suarez to tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had said to him
"Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez had said "Por que negro?". Mr Suarez told
Mr Comolli that this was the only thing he had said."
What Suarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Rio de la Plata area âeven though, again, it is ill transcripted by the FA. They should have written: âÂżPor quĂ©, negro?â. Then, I have no idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non native speaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his own wordsâŠ
The linguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here, and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Letâs see how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, by looking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by the FA:
"284 (...) Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said "you
are South American" to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues Negro" which translates as
"you are black"." Endquote.
It is ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything, would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might have understood from SuĂĄrez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barely understands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say this because âtuesâ is no Spanish word. And âtues negroâ cannot be translated at allâlet alone into what the FA says it means. Itâs simply not a Spanish expression, so it cannot be âtranslatedâ. Comolli recollection from his chat with SuĂĄrez just after the match is unreliable. A pity since it arrived to the FA jury through a Liverpool official, but the language is so ridiculously wrong it makes me laugh.
In sum: SuĂĄrez could not have even said âtu eresâ negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say âtu eres negroâ, but âvos SOS negroâ. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone, not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I was called to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, who lived his adult life in Montevideoâdespite being born in Saltoâcould have said other than âvos sos negroâ. There is no way in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as a reaction to Evraâs words and attitudes, âporque tu eres negroââand much less âtues negroâ, that doesnât exist. Simply âtuesâ is no Spanish.
Despite of that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report, and substantiate their conviction on these words.
***
Reading Evraâs statement, I understand it could happen that Evra misunderstood SuĂĄrez at some point. When SuĂĄrez said âÂżpor quĂ©, negro?â, Evra might have assumed that as a racial insult, while SuĂĄrezâeven in the heat of a discussionâcould perfectly have said that as a way of normally expressing himself (not exactly to calm Evra down, but just because he normally would talk like that without thinking about it). This point is where the cultural clash seems more important, and it is working against SuĂĄrez because nobody in the jury (let alone the Daily Mail kind of media) seems to even start understanding the common way we use the term ânegroâ in the Rio de la Plata area. They heard their experts, and their experts explained the different options of our use of the word depending on different contexts and intentions. Then, the jury just decided that the whole thing was an equally aggressive clash by both sides, and because of that, they concluded SuĂĄrez could have not use the "negro" word to Evra in a descriptive way. Why? Their interpretation is not clear to me and doesnât seem to be the only one possible. âÂżPor quĂ©, negro?â (after Evra said âDonât touch me you South Americanâ) is not offensive, but a question, and a very common one indeed, where ânegroâ is a DESCRIPTIVE noun, not an adjective loaded with a negative connotation. I completely understand why a British or an American might start not understanding the tone or the intention from SuĂĄrez. But I myself can clearly understand the account SuĂĄrez does and it seems consistent to me. I hear it more as a common (unmarked and uncharged) addressing to Evra.
Finally, the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements:
1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element)
2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language allegedly used --even though they grounded they verdict on their own interpretation of that very Spanish language.
3) They believe the word "negro" cannot be used just in a descriptive way in the context of a discussion--which means they don't really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them.
A pity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion. SuĂĄrezâs name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evra attributes to him, exception made of Evraâs own statement.
Evra convinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the "wild animals" South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey's famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.
Logged
