Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
they had very little use for
English answer:
they saw no need to involve them
Added to glossary by
KIA59
Mar 15, 2023 10:16
1 yr ago
56 viewers *
English term
they had very little use for
English
Art/Literary
History
Hi! I'm translating a book (1919) about intervention in North Russia.
The author writes about the relationship among soldiers.
It might be supposed that the British, being appropriately and properly in supreme command, would have given their orders, as far as they applied solely to the operations of purely American units, to the responsible American officers, leaving these officers without petty interference to get the work accomplished. But it was not so. British colonels did not give their orders to American colonels to be passed down the line. In fact, they had very little use for American colonels. They went to the captains, the lieutenants, and even the sergeants and corporals and the men themselves. They ignored American officers most noticeably. They set
their own petty officers upon the Americans in a manner that was most irritating to American national self-esteem and bitterly resented. And since all necessary things are reasonable to the military mind it was the greatest tact to explain that "the Americans know nothing about military matters, you know."
In fact, they had very little use for American colonels.
Can I rephrase "they did not rely on American colonels"? Is the meaning the same?
And in the last sentence "since all necessary things are reasonable to the military mind it was the greatest tact". Could anybody rephrase it?
The author writes about the relationship among soldiers.
It might be supposed that the British, being appropriately and properly in supreme command, would have given their orders, as far as they applied solely to the operations of purely American units, to the responsible American officers, leaving these officers without petty interference to get the work accomplished. But it was not so. British colonels did not give their orders to American colonels to be passed down the line. In fact, they had very little use for American colonels. They went to the captains, the lieutenants, and even the sergeants and corporals and the men themselves. They ignored American officers most noticeably. They set
their own petty officers upon the Americans in a manner that was most irritating to American national self-esteem and bitterly resented. And since all necessary things are reasonable to the military mind it was the greatest tact to explain that "the Americans know nothing about military matters, you know."
In fact, they had very little use for American colonels.
Can I rephrase "they did not rely on American colonels"? Is the meaning the same?
And in the last sentence "since all necessary things are reasonable to the military mind it was the greatest tact". Could anybody rephrase it?
Responses
+3
2 hrs
Yvonne Gallagher
Ireland
Ireland
Native in English
&
English
Ireland
right word, right place. everytime
Native in: English (Variants: UK, US, Canadian, Irish) 
Works in: French to English, Spanish to English, English, and 1 more.
Related KudoZ points
:
44
Selected
they saw no need to involve them
Explanation:
They saw them as unnecessary in the chain of command so "they ignored American officers most noticeably"
So it was really a slap in the face for the American colonels as these officers were not allowed "get the work accomplished".
Instead of British colonels passing their orders on to American colonels to be passed down the line
they set their own petty officers upon the Americans in a manner that was most irritating to American national self-esteem and bitterly resented .
So no, this does not mean "they did not rely on American colonels" rather that
"they saw no need or use for American colonels" so ignored them or bypassed them
And why was that? The British as supreme commanders figured they knew best about military matters so wanted to remain in full control/command.
Your second question should really have been posted as another question but it is linked to the first so here goes.
They (The Brits) justified this as necessary and thus "reasonable" =logical "to the military mind" by saying that "the Americans know nothing about military matters, you know."
In other words, by bypassing the Americans they were tactfully (NOT!) saying that the Brits were superior in military matters. The American colonels couldn't be trusted to give orders so the Brits would continue to do so, even to the American units via their own officers.
They saw them as unnecessary in the chain of command so "they ignored American officers most noticeably"
So it was really a slap in the face for the American colonels as these officers were not allowed "get the work accomplished".
Instead of British colonels passing their orders on to American colonels to be passed down the line
they set their own petty officers upon the Americans in a manner that was most irritating to American national self-esteem and bitterly resented .
So no, this does not mean "they did not rely on American colonels" rather that
"they saw no need or use for American colonels" so ignored them or bypassed them
And why was that? The British as supreme commanders figured they knew best about military matters so wanted to remain in full control/command.
Your second question should really have been posted as another question but it is linked to the first so here goes.
They (The Brits) justified this as necessary and thus "reasonable" =logical "to the military mind" by saying that "the Americans know nothing about military matters, you know."
In other words, by bypassing the Americans they were tactfully (NOT!) saying that the Brits were superior in military matters. The American colonels couldn't be trusted to give orders so the Brits would continue to do so, even to the American units via their own officers.
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Daryo
29 mins
|
|
Many thanks:-)
|
|
| neutral |
Chris Says Bye
: I think it's about confidence, not need. As for part 2, it's unclear but I would assume they had to be very tactful explaining it, they couldn't spell it out as in the quotation..
1 hr
|
|
Well, I think they're seen as surplus to requirements, not about lack of confidence.
|
|
| agree |
Tony M
: Absolutely! Correct interpretation of the expression; any nuances are given by the context.
1 hr
|
|
Many thanks Tony
|
|
| agree |
Paul O'Brien
4 days
|
|
Many thanks:-)
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank you all for your variants! Yvonne's answer is most detailed.
I still can't translate correctly the second phrase so I've posted new question."
+2
29 mins
they had no confidence in
(As for the last bit, I *think* they're saying that even though saying the Americans knew nothing about military matters was very tactLESS, military minds found this to be a perfectly reasonable explanation. But it's not very clear!)
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Chris Says Bye
: I intuitively understood it as a lack of confidence in them rather than not needing them. They had no time for them. But that is my British understanding of what appears to be an American text. What do the Americans think?
31 mins
|
|
Thanks
|
|
| agree |
Peter Dahm Robertson
: Possibly also: regarded American colonels as unnecessary
34 mins
|
|
Thanks
|
|
| neutral |
Daryo
: the point is they didn't feel the need to have them as relay - not necessarily because they doubted their competency, probably simply for better control of the operations. Which still made these US colonels feel as "surplus to requirement".
2 hrs
|
|
That's interesting, I definitely feel like it's negative!
|
|
| neutral |
Tony M
: I would echo Daryo's comment: this is a neutral remark and does not necessarily imply any criticism
3 hrs
|
|
That's interesting, I definitely feel like it's negative!
|
58 mins
Vladyslav Golovaty
Ukraine
Ukraine
Native in English
&
English
Ukraine
a top-rank. native English-Ukrainian-Rus
Native in: English (Variant: US) , Ukrainian (Variant: Standard-Ukraine) 
, Russian
Works in: English to Ukrainian, Ukrainian to English, Russian to English, and 3 more.
толку было очень мало
На самом деле, от американских полковников мало что зависело.
не было проку
не было проку
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
philgoddard
: I don't knpow if this is right, but the question was posted as English to Russian, and someone has changed it for some reason.
12 hrs
|
| neutral |
Boris Shapiro
: And no, this suggestion ('they were of not much use') is pretty much off the mark, too.
18 hrs
|
Discussion
In other words, it is precisely the text's description of the British HC's shocking lack of tact and bias towards the Americans that makes me favour this meaning of 'have little/no use for', rather than the demure and entirely non-confrontational 'the occasion or need to employ' (which would have suggested that the Americans had a chip on their shoulder, ready to take offence at the slightest slight, however reasonable and necessary).
Which, in turn, brings up the subject of the word 'reasonable'.
Indeed, the same WUD entrance has two example of this meaning: 'had no use for most sales managers' and 'had very little use for the music of most of his contemporaries', indicating that this meaning is routinely expressed with both 'little' and 'no' in equal measure.
There is no "dislike" or "bias" indicated here. Just an indication that these American officers are surplus to requirements as they are not in a position to be of much help. For example, having to pass orders via them is going to be time-consuming, hence they are of "little use"= limited usefulness, and thus not needed. So better military practice for the Brits just to ignore them and give the orders directly via the lower officers and men. And pass this off as being the right thing to do militarily, although really resented by the American colonels Here are some examples with that meaning of "not much use" https://glosbe.com/en/en/of little use