A suggestion.
HTH

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-03-22 09:36:51 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

As others have suggested, \"former\" not \"ancient\" is correct. I was keen to suggest \"fortified town\" for \"place forte\" as I had just had to translate the same term and wasn\'t paying attention to \"ancienne\". Sorry!

definitely fortified town as Mary suggested (confirmed in Robert/Collins) but I wouldn't use ancient.

Old/former/formerly/or the period..such as 17th century...if you have that info...

You will have to construct it according to your context and the info you have

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-03-21 14:57:57 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I don\'t disagree with Dusty\'s \"stronghold.\" I think it could be a good option depending on the context. I am a little intrigued by Christopher Crockett\'s sudden aversion to \"town.\" In an architectural context, which is what the asker gave, it most likely refers to the walled part of an old town, so stronghold might be a little awkward. I think we are talking about the physical structure...the walled city.

place forte=fortified town

ancienne=former (in this case)

"place forte ancienne" should be "old fortified town"

The dictionary's "place fort = (Mil.) fortified town," I don't see "place" as being a "town," necessarily, so I'll go with Dusty's "stonghold."

"Fortified" is implied in "stonghold."

Hard to say without knowing the specific context (place --in English), but such terminology is frequently found in historical works to refer to "places" which were "strongholds" from neolithic times.

Such phrases out of context are just too vague.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-03-21 15:17:24 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

When I say \"Such phrases out of context are just too vague,\" what I mean is, roughly speaking, \"Such phrases out of context are just too vague.\"

Yes, \"Ancienne\" can mean \"former\" (esp. placed before the noun), and it may well have that sense in the overall context, which we do not have here.

And, yes, there is the special, military, sense of the phrase \"place forte\" as \"fortified town,\" and it may well have that sense in the overall context, which we do not have here.

But if the overall context, which we do not have here, is speaking of some extant site (an existing town, presumably) as having been \"fortified\" from its very earliest known history, then \"a stronghold from very early times\" will work quite well, seems to me.

If, otOh, the overall context, which we do not have here is, speaking of only the (relatively) more recent history of the \"place,\" then \"formerly a fortified town\" is o.k.

Lot\'s of \"towns\" were \"formerly fortified\" in the middle ages and early modern periods, and are no longer, and they may accurately be spoken of as \"formerly fortified towns.\"

Just depends upon the specific place and --I hesitate to use the word-- its context.

Catch my drift, Sara ?

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-03-21 16:37:57 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

When I say \"Such phrases out of context are just too vague,\" what I mean is, roughly speaking, \"Such phrases out of context are just too vague.\"

Yes, \"Ancienne\" can mean \"former\" (esp. placed before the noun), and it may well have that sense in the overall context, which we do not have here.

And, yes, there is the special, military, sense of the phrase \"place forte\" as \"fortified town,\" and it may well have that sense in the overall context, which we do not have here.

But if the overall context, which we do not have here, is speaking of some extant site (an existing town, presumably) as having been \"fortified\" from its very earliest known history, then \"a stronghold from very early times\" will work quite well, seems to me.

If, otOh, the overall context, which we do not have here is, speaking of only the (relatively) more recent history of the \"place,\" then \"formerly a fortified town\" is o.k.

Lot\'s of \"towns\" were \"formerly fortified\" in the middle ages and early modern periods, and are no longer, and they may accurately be spoken of as \"formerly fortified towns.\"

Just depends upon the specific place and --I hesitate to use the word-- its context.

Catch my drift, Sara ?

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-03-21 16:45:31 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Sara, I have no \"aversion to \'town\',\" sudden or otherwise, just have not been given enough context to know what the hell we might be talking about here.

It *may* indeed \"refer to the walled part of an old town,\" or not --my crystal ball is quite opaque on that point.

\"Stronghold,\" far from being \"little awkward,\" covers all bases, from a neolithic \"hill fort\" to a medieval _castrum_.

And many a medieval _castrum_ was, \"in former times\" a neolithic stronghold --though perhaps never a neolithic \"town.\"

It might even be a case of a \"walled city,\" though not all \"towns\" are \"cities,\" by a long chalk.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-03-21 17:15:55 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Sara, I have no \"aversion to \'town\',\" sudden or otherwise, just have not been given enough context to know what the hell we might be talking about here.

It *may* indeed \"refer to the walled part of an old town,\" or not --my crystal ball is quite opaque on that point.

\"Stronghold,\" far from being \"little awkward,\" covers all bases, from a neolithic \"hill fort\" to a medieval _castrum_.

And many a medieval _castrum_ was, \"in former times\" a neolithic stronghold --though perhaps never a neolithic \"town.\"

It might even be a case of a \"walled city,\" though not all \"towns\" are \"cities,\" by a long chalk.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-03-21 18:21:07 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Sara, I have no \"aversion to \'town\',\" sudden or otherwise, just have not been given enough context to know what the hell we might be talking about here.

It *may* indeed \"refer to the walled part of an old town,\" or not --my crystal ball is quite opaque on that point.

\"Stronghold,\" far from being \"little awkward,\" covers all bases, from a neolithic \"hill fort\" to a medieval _castrum_.

And many a medieval _castrum_ was, \"in former times\" a neolithic stronghold --though perhaps never a neolithic \"town.\"

It might even be a case of a \"walled city,\" though not all \"towns\" are \"cities,\" by a long chalk.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-03-21 18:22:48 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Gee, it would be nice if the bug in the softwhere which does multiple adds --even if the \"add\" button is only hit once-- could be fixed !

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-03-21 18:39:14 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Dusty makes a good point --tongue in cheek, apparently-- about the appropriateness of vagueness.

Vagueness certainly has it\'s place (especially when one\'s original text is vague --which French texts thankfully never are, of course), but I see no reason not to be as specific as one can be, even in a popular tourist book.

Academic jargon should be avoided in such a context, obviously, but the best \"tourist guide books\" I\'ve ever used are the little, province-specific Guides Bleus for France, which are extremely detailed (every little village!), rather carefully written, and seem to eschew vagueness as a matter of course --while still trying to be as concise as possible.

I think that we, as translators, should keep in mind that there may be quite a variation among the audiences who might use our work product.

Nancy\'s \"tourist guide\" *seems* to me to be rather specific, with some relatively \"minor\" sites being mentioned. But, the people who would be interested in such \"minor\" sites are, by definition, open to some specific, detailed and, above all, *precise*(as opposed to vague) information.

Eg., if what is being produced in the town refered to (in another of Nancy\'s querries) as a \"haut lieu de la céramique\" is just plain old flower pots, then translating this phrase as \"ceramic\" (or \"china\") is laughable. But, if it is fine ceramics --much less *genuine* china, then those terms *must* be used, it seems to me.

Likewise, those travelers interested in archeological matters should be given as precise a level of information as the translator is able to provide, whether it\'s a question of an \"old fortified town\" or \"the site of a stonghold from early times,\" or anything in between.

Depends upon the context --maybe I should have mentioned that before.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-03-21 20:25:38 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Dusty makes a good point --tongue in cheek, apparently-- about the appropriateness of vagueness.

Vagueness certainly has it\'s place (especially when one\'s original text is vague --which French texts thankfully never are, of course), but I see no reason not to be as specific as one can be, even in a popular tourist book.

Academic jargon should be avoided in such a context, obviously, but the best \"tourist guide books\" I\'ve ever used are the little, province-specific Guides Bleus for France, which are extremely detailed (every little village!), rather carefully written, and seem to eschew vagueness as a matter of course --while still trying to be as concise as possible.

I think that we, as translators, should keep in mind that there may be quite a variation among the audiences who might use our work product.

Nancy\'s \"tourist guide\" *seems* to me to be rather specific, with some relatively \"minor\" sites being mentioned. But, the people who would be interested in such \"minor\" sites are, by definition, open to some specific, detailed and, above all, *precise*(as opposed to vague) information.

Eg., if what is being produced in the town refered to (in another of Nancy\'s querries) as a \"haut lieu de la céramique\" is just plain old flower pots, then translating this phrase as \"ceramic\" (or \"china\") is laughable. But, if it is fine ceramics --much less *genuine* china, then those terms *must* be used, it seems to me.

Likewise, those travelers interested in archeological matters should be given as precise a level of information as the translator is able to provide, whether it\'s a question of an \"old fortified town\" or \"the site of a stonghold from early times,\" or anything in between.

Depends upon the context --maybe I should have mentioned that before.