Llama Non,
You stated:
I think it was JRR Tolkien (or was it?) who once commented on the
problems of the word "chieftain" having Amerindian connotations
(this talking about translating Beowulf), but by now "chieftain"
seems quite a standard way of translating höfðingi, and so it might
be more confusing--dishonest even?--to use different titles for the
same person. Since hersir is a different word, it might be a good
idea to consistently translate this "lord" in distinction to
höfðingi. It's what I tend to do, but I doubt I live up to any
rigorous standards
The word hofdingi and hersir have different connotations. You are
right hofdingi is cheiftain whereas hersir is definately related to
war, her = war is a very common word and broadly Germanic. So while
hofdingi, (hof - temple, abode) would more correlate to POLITICAL
leader being it is related to more or less geographic connotations,
again, hof a place. Whereas, hersir would be translated as Warlord,
or Warleader, being her is related to war. This is why, IMO, a
literal translation is preferable. But other may take a different
appoach.
--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...>
wrote:
Dirk, Sarah, Patricia, Laurel, Mona (and everyone else interested
in
boendr!), hello!
--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Dirk Howat"
<dirk_howat@...>
wrote:
This implies being bonded to another person (of greater stature)
and
the inability to own land.
Here's part of the entry in Cleasby & Vigfusson:
"properly a part, act. from búa (turned into a noun subst., cp.
frændi, fjándi), A. S. buan; Germ, bauer, and therefore originally
a
till er of the ground, husbandman, but it always involved the
sense
of ownership, and included all owners of land (or boer, q. v.).
from
the petty freeholder to the franklin, and esp. the-class
represented
by the yeoman of England generally or the statesman of
Westmoreland
and Cumberland..."
http://penguin.pearson.swarthmore.edu/~scrist1/scanned_books/html/oi_
cleasbyvigfusson/b0074.html
My apologies if everyone's already read this in the course of this
discussion! The article goes on to say that bóndi acquired
derogatory connotations in 'despotic' Norway (of commoners as
opposed to nobility), but positive ones in the Icelandic
commonwealth (where it simply excluded priests & knights). All of
which makes me wonder if--in spite of your reservation's Dirk--
"farmer" might be the best all purpose translation after all, as
it
has that ambiguity in modern English. That seems the most
literal,
and it could refer to some poor farmer with one cow and a small
field, or it might be a large landowner with wealth and influence.
More specific words like franklin or freeholder might work in some
contexts--I'd have to check the exact meanings of these (and so
might many readers...)--but serf and bondsman maybe stray too far?
Here is what I do:
If you come across the word multiple times, I would translate it
in
a few meanings. For example, if bondi was used 3 times the same
text, in the same context a farmer, not a noble, I would
translate
bondi as:
bondsmen
serf
farmer
karl
This is a subject I've been thinking about a bit recently. It's
often what I do too: it allows you to cunningly slip in the
various
meanings contained in the original word without being too verbose,
or having recourse to clunking explanations. But on the other
hand,
I've read some saga translation reviews which frown on this
as "inconsistency". And I can see the point that if a particular
term is used in the original, for example with legal implications
in
Norse society, it might be important to stick to one English term
to
translate it. The choice of an English word might then be
relatively arbitrary (it might even be a more or less artificial
calque like "landmen" or "landed men"), but by constant use, a
sense
of the connotations of the original word would come out.
I think it was JRR Tolkien (or was it?) who once commented on the
problems of the word "chieftain" having Amerindian connotations
(this talking about translating Beowulf), but by now "chieftain"
seems quite a standard way of translating höfðingi, and so it
might
be more confusing--dishonest even?--to use different titles for
the
same person. Since hersir is a different word, it might be a good
idea to consistently translate this "lord" in distinction to
höfðingi. It's what I tend to do, but I doubt I live up to any
rigorous standards...
There are also stylistic arguments for at least aiming at
consistency, where possible. For example if a certain word or
phrase is repeated in the original, there might be a good
aesthetic
reason for this. On the whole, I try not to lose such effects,
even
if the result sounds strange in English. Strange is sometimes
good!
But the other side to this is that, in some areas, Icelandic has a
more varied vocabulary than English: mælti, kvað, sagði (all of
which suggest English "said")--yes there are alternatives, but
they
usually introduce some extra meaning not in the
original: "declared", "objected", etc. So where the meaning and
aesthetics aren't affected I do add some arbitrary variety to
balence this out. Or that's my excuse, anyway.
If bondi was used for a man going viking then I might translate
bondi if it came up mulitple times as first:
bondsmen
karl
The second of these could suggest to people with some knowledge of
Old Norse, or at least the names for classes of people, that the
word in the original was karl (man, chap; commoner, peasant)--
which
some might see as misleading--although as far as I know the terms
karl and bóndi aren't always mutually exclusive. Not necessarily
disagreeing with you on this one--just something else to think
about
(as if all that grammar's not enough!). Here's a question: do you
know if jarl and bóndi are exclusive? I get the impression that
they would be.
Again, one of the uses of the literal translation is changing
English back into more like it was. We thus gain a paradigm
shift.
I
understand some people want to modernize it for whatever their
reasons are, like many Christian translate the bible in
different
ways to fullfill their political agenda. Literal translations
takes
political motives out of it and immerses the reader into that
society as realistically as possible.
Sometimes this can be not so much changing English back into what
it
was, as creating a sort of lingua franca for the past to talk to
the
present--if that makes sense?--something that is clear to modern
readers but also has a terminology consistent with that of the
original. Actually this is a huge balencing act, if you sacrifice
some ease of understanding on the part of the casual reader, you
might get a more strictly acurate version. By chosing unfamiliar
words (archaic or modern), you could remove these political
associations and force the reader to learn the acurate meaning.
But
then go too far and it could get intimidating, or be seen as
shirking the duty of translator. But by picking a term with some
associations, but hopefully not too many misleading ones, you
might
just get the best of both worlds: something the casual reader can
understand, but which repays closer study.
To some extent this is a matter of taste. Anyway, I'm waffling,
so
I'll shut up now.
Llama Nom
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/GP4qlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
Homepage: http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/
To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail to:
norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/norse_course/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/