From: Laurel Bradshaw
Message: 4496
Date: 2004-10-29
----- Original Message -----From: Dirk HowatSent: Friday, October 29, 2004 10:28 AMSubject: [norse_course] Re: I am learning
Laurel,
I did not stat that this unfree class was bound to the land, I was
rather giving different meanings to what a bondi could be in any
context.
You stated:
>They held many rights under the law in
> comparison to the thralls. They could bear witness,
> produce verdicts, vote on public matters, attend
> religious ceremonies, and make and bear weapons
They were not then totally free, but constrained, bonded. It seems
that they were bounded under social norms and thus were bonded to a
higher ruling class. Laurel, if your supposition is correct then,
when a translator reads bondi in a ON text, as Sarah did, you would
translate it as bondsmen or bondwomen, as the case may be. Not
farmer as seemingly all translator normally do. Again, this is
probably a semantic correlation of functionality so the reader can
get the drift. But the translator could get it wrong. As you
mentioned, if you read a bondi going viking, well you would not want
to translate it as a farmer going viking, but a bondsmen going
viking. This then affirms a more literal translation method over a
translation method less conservative and more liberal where the
translator gives his or her own "take" on the story.