Re: I am learning

The problem with trying to be that "literal" is that word meanings do change over time. I don't know any translators that would give "bondsman" as a translation for "bondi" because the modern meaning contains the idea of servitude. They weren't servants. I believe the relationship was more contractual, much like a person today would have with their employer. So farmer doesn't "quite" work either, but they were more than a hired hand, and yeoman just sounds archaic. So I'll stick with farmer, understanding that the actual social position was more complex in a narrower sense perhaps) than that. If you choose to use the word bondsman or bondwoman, it is with the same understanding that the actual social position is more complex (though in a broader sense) than that. Being conservative or more liberal in translation is not better than... just a different way of approaching it. That's why I give both a word-by-word and a "modern" translation.

Laurel

----- Original Message -----

From: Dirk Howat

To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 10:28 AM

Subject: [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.