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 -----
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.