My take is that we need to translate the ON text as the author
intended it which means we have to put ourselves in his/her shoes,
and in that society. The problem I see I contempory individuals
trying to modernize an old text, taking liberty and really, thinking
that they are more important then the original author because they
take artistic liberalities and essentially write version 2 in
english (their own) rather then version 1 in english.
You stated:
" Bondi were "bound" only in the sense that they gave allegience to
a greater chieftain, and did not possess hereditary rights to
their land. The bondi often participated in sea-faring
expeditions, hunts, and raids in order to supplement
their wealth. 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."
Thus,
Bondi gave alligence, i.e. fielity, to a frauja, a chieftain.
Bondi, did not possess hereditary rights of landownership.
This implies being bonded to another person (of greater stature) and
the inability to own land.
What would that signify. Not a total freeman, or farmer in our
modern sense because he/she was not able to own land. A citizen with
rights and obligations, like going to war. This is one reason why,
IMO, the literal translatio works. We sometimes need to change our
conception of the meanings of our words. Semantics change and
sometimes we need to change semantics as well.
I believe Sarah did it right, bondi = bondsmen/women whatever the
case may be.
Farmer would not work because as you mentioned a bondi may go on
expidentions and did not have the right to own land like farmers can
do in our society. Thus, if you translated as farmer, the
contemporary reader may get the wrong impression that the bondi had
total freedom, i.e. the right to own property among other things.
Serf may not be totally accurate either, but IMO, it is closer to
the intentionality of the author then farmer.
You went further:
"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. "
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
If bondi was used for a man going viking then I might translate
bondi if it came up mulitple times as first:
bondsmen
karl
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.