----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 5:19
PM
Subject: Re: [norse_course] 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 -----
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.
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