Llama Non,

You stated:
I think it was JRR Tolkien (or was it?) who once commented on the
problems of the word "chieftain" having Amerindian connotations
(this talking about translating Beowulf), but by now "chieftain"
seems quite a standard way of translating höfðingi, and so it might
be more confusing--dishonest even?--to use different titles for the
same person. Since hersir is a different word, it might be a good
idea to consistently translate this "lord" in distinction to
höfðingi. It's what I tend to do, but I doubt I live up to any
rigorous standards


The word hofdingi and hersir have different connotations. You are
right hofdingi is cheiftain whereas hersir is definately related to
war, her = war is a very common word and broadly Germanic. So while
hofdingi, (hof - temple, abode) would more correlate to POLITICAL
leader being it is related to more or less geographic connotations,
again, hof a place. Whereas, hersir would be translated as Warlord,
or Warleader, being her is related to war. This is why, IMO, a
literal translation is preferable. But other may take a different
appoach.








--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Dirk, Sarah, Patricia, Laurel, Mona (and everyone else interested
in
> boendr!), hello!
>
> --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Dirk Howat"
<dirk_howat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > This implies being bonded to another person (of greater stature)
> and
> > the inability to own land.
>
> Here's part of the entry in Cleasby & Vigfusson:
>
> "properly a part, act. from búa (turned into a noun subst., cp.
> frændi, fjándi), A. S. buan; Germ, bauer, and therefore originally
a
> till er of the ground, husbandman, but it always involved the
sense
> of ownership, and included all owners of land (or boer, q. v.).
from
> the petty freeholder to the franklin, and esp. the-class
represented
> by the yeoman of England generally or the statesman of
Westmoreland
> and Cumberland..."
>
>
http://penguin.pearson.swarthmore.edu/~scrist1/scanned_books/html/oi_
> cleasbyvigfusson/b0074.html
>
> My apologies if everyone's already read this in the course of this
> discussion! The article goes on to say that bóndi acquired
> derogatory connotations in 'despotic' Norway (of commoners as
> opposed to nobility), but positive ones in the Icelandic
> commonwealth (where it simply excluded priests & knights). All of
> which makes me wonder if--in spite of your reservation's Dirk--
> "farmer" might be the best all purpose translation after all, as
it
> has that ambiguity in modern English. That seems the most
literal,
> and it could refer to some poor farmer with one cow and a small
> field, or it might be a large landowner with wealth and influence.
>
> More specific words like franklin or freeholder might work in some
> contexts--I'd have to check the exact meanings of these (and so
> might many readers...)--but serf and bondsman maybe stray too far?
>
>
>
> > 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
>
>
> This is a subject I've been thinking about a bit recently. It's
> often what I do too: it allows you to cunningly slip in the
various
> meanings contained in the original word without being too verbose,
> or having recourse to clunking explanations. But on the other
hand,
> I've read some saga translation reviews which frown on this
> as "inconsistency". And I can see the point that if a particular
> term is used in the original, for example with legal implications
in
> Norse society, it might be important to stick to one English term
to
> translate it. The choice of an English word might then be
> relatively arbitrary (it might even be a more or less artificial
> calque like "landmen" or "landed men"), but by constant use, a
sense
> of the connotations of the original word would come out.
>
> I think it was JRR Tolkien (or was it?) who once commented on the
> problems of the word "chieftain" having Amerindian connotations
> (this talking about translating Beowulf), but by now "chieftain"
> seems quite a standard way of translating höfðingi, and so it
might
> be more confusing--dishonest even?--to use different titles for
the
> same person. Since hersir is a different word, it might be a good
> idea to consistently translate this "lord" in distinction to
> höfðingi. It's what I tend to do, but I doubt I live up to any
> rigorous standards...
>
> There are also stylistic arguments for at least aiming at
> consistency, where possible. For example if a certain word or
> phrase is repeated in the original, there might be a good
aesthetic
> reason for this. On the whole, I try not to lose such effects,
even
> if the result sounds strange in English. Strange is sometimes
good!
>
> But the other side to this is that, in some areas, Icelandic has a
> more varied vocabulary than English: mælti, kvað, sagði (all of
> which suggest English "said")--yes there are alternatives, but
they
> usually introduce some extra meaning not in the
> original: "declared", "objected", etc. So where the meaning and
> aesthetics aren't affected I do add some arbitrary variety to
> balence this out. Or that's my excuse, anyway.
>
>
> >
> > If bondi was used for a man going viking then I might translate
> > bondi if it came up mulitple times as first:
> >
> > bondsmen
> > karl
>
> The second of these could suggest to people with some knowledge of
> Old Norse, or at least the names for classes of people, that the
> word in the original was karl (man, chap; commoner, peasant)--
which
> some might see as misleading--although as far as I know the terms
> karl and bóndi aren't always mutually exclusive. Not necessarily
> disagreeing with you on this one--just something else to think
about
> (as if all that grammar's not enough!). Here's a question: do you
> know if jarl and bóndi are exclusive? I get the impression that
> they would be.
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
> Sometimes this can be not so much changing English back into what
it
> was, as creating a sort of lingua franca for the past to talk to
the
> present--if that makes sense?--something that is clear to modern
> readers but also has a terminology consistent with that of the
> original. Actually this is a huge balencing act, if you sacrifice
> some ease of understanding on the part of the casual reader, you
> might get a more strictly acurate version. By chosing unfamiliar
> words (archaic or modern), you could remove these political
> associations and force the reader to learn the acurate meaning.
But
> then go too far and it could get intimidating, or be seen as
> shirking the duty of translator. But by picking a term with some
> associations, but hopefully not too many misleading ones, you
might
> just get the best of both worlds: something the casual reader can
> understand, but which repays closer study.
>
> To some extent this is a matter of taste. Anyway, I'm waffling,
so
> I'll shut up now.
>
> Llama Nom