From: Daniel Bray
Message: 4548
Date: 2004-11-02
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 interestedinboendr!), hello! --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Dirk Howat"<dirk_howat@...>wrote:This implies being bonded to another person (of greater stature)andthe 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 originallyatill er of the ground, husbandman, but it always involved thesenseof ownership, and included all owners of land (or boer, q. v.).fromthe petty freeholder to the franklin, and esp. the-classrepresentedby the yeoman of England generally or the statesman ofWestmorelandand 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, asithas that ambiguity in modern English. That seems the mostliteral,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 itina few meanings. For example, if bondi was used 3 times the same text, in the same context a farmer, not a noble, I wouldtranslatebondi as: bondsmen serf farmer karlThis 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 thevariousmeanings contained in the original word without being too verbose, or having recourse to clunking explanations. But on the otherhand,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 implicationsinNorse society, it might be important to stick to one English termtotranslate 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, asenseof 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 itmightbe more confusing--dishonest even?--to use different titles forthesame 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 goodaestheticreason for this. On the whole, I try not to lose such effects,evenif the result sounds strange in English. Strange is sometimesgood!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, buttheyusually 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 karlThe 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)--whichsome 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 thinkabout(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 paradigmshift.Iunderstand some people want to modernize it for whatever their reasons are, like many Christian translate the bible indifferentways to fullfill their political agenda. Literal translationstakespolitical 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 whatitwas, as creating a sort of lingua franca for the past to talk tothepresent--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.Butthen 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, youmightjust 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,soI'll shut up now. Llama Nom------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/GP4qlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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 Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/norse_course/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/