The Family Tree of the Valar

[Lhunithiliel]

Oh! Our dear Mr. Barliman Butterbur!

Now ... his name is one more example of what we are talking here about.

Barliman is being "translated" (I'll give you a back translation but not as one particular name) as:- the one who spills (or it can be also "serves") ale

Butterbur - Now, of course we have butter! We are a southern country! We have a lot of everything!
As for the name - the "butter" part in it was extremely freely interpreted and translating it back exactly it would be - spreading butter
And then for the "bur" - part he used the word/name of a plant, whose roots are used as some kind of food (mostly of course to animals) and it is of quite thick, and "fleshy" composition.
The problem here arises that in our own folk-lore the name of this plant has always had somewhat negative notion. We still call by this name a person who prefer living "on the back" of somebody else. I guess (though I am not an expert in botanics) that is because this plant must be some sort of a weed, a kind of a parasite-plant.

So, all in all, the whole name being translated in that manner, sounds ..... ridiculous and fails to bring a smile nor any particular simpathy for the character on behalf of the reader, as the intention of Tolkien must have been when giving him that particular name.

And what about the name of Robin Hood? All over the world this character is known with this particular name!!!! No translations of the "hood" - part (as far as I am aware of, of course!). Were the translators of past worse than the today's ones? I doubt it. Yet, they preferred leaving it unchanged. Why? I don't know. But if I were to translate these tales, I would've not gone for translating this part of the name. I would've left it as it is. It sounds so English! to every Bulgarian reader. Whatever word I could have used for its translation, it would've lost the English "air" about the character and the events.

The same goes with the name of another fictional character - the famous "Zorro" - the name meaning "male fox". I guess a translator could add "the fox" still keeping the name "Zorro", although of course this will then be a repetition of the meaning. Yet, it would still give the reader some notion about the character, for we all know that Zorro was famous for his disguise and cunning skills However, this way of handling this particular name would be appropriate for target-languages spoken by peoples where "fox" is known as a "symbol" of "cunning". Otherwise a translator might find her/himself forced to find another way of rendering the meaning of the name.... or just leave it as it is.

So...you see, one could give a lot of other examples, but then ... isn't it a fact that especially with names of that kind - names actually meaning sth., a translator should be extremely careful and ..... either leave them as they are or try to be closest possible to the original name. There can be a lot of "close" interpretations that would suit the target language-reader but then... such kind of rendering may lead to rather losing than gaining the desired effect.
That is why I said in one of my previous posts that the "note"-system is a good alternative.

I am thinking now again about the names of those Elves (in Tolkien's books) where we find the root/particle "gal" - meaning "light" (I am NOT an expert in T. languages by no means! ... but I think I am not wrong about this). In these cases and in most others, I wonder what's wrong with a note at the bottom of the page where the translator could give a suitable explanation on the name? The reader thus will receive a fair understanding on the meaning of the name of the particular character and will still know her/him with the original name - a name, that being not translated, will keep its "mistery" as the name of someone coming from far-away lands or/and times.

*******
A question aside, please: In the quote you provided I read:

...the generally botanical names of Bree...

I could find no word "bree" in my dictionaries. Any help?

 

[jallan]

Lhunithiel posted:

Barliman is being "translated" (I'll give you a back translation but not as one particular name) as:- the one who spills (or it can be also "serves") ale

That doesn’t sound good.

But is that really the best that could be done? Can’t you personally do better than that?

Butterbur - Now, of course we have butter! We are a southern country! We have a lot of everything!
As for the name - the "butter" part in it was extremely freely interpreted and translating it back exactly it would be - spreading butter
And then for the "bur" - part he used the word/name of a plant, whose roots are used as some kind of food (mostly of course to animals) and it is of quite thick, and "fleshy" composition.
The problem here arises that in our own folk-lore the name of this plant has always had somewhat negative notion. We still call by this name a person who prefer living "on the back" of somebody else. I guess (though I am not an expert in botanics) that is because this plant must be some sort of a weed, a kind of a parasite-plant.

Then a name with improper connotations was chosen. Would there be no better one?

Of course, a normal speaker of Bulgarian would not not know all names of all plants in all varieties of Bulgarian any more than an English speaker is aware of all plant names that are in use in all varieties of modern English. I don’t believe I ever encountered butterbur as a plant name myself (outside of Tolkien’s own explanation).

If there were is no such name in Bulgarian, an invented name meaning something like butter-root might do, especially if it also sounded something like a possible surname, as does English Butterfield or Butterworth.

I think one of the problems with translations is the timing. A translator is chosen and arrangements for payment are made and a deadline which would be a reasonable one for most books is set.

But the translator might be very knowledgeable in the source language and target language yet often not be able to quickly find proper translations for the names. A lot of research would be required into old place names, botanical names (standard and obolete and and dialectical) and so forth. This is not a kind of learning most have at their fingertips. Even with such learning picking proper names for the Shire geography might take a week of pondering and further research. The translator does what can be done in the time available but naturally the results are very mixed.

Complaints about some of these name-translations are common when translations of Tolkien are discussed. Often they could be fixed. But someone owns the translation. Translations as notoriously bad as the Swedish translation continue to be published because there is no competition. A particular publisher has exclusive rights to the work.

The Dutch translations is reputedly very good in its name translations. Of course Dutch and English are closely related languages.

But the Finnish translation also has a high reputation and Finnish is not even part of the Indo-European family of languages. Translations of the names into Finnish are, reputedly, often very free in meaning compared to the original English but apparently many feel exactly right in Finnish.

No translations of the "hood" - part (as far as I am aware of, of course!).

Probably because it is not felt to be meaningful. That is, Robin’s surname just happened to be Hood. (Some modern retellers explain it by an invented tale about Robin disguising himself with a hood but that’s not part of the genuine tradition.)

On the other hand I would think that Little in ‘Little John’ ought to be translated and possibly scarlet in ‘Will Scarlet’.

There is a difference also when translating a tale that has a local setting and one that does not, in the sense that in Tolkien’s story the names that appear as English are not supposed to actually be English at all.

How can there be modern English names in a tale supposedly dated to a time when even the geography of Europe was radically different? Tolkien pretends that he has made translations from the true languages and even substituted names for the true names because they have the proper feel in respect to modern English. Frodo and the Hobbits of the Shire are not supposed to actually be ‘English’ and to be speaking English.

A really good Bulgarian translation of The Lord of the Rings should have a Bulgarian air about it, should feel Bulgarian to the core (outside of all the Elvishness). No English feel should remain.

I am thinking now again about the names of those Elves (in Tolkien's books) where we find the root/particle "gal" - meaning "light" (I am NOT an expert in T. languages by no means! ... but I think I am not wrong about this). In these cases and in most others, I wonder what's wrong with a note at the bottom of the page where the translator could give a suitable explanation on the name?

In theory there would be nothing wrong, other than that this would interrupt the reading. Tolkien originally planned a full commentary index that would have translated most of these names. But it was never completed. That would probably have been a better solution.

But the meaning of many of these names is not clear to us. Some of the Tolkien’s linguistic material published after his death reveals him taking great pains years later to try and figure out what in the world these names are supposed to mean and sometimes concludes that the apparent meaning was not the real meaning or that the Men who gave the names were not as proficient in Elvish as they should have been.

Tolkien will sometimes give a meaning that is not what we would otherwise have guessed. (It is convenient for a inventor of a language to be able to create new stems in the proto-language as required.) In this kind of situation it woud be presumptious to officially add translations for all the Elvish names to the book. For some of them we still don’t know the meaning at all.

For example, as to gal-, in “The Etymologies” Tolkien provides two stems, GAL- ‘shine; variant of KAL’ and GALA- ‘thrive (prosper, be in health – be glad’. Under the latter Tolkien has the Sindarin form galw and remarks:

cf. names Galadhor, Galdor (later Gallor) – though these may contain GÁLAD.

So does Galdor have a meaning related to ‘prosperity’ or to galad- ‘tree’?

Also, as in the real world, what appears to be the literal meaning of a name is sometimes not its meaning at all. We know far less about Sindarin and Quenya then we do about English or Bulgarian.

 

[Lhunithiliel]

Originally posted by jallan
But is that really the best that could be done? Can't you personally do better than that?

Why would I ever?
See.... The village is called Bree and I have noticed that most names of the characters around this location start with this B and it somehow gets all related. Bree, Barliman Butterbur, Bob, Bill etc. And a keen reader is sure to notice it! When translating those names this "relation" is lost.

Of course I admit that there are names, especially of Hobbits, that a reader would find amusing if they are being translated.

The Men of Bree seemed all to have rather botanical (and to the Shire-folk rather odd) names, like Rushlight, Goatleaf, Heathertoes, Appledore, Thistlewool and Ferny (not to mention Butterbur). Some of the hobbits had similar names. The Mugworts, for instance, seemed numerous. But most of them had natural names, such as Banks, Brockhouse, Longholes, Sandheaver, and Tunnelly, many of which were used in the Shire.

from the book itself!
Ah, those names!

I think one of the problems with translations is the timing. A translator is chosen and arrangements for payment are made and a deadline which would be a reasonable one for most books is set.
But the translator might be very knowledgeable in the source language and target language yet often not be able to quickly find proper translations for the names. A lot of research would be required into old place names, botanical names (standard and obolete and and dialectical) and so forth. This is not a kind of learning most have at their fingertips. Even with such learning picking proper names for the Shire geography might take a week of pondering and further research. The translator does what can be done in the time available but naturally the results are very mixed.

I fully agree with this! Unfortunately it is very often that the translation (whatever it is) is needed for.... yesterday

I am criticising the translation - yes... but it does not mean that I do not respect the labour of the translator. It must have been a hard work! I only admit that the final result was not the desired, unfortunately!

A really good Bulgarian translation of The Lord of the Rings should have a Bulgarian air about it, should feel Bulgarian to the core (outside of all the Elvishness). No English feel should remain.In theory there would be nothing wrong, other than that this would interrupt the reading. Tolkien originally planned a full commentary index that would have translated most of these names. But it was never completed. That would probably have been a better solution.

Ha! Here we come to another "hot" topic! I was to bring it up anyway!

I have a question: How does a native English language speaker feel when reading the story as told in modern English language and yet there are some passages where one finds words/phrases/constructions of speech that are no more used in our days.
Of course, I can't be 100% positive about what is and what isn't used in modern English, as I am only a foreigner, but still there are such cases.
I am asking this question because the translator of the LOTR-book has used in many cases a language that we, the Bulgarians, know to have been used in old times. Words, structures of sentences.... little elements but ...
The point is that I do understand the translator's intention to try to bring that "air" of old times by using that old-fashion language. Of course, I can give examples, but they will mean nothing to you as you don't speak our language.
However, I found it a bit irritating - this mixture of modern and old Bulgarian. And yet I see the same phenomenon in the original language of the original story (written in English) and I wonder... how does an English-speaker feel about it.

 

[jallan]

Lhunithiel posted:

The point is that I do understand the translator's intention to try to bring that "air" of old times by using that old-fashion language. Of course, I can give examples, but they will mean nothing to you as you don't speak our language.
However, I found it a bit irritating - this mixture of modern and old Bulgarian. And yet I see the same phenomenon in the original language of the original story (written in English) and I wonder... how does an English-speaker feel about it.

This is very difficult to answer.

The short answer is that feelings vary. Go not to English speakers for council for they will say both yeah and nay.

But generally the mixture of styles in passages such as the one where Merry and Pippin meet Théoden are highly regarded. I recall someone calling it a “collision of styles”, approvingly because Tolkien makes it work magnificently here, playing the two different styles off each other to great effect.

But archaism in English is itself a controversial feature outside of any consideration of Tolkien. Some hate it whenever they see it. Some love it when well done and usually have no great problems with it when not so well done if they find other features of the literary work are satisfactory.

Those who find all archaism annoyingly artificial naturally find it annoyingly artificial in Tolkien. There was a strong reaction against archaism in English during the twentieth century, in my opinion an over-reaction.

But then as a child I read Howard Pyle’s retellings of the Arthurian legends which imitate the 15th century English of Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte Darthur. Indeed, one reason Arthurian legend was attractive to me was the odd, old language in which Malory wrote and which style was often imitated (at least in part) in retellings. I also read other material purposely written in styles less archaic, including novels set in medieval times

So I personally have no problems in reading English that has been somewhat medievalized. Some do have a problem, not having been exposed (at least to the point of being able to appreciate) older styles of writing.

Tolkien’s archaism of course came naturally, compared to some who know mostly only pseudo-archaism and Shakespeare. Shakespeare gets thrown at almost every English-speaking person and some end up hating him and his language.

But Tolkien's sources are earlier than Shakespeare and the Latinate Renassiance English that Shakespeare wrote. Tolkien’s language is not the same thing.

Tolkien could read Middle-English prose and poetry fluently. He was more aware than most of the different flavors that a word can have when used in a modern context and an older context. Tolkien knew both intellectually and instinctively what he was doing when he introduced old words and old syntax. He doesn’t make mistakes (unless doing this at all is considered a mistake).

My own feeling on first reading The Lord of the Rings was that one reason Tolkien’s telling felt so authentic was that the language felt authentic for the material he related, whether it was Hobbit colloquialisms and Ioreth’s babbling or the high style of the Denethor and Aragorn and Éowyn. Tolkien fluently and almost unnoticeably changed his style of narration to fit. When the change was noticeable it was entirely suitable to the context.

It is somewhat of a shock to open The Two Towers to one of the sections where no Hobbits appear and to see how archaic the language is when one dives into it in this fashion rather than being slowly and gradually led into it by reading the tale from the beginning.

I don’t mean Tolkien's narration is perfect. There is no such thing. (But different critics pick such different passage to praise or blame.)

And Tolkien is not unique in mixing old and modern language. Rudyard Kipling did so. Even Mark Twain did so. William Morris of course wrote a great deal in an invented archaic style which Tolkien imitated in his earliest writings. Some people cannot stand it. They are insensitive to the fun Morris was having with English. Some of those same people have no problems with James Joyce’s playing with English.

There seem to be politically correct and politically incorrect ways of playing with English.

I think that generally most of Tolkien's readers find his old language part of what they like about The Lord of the Rings and that those who do not like it are those who don’t like archaic language in any author.

Whether this works in another language depends, or course, on the translator as well as on what a particular reader might feel about use of archaic language in general. I don’t know whether there are examples of old Bulgarian literature to which Bulgarians are normally exposed as part of normal culture, things comparable to Shakespeare and Sir Thomas Malory (and Thor comics) or (but not so much today) the King James Bible translation. And I don't how capable the translator was in producing older Bulgarian that was suitable in tone.

I've read pseudo-archaism in English that I thought was awful. I've also read pseudo-archaism that I thought good and others thought awful and vice versa.

 

[Aiwendil2]

If any are interested, there's a debate going on over at the Barrow-downs regarding Tolkien's use of archaic language (though the thread begins with a slightly different topic): Dumbing Down the Books

 

[Lhunithiliel]

Aiwendil, I would like to THANK YOU for the opportunity to read that thread. I am still in its depths and I find it MOST interesting!!!!
I hope jallan also has read.
Now.. I have a few things to say as "echoing" that discussion ...but not yet... not untill I've finished reading through it all.
However, there is one thing (among many others !) that strongly impressed me - discussing the issue of "pro"-s and "con"-s in using a more "archaic" language when writing epics, some people refer to "War and Peace" stating that the language used there is NOT archaic.
I wonder did they read the book in original, meaning in Russian?
For I did while living in Russia. And to be honest, I would say that there IS some archaism to be found! Especially in the direct speech of the characters! There are words, expressions and whole structures that are no more used in modern Russian.
So... how can those people claim that this specific book is free from archaism ? Because to claim such a thing one should've read the book in original!
The same is the case with Tolkien.
While reading LOTR first, it was the translated version. But knowing the English language (though not an ex[pert like Bêthberry from the BD), I still "sensed" the presence of the more "archaic" English that the translator tried to transfer into his translation. This "transfer" however was not very successful IMHO and this , btw, made me look for the original.

But I find here a MAJOR difference!
It is ONE thing to comment on archaism in language when the mother tongue is concerned and quite ANOTHER issue when commenting archaism in the language of another nation!

What I mean is that archaic language is inevitably bound to the history of a certain nation/people/country.
For me, being a foreigner, the archaic language I witness in the Silmarillion and in many parts of the LOTR, only help me "feel" the "atmosphere" of the story and I therefore never question it! On the contrary! I find it most suitable and I enjoy it greatly!

But when it comes to the use of archaic language in my mother tonge, used to represent "archaic" times (if I may call them so), then the "magic" is lost. Why? Because the use of archaic Bulgarian (in my case) triggers into my mind that part of the history of my own people and country when that language was used and THAT history is so far and "alien" to the history of England that the old-fashion Bulgarian used all of a sudden gets to have a completely opposite effect than the intended one!

It's such a pity I cannot give examples, for they would mean nothing to you! But I suppose you understand what I mean.
And to explain it a bit more... the "old-fashion" Bulgarian used in the translation of the LOTR (in particular) brings to my mind (and to any Bulgarian reader's mind) the "air" of our own histroy and it sounds .... "not in the right place" (so to put it mildly) when used to describe events that happened in lands far away from ours and to represent a culture/folklore/historical background etc. so different from ours.

I will certainly post some more thoughts when I finish reading through the whole of the discussion in the BD.

Once again, thank you for the link provided!

 

[jallan]

Lhunithel posted:

And to explain it a bit more... the "old-fashion" Bulgarian used in the translation of the LOTR (in particular) brings to my mind (and to any Bulgarian reader's mind) the "air" of our own histroy and it sounds .... "not in the right place" (so to put it mildly) when used to describe events that happened in lands far away from ours and to represent a culture/folklore/historical background etc. so different from ours.

If I understand you, the problem is that archaic Bulgarian tends to sound too firmly Bulgarian and only Bulgarian (but modern Bulgarian does not).

Archaic English has a different feel. The King James Bible translation was really a reworking of earlier translations and so already archaic in its own time and so blamed by many when it was first released.

But until the middle of the twentieth century it was the translation. But of course it does not speak of English matters and is very literal, often rendering Hebrew idioms word by word. Though many of these Hebrew idioms have since entered into English the language and the translation was great revered it’s language was not felt to be especially English. Rather it was a language of long ago and far away (as well as being a language on which hymn and prayers and such were based).

That style was often used as a basis for other translations from Greek or Latin or other tongues, such as Sir Richard Burton’s translation of The 1001 Nights from Arabic.

Along with this tradition of translation there is a stream of archaic medieval language beginning with Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe and continuing through novels and tales of medieval times or earlier times. But it is not limited to tales set in England. None of William Morris’s romances written in his own archaic style based in part on Old Norse are explicitly or at all set in England.

And only some of Shakespeare’s plays are set in England.

So to the English ear there is nothing especially odd in reading a translation of Hindu folk tales in something like Elizabethan English or an Icelandic saga or The Book of Popul Voh or indeed any old literature. Rudyard Kipling regularly rendered eastern languages by a kind of archaic English including the words thee and thou.

There were complaints about archaic style being used for such things and currently the complainers have won. Modern translations mostly use minimal archaism. But the complaints were that archaism was itself a bad translation tehnique, not that it felt unsuitable because it was English archaic language.

Indeed, often it wasn’t especially English. Use of archaic language seemed to make it easer to render foreign idioms word for word without sounding stilted because oddities (to the modern ear) of word and expression are expected to appear in archaic language. This of course can be and was badly used by some.

I should mention also that use of archaic language did not have any particular political or philosophical connotations other than the particular idiosyncratic ideas that a writer might have as to how to write using archaic langauge.

In literature it either marked the medieval specifically or marked a tale as being set far off in time or space or both, in part indicating that the tale was probably not English (or was medieval English).

To English ears archaic language tends to feel timeless and placeless, though individual uses may make time and place very evident.

 

[Lhunithiliel]

First of all, tell me, do you participate in that discussion at the BD too?
For there's one person there who has your style of expressing and even a similar name.
Anyway, here, or there, it's always a pleasure to read you!

But I wanted in fact to bring a little .... what to call it.... clarification.
When we say "archaic Bulgarian" or "archaic any language" how much back in time do we go?
According to what I've just read, what you're explaining here is that the English "archaic" language has several variants - the Bible style, the medieval style etc.

In fact this is the same what we have here and I suppose the same phenomenon is to be observed with all the languages spoken in Europe.

There is one style=variant of "archaic" language used for Biblical stories.Yet other styles are used for various historical periods of time. . For example the language used for the Greek Myths is very different from the one used in Romeo and Juliet, which in turn is very different from .... say... stories from the 18-th century...
But all are said to be 'archaic". Right? And thus we call them from the point of view of our modern-times language.

What I wanted to explain is that when I am saying "archaic" English I am aware of everything that you have explained in your post above.
But the same is applicable to my mother tongue as well! There are various "archaic" styles in it too.

My point is that when using one or another "archaic" style, one should take into consideration perhaps the usually accepted by the readers style. By "usual" I mean the one that people expect to read in when a story from a certain historical period of time is concerned.
To make myself clear - one would not expect to find the Bible-style archaic language in a story like Romeo and Juliet (for ex.) or in fairy tales.

Now... this principle, when applied in translating foreign authors becomes even harder to avoid. We, as readers are used to read the Greek Myths (for ex.) in one specific "archaic" style of language and if this same style is used to tell a story from the Bible (or v.v..) it will sound ... "out of place".
But here also comes another difficulty - the one which I was speaking about in my previous post.
I am used to read in one specific "archaic" style the works of our national writers from 18-th or 19-th century (for ex.) and it has become a "stereotype" language for the literature of that specific historical time. But as this particular style of language tells about particular events in a particular time from our national history and in a particular place on our national territory, the "stereotype" becomes even stronger. The mind just automatically triggers the specific time from the national history used to be described in this particular style of language. And what is more, this style becomes more than ever "national" as it was used by national writers.
So far so good! Nothing extraordinary or unusual.

But all of a sudden this 18-th/19-th-century-and-very-national archaic style is being used to describe events and the speech of characters from times and places that have nothing to do with the "national" times and places.
And what happens is that the mind automatically gets confused! And it refuses to understand fully and in all its beauty the story told.
This is what happened to my mind when reading LOTR in translation. And I did not like it.

I am dealing with translation daily. I know that in order to make a good one out of even a most prosaic manual, I have to use a style and structure of a language which is expected by the one who is later going to read it! And when it comes to literature, it becomes even harder.
I realize that it all comes down to a "patternized" state of mind. I hate it as I hate any patterns.... but there seems not to be any way out! It is as it is!
I would've been more than delighted to hear a priest telling me a story from the Bible in a more modern style, which i am more easily to understand, but .... no. He uses the Bible-pattern style! Yet my mind is happy with such a pattern because it is used to the "fact" that a Biblical story should sound in this specific language and not in any other!
Just as well, my mind will understand and fully accept and be happy with "M'Lady" or "M'Lord" NOT translated when I am reading a story that is happening in an English language speaking country, while it will certainly "feel" dull and confused if these were translated in my moter's tongue.
I guess any mind is happy when dealing with such patterns.

A translator should therefore be very careful when chosing one or another variant out of the various ones that the "archaic" or/and the modern mother tongue has.

 

[jallan]

Lhunithiel posted:

First of all, tell me, do you participate in that discussion at the BD too?
For there's one person there who has your style of expressing and even a similar name.

Yes, that is me, though I don’t post there regularly.

Lhunithiel posted:

There is one style=variant of "archaic" language used for Biblical stories.Yet other styles are used for various historical periods of time. . For example the language used for the Greek Myths is very different from the one used in Romeo and Juliet, which in turn is very different from .... say... stories from the 18-th century...
But all are said to be 'archaic". Right? And thus we call them from the point of view of our modern-times language.

Yes.

Tolkien’s archaism is very much like that of William Morris which feels general European with a very northern flavor. But Tolkien tones down the archaism and the northerness.

Walter Scott archaism which when badly imitated is called Wardour Street English or tushery is far more obviously high medieval (though as it developed it became less and less genuinely medieval as modern authors writing stories in this dialect increasingly imitated each other rather than actual medieval writing).

Eighteenth century English would be called old-fashioned rather than archaic. We are talking now of gentlemen squires and western adventurers and pirates. Kinghthood has gone to seed.

I certainly wouldn’t know exactly what would suit in Bulgarian for archaic Tolkien. But it should feel medieval or older.

I have a feeling that one needs a translator who has been immersed in pre-Ottoman Bulgarian literature and who could write in prose that was understandable to moderns but would be suggestive of that period.

 

[Lhunithiliel]

Originally posted by jallan
I certainly wouldn’t know exactly what would suit in Bulgarian for archaic Tolkien. But it should feel medieval or older.

I have a feeling that one needs a translator who has been immersed in pre-Ottoman Bulgarian literature and who could write in prose that was understandable to moderns but would be suggestive of that period.

Medieval IMO. But the one particular type that a Bulgarian reader is used to reading in when it comes to stories about knights, princes and princesses..... The type Don Quijote is read in.(for ex.)

Older - no. And a pre-Otoman ... Oh! This is already, I'm afraid, rather a dead language than a language that could be called "archaic". 12-th - 14-th century. Or perhaps I'd better call it "archaic" and the later ones - "old-fashioned".

BTW, if Tolkien's styles are "archaic" then imagine how he sounds translated in the 19-th-century-national-style!

I do think however that it would be wrong to use only one style.
I personally do not object even a slightest bit against the different styles Tolkien used. I like it! And I think that if I were to translate him I should apply different styles as well....

Thank you for this most interesting discussion!

 

[jallan]

Lhunithiel posted:

Medieval IMO. But the one particular type that a Bulgarian reader is used to reading in when it comes to stories about knights, princes and princesses..... The type Don Quijote is read in.(for ex.)

That sounds exactly right.

Older - no. And a pre-Otoman ... Oh! This is already, I'm afraid, rather a dead language than a language that could be called "archaic".

One would certainly not use that language as it is found any more than Walter Scott used Middle English as he found it.

In his introduction to Ivanhoe Walter Scott explains his philosophy and method of solving the problem of making the dialogue in Ivanhoe seem authentically medieval without using medieval English as actually written.

If you have not read this, do see Ivanhoe and search for “Dryasdust”.

The oddity is that to an early twenty-first century reader Scott’s normal early nineteenth century writing style may seem more out of date and artificial than the truly artificial language of his medieval dialogues.

All things being equal, someone like Walter Scott or William Morris or J.R.R. Tolkien who knows Middle English or even Old English fluently is more likely to be able to create an adaption of it in modern English that more authentically conveys the flavor of the original.

However unintelligable the authentic old language as a whole is to a modern reader, there are individual phrases which may be rendered with little or no change or with half-translation and there are outmoded ways of saying things that can be translated word by word.

Tolkien’s archaic language (even in Isildur’s account of the ring) is less so than the language in Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte D'Arthur which is normally published with change of spelling only as still very readable by moderns, with very occasional checking of a glossary. The language is far simpler than most eighteenth century English literary prose.

 

[Elbereth]

Ok....is it just me or has the topic of this thread been completely ignored. I'm sure whatever you are discussing is oh so interesting to you...but after scanning the discussion, I have found it to be completely off topic from the thread's original purpose. Now I have no problem to have the discussion end if there is nothing more to say about the topic at hand. But this disregard for the thread's original purpose is simply annoying.

Now I realize you people don't have respect for me as a scholar on TTF....but I would have expected that you would have respect enough to at least stay on the topic and give me something to work with here....and you wonder why I don't post in these threads anymore.

 

[Lhunithiliel]

Oh! Elbereth-Giltoniel!

Yes, I agree we lost the topic of this thread. It's just that we got ....carried away...

But the point is, our off-topic discussion has stopped and you can turn the original topic back.

And why do you underestimate your 'schollary" knowledge in Tolkien?! I have read your posts and I know you can have a solid "schollary" approach towards a topic when you want. I don't believe your knowledge is less than mine, say,...if not even larger.
And it's always been a pleasure to read you!
So... me and jallan have stepped off the road and it is now clear for discussing further the main topic of this thread.

Sincerely
Lhun

 

[Walter]

Let's suppose you are a teacher, Elbereth. You enter class one morning, bring a sheet of paper and a couple of coloured pencils. You draw a sun into one of the upper corners and tell the children to draw a garden with a couple of nice trees and then leave the class saying: "Draw!"

Now if you don't show up for a couple of days without poking your nose in every now and then, would you be surprised if you found the children have - after having drawn a few trees - moved on to drawing a house, cars and whatnot else? After a few days scarcely anyone thought the teacher would ever show up again, anyway....

A thread, if it is supposed to develop the way the one who started it intends, needs some careful "gardening". One shouldn't be surprised if it went off topic within some 40 days of absence.

But I agree with Lhun, please go on with your original topic, I wouldn't think there is much damage done with a little discussion which is highly interesting, but somewhat off-topic.

 

[Elbereth]

Yes I realize, Walter that I should have spoken up long before, when I first saw the topic veer off track. However, I figured that you folks here in the book threads would bring the conversation back to the subject at hand...as you all seem so adament about keeping threads on TTF on topic and spam-free. I guess I overestimated you all.

However, don't lecture me about how one should manage a thread. Believe me, if I had more time to commit to this section, I would rule it with an iron fist. (just ask the Periaur...I can be very strict when I want to be.) But then again, I came in here and started this topic...because I am interested in this topic and wanted to discuss it and learn...and have fun. I didn't realize that because I started a topic in this section it would have to turn into a chore. Sorry...I didn't realize that was how things are run here now. My mistake.




PS: Lhun & Jallan, there are no hard feelings directed toward you...but I'm sure if you put yourself in my place you could understand why I was so perturbed.

With that said...let's drop this and get the topic back on track.

 

[Lhunithiliel]

Elbereth, why be so bitter about other people's opinions? Walter was not criticisizing you. Just explaining how it came that the topic of your thread was lost. Besides, he very well knows what it is to run a thread and even a whole web-site, believe me! His knowledge of that matter is much larger than mine or yours as he himself runs a site which happens to be a much bigger place than this single thread. Why not take a good advice instead of getting angry? I am really surprised to see you attacking the so called by you "book-people"!

You may "rule" with whatever fist you like but really... I don't see any reason to be so angry and frustrated!

I figured that you folks here in the book threads would bring the conversation back to the subject at hand...as you all seem so adament about keeping threads on TTF on topic and spam-free.

Was there any spamming, Elbereth?

But then again, I came in here and started this topic...because I am interested in this topic and wanted to discuss it and learn...and have fun.

It very much depends on how you understand "discuss and learn" and "have fun".

But ... anyway, I suggest we stopped arguing about this!

I am looking forward to see you bringing back to life the original topic of this thread.

 

[Walter]

There is indeed one thing I find rather puzzling about the Ainur. In the Book of Lost Tales I we learn:

Behold, Ilúvatar dwelt alone. Before all things he sang into being the Ainur first, and greatest is their power and glory of all his creatures within the world and without. Thereafter he fashioned them dwellings in the void, and dwelt among them, teaching them all manner of things, and the greatest of these was music.

BoLT1 - Ainulindalë

As a sidenote, this part somehow reminds of the Kalevala, where "singing" represents a magical way of creating, changing or moving things. In "The Singing Match" it sounds quite impressive:

The old Väinämöinen sang:
the lakes rippled, the earth shook,
the copper mountains trembled
the sturdy boulders rumbled
the cliffs flew in two
the rocks cracked upon the shores.

Kalevala 3:295ff

In the published "Silmarillion" no details are mentioned about how Eru created the Ainur:

There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else was made.

After the creation of Eä many of the Ainur enter Eä and a few of them become the "Valar".

Now, this "Genealogy" of the Valar would suggest that they are all brethren or siblings, representing purely spiritual - or angelic, as Tolkien preferred - beings.

But already in the next chapter ("The coming of the Valar" in BoLT1 or the "Valaquenta" in the Sil) it sounds rather different. There the Valar very much resemble the Aesir of the Eddas - or even the Greek/Roman pantheon - with various relationships, family-trees, different traits, etc. One is tempted to look for similarities between Manwë and Odin or Zeus, Melkor and Loki, Tulkas and Thor or Tyr (except that Melkor gets Mjöllnir/Grond ), Ulmo and Poseidon, etc.,etc.. And overall, in the Lost Tales and the Silmarillion, the Valar somehow appear much less spiritual or angelic, in fact rather mundane, at times with serious shortcomings.

But the question which arises now is: "How does this fit together?". Why this sudden change from one chapter to the next in the oldest version? Why such relationships?