4 ms·

What is jarring to me are always the anachronisms. E.g. while I can imagine that some form of short "bro" could have existed earlier, when I read the line using

by acqq 6y ago

What is jarring to me are always the anachronisms. E.g. while I can imagine that some form of short "bro" could have existed earlier, when I read the line using "sushi" I can't help but remembering that "sushi" didn't exist until recently. Then I feel cheated, knowing that the original form said something with the different meaning, and I'm aware that I can't know what it is reading the "modern" "retelling". Another anachronism I remember: in another otherwise easy to read translation of an antique text (as is, originally written around 2000 years ago) the translator decided to regularly use the word "sadistic" which is constructed from the name of a real person living less than 300 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Sade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Sade Otherwise, modernizing meter (moving to another, more suitable to the the language of the new version, or even doing away with it if the goal is just to retell the story in a more approachable way, with the acceptance that it would simply be too clumsy in the target language) I consider very acceptable.

autisticcurio 6y ago
Dats sick bro!
ecdavis 6y ago
A strange aspect of our written culture is the extent to which documents are imbued with a sense of permanence from which they cannot easily escape. Beowulf was told and retold for at least decades - more likely centuries - before someone decided to write it down. Now, retellings[0] of the story are called translations, judged by many for their accuracy and historicity. Sashimi's been around for a long time. "Gravlax" would've been less alliterative. [0] It's telling that you put that word in quotes. Stories are things to be told, aren't they?
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  As the cousin thread points out, possible translations are a bit like Helen vs #nofilter Penelope: they may be either very beautiful or very faithful, but unless one has been blessed by the gods, that or is exclusive. Hipsters who prefer early Beoƿulf will enjoy http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_vitellius_a_xv_f132r http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_vitel... Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24293894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24293894 https://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bēowulf https://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bēowulf
goto11 6y ago
Translations of ancient texts are anachronisms per definition. The English language did not exist at the time.
- acqq 6y ago
  Ever watched some film about ancient Rome from around middle of 20th century? I am of course aware that the Romans didn't use shampoos and hairspray 2000 years ago, but that's the level of "incorrectness" that I'm used to accept in order to watch any such movie. Still, imagine that the protagonists in the same movie have Seiko watches -- that would be to me much more distracting. I'm of course aware that in both cases for somebody from that time much more would seem "wrong."
  - goto11 6y ago
    Yeah, it is funny which kinds of anachronisms we accept and which we don't. In movies it is common to have people in authentic-looking historical costumes using modern language and having modern values and thinking. In theater it is often the other way around - historical texts acted in modern or anachronistic costumes.
smhost 6y ago
> Then I feel cheated, knowing that the original form said something with the different meaning ironically, "meaning" as a thing that belongs to a technical dissection of single words/phrases is a fairly modern notion.
- acqq 6y ago
  > is a fairly modern notion I believe it is ancient, the way I remember the texts, the false etymologies of words and names are present even in the Bible. People always loved the stories about how why something is named something, even when the story is false, if it's good, it will be repeated. We are all storytellers. Exactly because I know "the story of sashimi" that word is for me jarring in Beowulf. It's not only anachronistic for the setting where the story takes place, it is also from the wrong part of the world, implying today's global trade of culinary fashion to that time and place: "skinny-dipping in a sleeping sea and made sashimi of some sea monsters."
  - goto11 6y ago
    Do you also consider "monsters" anachronistic?
    - acqq 6y ago
      > Do you also consider "monsters" anachronistic? No, but I'll enjoy reading your argument why you are asking that.
      - goto11 6y ago
        Monster is from Latin and only entered English after the Norman conquest. Anachronistic and from the wrong part of the world!
        acqq 6y ago
        > from the wrong part of the world Can that be argued? It's not that the "contact" and influence didn't exist, it's just that these specific people wouldn't use that language at that moment of time. The Romans were already on English ground long before Beowulf was written so using Latin words there is still much more acceptable to me -- it doesn't imply some access or historical impossibility that didn't exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar%27s_invasions_of_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar%27s_invasions_of... The same can't be said about sashimi. Again, like in the example of the movies (in other messages), I'm simply not expecting absolute purity, I just find Seiko watches too distracting there.

by acqq 6y ago

autisticcurio 6y ago

Dats sick bro!

ecdavis 6y ago

A strange aspect of our written culture is the extent to which documents are imbued with a sense of permanence from which they cannot easily escape. Beowulf was told and retold for at least decades - more likely centuries - before someone decided to write it down. Now, retellings[0] of the story are called translations, judged by many for their accuracy and historicity. Sashimi's been around for a long time. "Gravlax" would've been less alliterative. [0] It's telling that you put that word in quotes. Stories are things to be told, aren't they?

082349872349872 6y ago
As the cousin thread points out, possible translations are a bit like Helen vs #nofilter Penelope: they may be either very beautiful or very faithful, but unless one has been blessed by the gods, that or is exclusive. Hipsters who prefer early Beoƿulf will enjoy http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_vitellius_a_xv_f132r http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_vitel... Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24293894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24293894 https://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bēowulf https://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bēowulf

goto11 6y ago

Translations of ancient texts are anachronisms per definition. The English language did not exist at the time.

acqq 6y ago
Ever watched some film about ancient Rome from around middle of 20th century? I am of course aware that the Romans didn't use shampoos and hairspray 2000 years ago, but that's the level of "incorrectness" that I'm used to accept in order to watch any such movie. Still, imagine that the protagonists in the same movie have Seiko watches -- that would be to me much more distracting. I'm of course aware that in both cases for somebody from that time much more would seem "wrong."
- goto11 6y ago
  Yeah, it is funny which kinds of anachronisms we accept and which we don't. In movies it is common to have people in authentic-looking historical costumes using modern language and having modern values and thinking. In theater it is often the other way around - historical texts acted in modern or anachronistic costumes.

smhost 6y ago

> Then I feel cheated, knowing that the original form said something with the different meaning ironically, "meaning" as a thing that belongs to a technical dissection of single words/phrases is a fairly modern notion.

acqq 6y ago
> is a fairly modern notion I believe it is ancient, the way I remember the texts, the false etymologies of words and names are present even in the Bible. People always loved the stories about how why something is named something, even when the story is false, if it's good, it will be repeated. We are all storytellers. Exactly because I know "the story of sashimi" that word is for me jarring in Beowulf. It's not only anachronistic for the setting where the story takes place, it is also from the wrong part of the world, implying today's global trade of culinary fashion to that time and place: "skinny-dipping in a sleeping sea and made sashimi of some sea monsters."
- goto11 6y ago
  Do you also consider "monsters" anachronistic?
  - acqq 6y ago
    > Do you also consider "monsters" anachronistic? No, but I'll enjoy reading your argument why you are asking that.
    - goto11 6y ago
      Monster is from Latin and only entered English after the Norman conquest. Anachronistic and from the wrong part of the world!
      - acqq 6y ago
        > from the wrong part of the world Can that be argued? It's not that the "contact" and influence didn't exist, it's just that these specific people wouldn't use that language at that moment of time. The Romans were already on English ground long before Beowulf was written so using Latin words there is still much more acceptable to me -- it doesn't imply some access or historical impossibility that didn't exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar%27s_invasions_of_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar%27s_invasions_of... The same can't be said about sashimi. Again, like in the example of the movies (in other messages), I'm simply not expecting absolute purity, I just find Seiko watches too distracting there.