3 ms·

>Likewise, do you translate it into contemporary English or archaic one? Old texts are sometimes intentionally translated into archaic language, so that you fee

>Likewise, do you translate it into contemporary English or archaic one? Old texts are sometimes intentionally translated into archaic language, so that you feel like reading something old. But, when they created it originally, they used their own contemporary language and made it sound pleasant to themselves. So, do you pick old words or new words for the same thing? Something to note about Homer is that his language is archaic for the classical Greeks, it is associated with an older, mythical era, and the reason why so many of those words have standard translations is because they literally only appear in Homer one time--ἅπαξ λεγόμενα--and we only know what they mean because the Greeks knew what they meant, and the Romans learned from them, and so on and so forth. Ancient language translation is steeped in tradition, it cannot be extricated from tradition, there is never a new translation since even reading an ancient text requires such extensive textual apparatus, commentarial support, and background knowledge that you are, in effect, translating as you read it by yourself anyway. But the Illiad and the Odyssey are special in this regard, since they are repetitive by nature, many many words and lines are repeated in the text, usually to mark progression to a new part of the story (since they were originally declaimed orally from memory)--they should be repeated, or else you lose the gravity of the original.

watwut 3y ago
Yes it is second oldest poem we have. And it comes from oral tradition, meaning it existed before being written. That does not mean it felt turgid or unnatural to its contemporaries.
- Mlller 3y ago
  On the other hand, the point at issue was not turgidness or unnaturalness but (emphasis mine): “Likewise, do you translate it into contemporary English or archaic one? Old texts are sometimes intentionally translated into archaic language, so that you feel like reading something old. But, when they created it originally, they used their own contemporary language and made it sound pleasant to themselves. So, do you pick old words or new words for the same thing?” and GPʼs point is salient and correct; to be perhaps more clear: the homeric style was already archaic when the Odyssey was composed. Moreover, it was probably intentionally and somewhat artificially made archaic, e.g. using the old inflectional suffix /‑φι(ν)/ also in the singular and not only in the plural, where it was solely used originally. AFAIK, epic poems telling about times far away are often composed in an archaic style, e.g. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildebrandslied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildebrandslied>, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibelungenlied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibelungenlied>; I guess Beowulf is similar.
  - watwut 3y ago
    > the homeric style was already archaic when the Odyssey was composed. No, his point was that it is archaic compared to what we call classical Greek. That is absolutely not the same as being archaic when composed. Homer is second oldest written poem. It comes from oral tradition, meaning people saying it to each other out of memory. It not using exactly same language as newer texts is to be expected. Homer was not written to be read as a book, it was meant to be remembered and listened to. It has structure that facilitates remembering. Both turgidness and unnaturalness goes massively against this very practical need/goal (and both are translators choices). An entirely different text that was rewritten from even older text is not an argument for anything Homer. Also, maybe as tangent, Homer is not just fights with monsters people seem to assume. That is just minor part of it. It has very long passages with very low key events where not much is happening or where characters scheme/negotiate or where only funny stuff happens. I swear to god Odysseus goes to underworld purely so that they could somehow get your favorite dead characters in. It has fun structure story wise and that did not happened by random.
    - Mlller 3y ago
      The point at issue I was referring to was yours, not his. I had the passage in mind I quoted; to quote and refer more concisely and precisely perhaps: “But, when they created it [= Iliad or Odyssey] originally, they used their own contemporary language” No, “they” did not. The Iliadʼs and Odysseyʼs language was nobodyʼs contemporary language. Not for the 8th century, not for the 5th. It has too many archaisms and dialectisms (aiolisms). (Note: Some forms seen as aiolisms in earlier research are understood as archaisms now.) Yes, people enjoyed it, very much. But people can enjoy something that sounds archaic and unusual, not like contemporary speech. Particularly, when it is an epic poem about older times. That is quite common. I for one enjoy that, too, YMMV. Your point “it was meant to be remembered and listened to” is difficult to unpack: Yes, this is true both for the time before and after a Homeric poem was composed as the whole that we know, but true in a very different manner. In any case, it is no evidence against archaisms (and aiolisms). So: “do you translate it into contemporary English or archaic one” Archaic would be a little bit more authentic than contemporary. Contemporary may be a better fit for many readers today – perhaps the ease of access is paramount when the translation competes with infinitely more permanently accessible information and entertainment than there was in the 8th century BC.

watwut 3y ago

Yes it is second oldest poem we have. And it comes from oral tradition, meaning it existed before being written. That does not mean it felt turgid or unnatural to its contemporaries.

Mlller 3y ago
On the other hand, the point at issue was not turgidness or unnaturalness but (emphasis mine): “Likewise, do you translate it into contemporary English or archaic one? Old texts are sometimes intentionally translated into archaic language, so that you feel like reading something old. But, when they created it originally, they used their own contemporary language and made it sound pleasant to themselves. So, do you pick old words or new words for the same thing?” and GPʼs point is salient and correct; to be perhaps more clear: the homeric style was already archaic when the Odyssey was composed. Moreover, it was probably intentionally and somewhat artificially made archaic, e.g. using the old inflectional suffix /‑φι(ν)/ also in the singular and not only in the plural, where it was solely used originally. AFAIK, epic poems telling about times far away are often composed in an archaic style, e.g. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildebrandslied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildebrandslied>, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibelungenlied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibelungenlied>; I guess Beowulf is similar.
- watwut 3y ago
  > the homeric style was already archaic when the Odyssey was composed. No, his point was that it is archaic compared to what we call classical Greek. That is absolutely not the same as being archaic when composed. Homer is second oldest written poem. It comes from oral tradition, meaning people saying it to each other out of memory. It not using exactly same language as newer texts is to be expected. Homer was not written to be read as a book, it was meant to be remembered and listened to. It has structure that facilitates remembering. Both turgidness and unnaturalness goes massively against this very practical need/goal (and both are translators choices). An entirely different text that was rewritten from even older text is not an argument for anything Homer. Also, maybe as tangent, Homer is not just fights with monsters people seem to assume. That is just minor part of it. It has very long passages with very low key events where not much is happening or where characters scheme/negotiate or where only funny stuff happens. I swear to god Odysseus goes to underworld purely so that they could somehow get your favorite dead characters in. It has fun structure story wise and that did not happened by random.
  - Mlller 3y ago
    The point at issue I was referring to was yours, not his. I had the passage in mind I quoted; to quote and refer more concisely and precisely perhaps: “But, when they created it [= Iliad or Odyssey] originally, they used their own contemporary language” No, “they” did not. The Iliadʼs and Odysseyʼs language was nobodyʼs contemporary language. Not for the 8th century, not for the 5th. It has too many archaisms and dialectisms (aiolisms). (Note: Some forms seen as aiolisms in earlier research are understood as archaisms now.) Yes, people enjoyed it, very much. But people can enjoy something that sounds archaic and unusual, not like contemporary speech. Particularly, when it is an epic poem about older times. That is quite common. I for one enjoy that, too, YMMV. Your point “it was meant to be remembered and listened to” is difficult to unpack: Yes, this is true both for the time before and after a Homeric poem was composed as the whole that we know, but true in a very different manner. In any case, it is no evidence against archaisms (and aiolisms). So: “do you translate it into contemporary English or archaic one” Archaic would be a little bit more authentic than contemporary. Contemporary may be a better fit for many readers today – perhaps the ease of access is paramount when the translation competes with infinitely more permanently accessible information and entertainment than there was in the 8th century BC.