Comment

Comment by watwut

It is one of many decisions like that. The other were the decision to match up original poem length - the translation was supposed to be line for line. And also have each line to have consistent rhythm (iambic pentameter) so that poem sounds. The argument was both of these decisions was that the original poem sounded well too and people were repeated it to each other because it sounded well and they liked it.

This has consequences - the translation is shorter then some other translations, because she cant just pile multiple adjectives in a long sentence to describe one word in the original. It also sounds good, because long descriptions of something that was short in original do change how passages come across to the reader. What was originally quick and fun becomes descriptive and slow.

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?

Personally, I found it interesting to read about these dilemmas and about thought process itself. You may agree or disagree with the choices, but the intro made the choices more transparent.

parent watwut 3 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton