Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Which Odyssey translation wins a blind reading test?

homer.scrivium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 82 posts

Re: Which Odyssey translation wins a blind reading test?

#31

Post by oliculipolicula »

gbjcantab wrote: post #18
oliculipolicula wrote: post #2

Sorry this could be offensive didn't mean to be.. Any Greek speakers who studied Homer in school here can share what are your favourite English translations? Prefer Lattimore or Fitzgerald as being closer to original?

I’m not quite who you asked; I’m a native English speaker but I’ve read much more Homer in Greek than in English. (Say, I’ve read a little more than half the Odyssey in Greek.) Honestly none of the English translations really capture the magic, at least for me. Skimming through a bit, I’d say Fagles is the closest. But it’s like saying: “Any Texans who ate BBQ growing up, can you share your favorite fast food places?…

Yours is the answer I didn't know I needed. Thank you.

The burger analogy is just right! It might sound dumb but as somebody who can't afford a Texan childood from the shop... BK, which happens to be a childhood staple of mine.. makes me feel like I could make a sweet sauce that actual Texans could like. Not MacDonalds.

To bring the analogy back: It does seem like Nolan's adaptation would be not be popular with you or your schoolmates. But a screenplay based off Fagles' might have a chance

Re: Which Odyssey translation wins a blind reading test?

#32

Post by oliculipolicula »

tptacek wrote: post #10
oliculipolicula wrote: post #2

Sorry this could be offensive didn't mean to be.. Any Greek speakers who studied Homer in school here can share what are your favourite English translations? Prefer Lattimore or Fitzgerald as being closer to original?

Derek Thompson's Plain English podcast just had Emily Wilson on talking about comparisons between the translations, and quite a bit of the iconic lines of the Odyssey from the midcentury translations are kind of just made up. Like, "skilled in all ways of contending" from "man of many turns"; "the wanderer, harried for years on end" --- find that in the Greek?

Yes, how would the average classicist or modern Greek translate polymetis? Polytropos? Into current day American vernacular

Lattimore's "the man of many ways" sounds closer to the original than Wilson's "complicated man" but neither sounds made up

Re: Which Odyssey translation wins a blind reading test?

#33

Post by KaiserPro »

suddenlybananas wrote: post #29

>Do readers prefer archaic language? >Emily Wilson argues that readers may mistake archaic language for authority or authenticity [..] Among translations published since 1960, it nearly disappears. Readers were not simply choosing the oldest-sounding English. I don't think this necessarily follows, a translation written in 1960 can have a more contemporary English than one written in 1980. That being said, I don't re…

ITs a hard call.

I think the archaic language is both an appeal and a barrier. The thing that got me into classics was a radio show of a standup doing comedy about classics[1] (I like roman/greek history, but more about buildings and things rather than culture.)

I like the poetic archaic english in excerpts.

BUT

a whole book if it, thats hard.

[1]https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001brj5

I should add that had it been a long dry slog with serious people talking seriously about greek grammar, then I wouldn't have bothered. However because its a comedy, ostensibly, it stuck for me.

Re: Which Odyssey translation wins a blind reading test?

#34

Post by JamesSwift »

npinsker wrote: post #7

“How much you enjoy the prose” doesn’t really seem like the metric by which we should rank these? I’d prefer to read whatever’s most faithful to the original, which isn’t measured here.

Translation = words + intent. Literal translation frequently loses the intent encoded into the chosen language, especially for creative writing. If I translate "youre a real piece of work" literally into another language, Ive likely lost the entire point of the phrase. Should we prefer that translation instead of one that either spells out the underhandedness of the comment in the other language? Or which replaces it with its own approximately similar idiom?

Re: Which Odyssey translation wins a blind reading test?

#35

Post by breezybottom »

npinsker wrote: post #7

“How much you enjoy the prose” doesn’t really seem like the metric by which we should rank these? I’d prefer to read whatever’s most faithful to the original, which isn’t measured here.

Faithful in meter and form? Faithful in semantic meaning? The two usually work against each other.

Re: Which Odyssey translation wins a blind reading test?

#36

Post by thadt »

oliculipolicula wrote: post #31
gbjcantab wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not quite who you asked; I’m a native English speaker but I’ve read much more Homer in Greek than in English. (Say, I’ve read a little more than half the Odyssey in Greek.) Honestly none of the English translations really capture the magic, at least for me. Skimming through a bit, I’d say Fagles is the closest. But it’s like saying: “Any Texans who ate BBQ growing up, can you share your favorite fast food places?…

Yours is the answer I didn't know I needed. Thank you. The burger analogy is just right! It might sound dumb but as somebody who can't afford a Texan childood from the shop... BK, which happens to be a childhood staple of mine.. makes me feel like I could make a sweet sauce that actual Texans could like. Not MacDonalds. To bring the analogy back: It does seem like Nolan's adaptation would be not be popular with you o…

Childhood card-holding Texan here: can confirm the king's flavor is closer to that of country mesquite smoked BBQ than McDonald's.

I mean, it is comparing burgers and briskets, but if we're going for which translation is the most "faithful" ...

Re: Which Odyssey translation wins a blind reading test?

#37

Post by nemo »

rob74 wrote: post #19
oliculipolicula wrote: post #2

Sorry this could be offensive didn't mean to be.. Any Greek speakers who studied Homer in school here can share what are your favourite English translations? Prefer Lattimore or Fitzgerald as being closer to original?

I'm not really familiar with ancient or modern Greek, but according to https://speakgreektome.com/blog/ancient-vs-modern-greek/#hom... , people who can only read modern Greek need a translation too if they want to read Homer's works ("While reading, many words here and there will be familiar to a Greek or at least will make sense via etymological references, it’s impossible, though, for average folk to understand a t…

Yeah, I studied Koine, Attic, and Homeric Greek over eight years in school, Modern Greek's the Greek of the Eastern Romans who spoke an evolving Koine (this language they actually called Rhomaic) while their intellectuals turned to Atticizing. When Greek became a nation state Atticizing was idealized (called Katharevousa) so Attic and Koine are more intelligible (I can't speak much modern Greek and have no listening comp, but can read menus and signs and monuments in Greece), but Homeric Greek is a distinct dialect with its own weird vocabulary, weird particles, lots of complicated inflections later Greek lost like the dual forms, and so on. More like Middle English, familiar but very weird. I did a seminar where we read Homer's Odyssey in Greek, any English translations will inevitably be an interpretation reflecting the thoughts and values of the translator. Lattimore's good in some areas, terrible in others, Emily Wilson's great in some areas, terrible in others. I never read Fagles but assume it's the same.

Re: Which Odyssey translation wins a blind reading test?

#38

Post by AlanYx »

tptacek wrote: post #10
oliculipolicula wrote: post #2

Sorry this could be offensive didn't mean to be.. Any Greek speakers who studied Homer in school here can share what are your favourite English translations? Prefer Lattimore or Fitzgerald as being closer to original?

Derek Thompson's Plain English podcast just had Emily Wilson on talking about comparisons between the translations, and quite a bit of the iconic lines of the Odyssey from the midcentury translations are kind of just made up. Like, "skilled in all ways of contending" from "man of many turns"; "the wanderer, harried for years on end" --- find that in the Greek?

"wine dark sea" is the best example of this. It's a poetic/literary leap by Chapman and Pope that then became a functional convention in most subsequent translations.

The alternative translations aren't any better though, at least in English.

Re: Which Odyssey translation wins a blind reading test?

#39

Post by pelagicAustral »

Ensorceled wrote: post #13
comrade1234 wrote: post #3

At this point I don't think I'll see the movie because I don't want it to ruin the good memories/scenes I have in my mind from the book I read a few years ago. Maybe someday but I think I'll reread the book before then. Also, there was too much data n the linked article. :)

I'm curious, why do you think the movie will ruin your good memories?

Curiosity killed the cat

Re: Which Odyssey translation wins a blind reading test?

#40

Post by suddenlybananas »

KaiserPro wrote: post #33
suddenlybananas wrote: post #29

>Do readers prefer archaic language? >Emily Wilson argues that readers may mistake archaic language for authority or authenticity [..] Among translations published since 1960, it nearly disappears. Readers were not simply choosing the oldest-sounding English. I don't think this necessarily follows, a translation written in 1960 can have a more contemporary English than one written in 1980. That being said, I don't re…

ITs a hard call. I think the archaic language is both an appeal and a barrier. The thing that got me into classics was a radio show of a standup doing comedy about classics[1] (I like roman/greek history, but more about buildings and things rather than culture.) I like the poetic archaic english in excerpts. BUT a whole book if it, thats hard. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001brj5 I should add that had it bee…

Oh I totally agree there is a place for more accessible language, but my point is that Wilson argues that archaic language is no more faithful. Whether a translation should be faithful or not is another question.

>“Mild stylistic archaism is often accepted without question in translations of ancient texts and can be presented as if it were a mark of authenticity. But of course, the English of the nineteenth or early twentieth century is no closer to Homeric Greek than the language of today. The use of a noncolloquial or archaizing linguistic register can blind readers to the real, inevitable, and vast gap between the Greek original and any modern translation.”

However, I think this is mistaken if Homer himself was writing in an archaic style at the time (which seems to be the case looking at the literature). If he's writing in an archaic style, then a faithful English translation ought to try and capture that aspect of the poetry.

Post reply on HN