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

Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 68 posts

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#31

Post by arethuza »

autisticcurio wrote: post #21
tptacek wrote: post #11

This calls to mind a lot of what McWhorter says about Shakespeare --- that it's an emperor's new clothes situation, we're only pretending we can understand 16th century English, but really not getting any of the original intent because none of the references make sense, and that if we really want to understand what those works mean, we need to update the language. If you read interviews Headley has given, you get the…

I sometimes wonder if some of the references to the mythical beasts like fire breathing dragons are simply, some now extinct species of animal with embellishments like fire breathing. Lets face it, oral tradition came with a certain degree of embellishment and we know dinosaurs used to exist, but what's the chances of finding the remains of an extinct animal if we tried to look for it? Perhaps the Dodo would be an ex…

My understanding is that modern archaeology is extremely meticulous about examining pretty much every aspect of materials found during excavations.

Here are some resources from Historic England on the subject:

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/ani...

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#32

Post by 082349872349872 »

ecdavis wrote: post #26
acqq wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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_vitel...

Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24293894

https://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bēowulf

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#33

Post by [deleted] »

082349872349872 wrote: post #27
cousin_it wrote: post #18

A page comparing many many many translations of Beowulf: http://www.paddletrips.net/beowulf/html/journey.html One particular prose translation that I like: http://oaks.nvg.org/beowulf.html As an aside, I don't understand why people translating works of martial glory choose rap as the modern equivalent. People who actually fight in wars, from ancient times to now, tend to talk in "high" language.

(a) Anglo-saxon poetry was beat-oriented and heavy on alliteration, wordplay, and external references. Why would rap[1] not be a suitable[2] choice? (b) "People who actually fight in wars ... have always spoken in a more dignified[3] way." Pray tell, in which country's military have you served? [1] it's done more than Milton could: popularised poetry in the hood. [2] A cousin thread mentions "... an age when the swor…

[deleted]

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#34

Post by 082349872349872 »

shakna wrote: post #14
morelisp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emily Wilson's translation of the Odyssey is similar in goal (flowing English, modern imagery, "scrap[ing] away all the centuries of verbal and ideological buildup") though not quite the same tone - Greek theater isn't the Saxon tavern, after all. https://www.emilyrcwilson.com/the-odyssey

> "Rosy-fingered dawn, in this new version, takes on many minor variations. “When early Dawn revealed her rose-red hands.” “The early Dawn was born; her fingers bloomed.” My favorite rendering is “Soon Dawn appeared and touched the sky with roses.” It is so wonderfully delicate. It evokes, beautifully, the sky’s subtle changes at first light: how the colors phase in mildly, almost imperceptibly, the way a piece of wh…

(off topic, please help:

I'm still searching for sensus tactilis pre-dawn... I don't think it was in the Georgics, but it was from something awfully similar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24243550

    Xena: I wake up every morning, ere the dawn is rhododactylous
          Who needs to wait for daylight? I just work by _sensus tactilis_.
any ideas?)

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#35

Post by arethuza »

cousin_it wrote: post #18

A page comparing many many many translations of Beowulf: http://www.paddletrips.net/beowulf/html/journey.html One particular prose translation that I like: http://oaks.nvg.org/beowulf.html As an aside, I don't understand why people translating works of martial glory choose rap as the modern equivalent. People who actually fight in wars, from ancient times to now, tend to talk in "high" language.

'People who actually fight in wars, from ancient times to now, tend to talk in "high" language.'

Most people I've known who were at the sharp end in wars tend to avoid talking about it at all.

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#36

Post by StavrosK »

cousin_it wrote: post #18

A page comparing many many many translations of Beowulf: http://www.paddletrips.net/beowulf/html/journey.html One particular prose translation that I like: http://oaks.nvg.org/beowulf.html As an aside, I don't understand why people translating works of martial glory choose rap as the modern equivalent. People who actually fight in wars, from ancient times to now, tend to talk in "high" language.

Soldiers talk in "high" language? You obviously don't watch the soldiers I watch.

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#37

Post by arethuza »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #17

>I'm the strongest and the boldest, and the bravest and the best. Yes: I mean — I may have bathed in the blood of beasts, netted five foul ogres at once, smashed my way into a troll den and come out swinging, gone skinny-dipping in a sleeping sea and made sashimi of some sea monsters. Anyone who f s with the Geats? Bro, they have to f with me. ----- Absolutely amazing. Captures the ethos of the hero so well. Sometime…

I suspect these were stories meant to be told to drunk warriors.

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#38

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

cousin_it wrote: post #18

A page comparing many many many translations of Beowulf: http://www.paddletrips.net/beowulf/html/journey.html One particular prose translation that I like: http://oaks.nvg.org/beowulf.html As an aside, I don't understand why people translating works of martial glory choose rap as the modern equivalent. People who actually fight in wars, from ancient times to now, tend to talk in "high" language.

> As an aside, I don't understand why people translating works of martial glory choose rap as the modern equivalent. People who actually fight in wars, from ancient times to now, tend to talk in "high" language.

This isn’t borne out by the evidence. Homeric Greek, though a slight mixture of dialects because bards would travel from community to community performing it, probably would not have been seen as a "high language" by its original audience. The Kyrgyz Manas (the epic which can be readily compared to rap in both themes and, with many reciters, in the delivery) also isn’t appreciably “higher” than ordinary spoken Kyrgyz.

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#39

Post by aptwebapps »

tptacek wrote: post #11

This calls to mind a lot of what McWhorter says about Shakespeare --- that it's an emperor's new clothes situation, we're only pretending we can understand 16th century English, but really not getting any of the original intent because none of the references make sense, and that if we really want to understand what those works mean, we need to update the language. If you read interviews Headley has given, you get the…

I remember the first time I read a heavily-footnoted Shakespeare play and discovering that for every word or passage I thought I needed to look up there were two or three that I did as well but did not realize simply because the language has changed so much. I.e., the modern meaning made enough sense that I would have been none the wiser without the footnote.

But while an updated Shakespeare might be good thing if well done, to me it would be a new thing, and not Shakespeare.

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#40

Post by goto11 »

acqq wrote: post #15
saagarjha wrote: post #2

I'm not sure I can understand the strange juxtaposition of "modern" language with thousand-year-old meter.

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…

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