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

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#41

Post by aptwebapps »

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…

Dinosaurs were not around during the period in question, but their fossils were, as were the crocodilians and large monitor lizards. So if dragons are based on a real thing, I prefer one of those things. But I also think it's a mistake to discount the imaginations and creativity of previous generations. They might simply have imagined a scaled up garden lizard, adding fire-breathing at some point along the way.

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#42

Post by goto11 »

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…

Shakespeare have a lot of references to biblical and classical mythology which was common shared knowledge at the time but less known today. I wonder what would be an appropriate translation to a modern context. WWII? Start Wars or Lord of the Rings references?

(I'm not being sarcastic, I think it is a genuinely interesting question.)

But in general the strength of Shakespeare is the language and poetry, so it will be difficult to modernize without losing what makes him great in the first place.

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#43

Post by simonh »

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 think it may be more accurate to say that Tolkien intended Lord of the Rings to sound like Beowulf, but I'm not qualified to comment on how successful he was or what biases he may have introduced in his translation.

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#44

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

#45

Post by [deleted] »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #38
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 lang…

[deleted]

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#46

Post by aptwebapps »

drbw wrote: post #24
_ZeD_ wrote: post #20

Was I the only one reading the title and thinking about the Beowulf cluster[1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_cluster

No, but now I'm thinking about the early days of Slashdot, when "imagine a beowulf cluster of those" was a common in-joke. Along with the obligatory dozen claiming to be "frist".

I actually learned to code on a Beowulf cluster. The first programs I wrote to completion were on an LP mud that ran on a cluster in the creator's basement. Not because it was necessary for a mud with never more then ten users at once, but just because.

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#47

Post by smhost »

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…

> 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.

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#48

Post by acqq »

smhost wrote: post #47
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…

> 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.

> 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."

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#49

Post by goto11 »

acqq wrote: post #48
smhost wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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…

Do you also consider "monsters" anachronistic?

Re: Not the 'Beowulf' You Think You Know

#50

Post by acqq »

goto11 wrote: post #49
acqq wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Do you also consider "monsters" anachronistic?

> Do you also consider "monsters" anachronistic?

No, but I'll enjoy reading your argument why you are asking that.

Post reply on HN