Why archaic and dialectal English is bad in an international translation

[ott]

This is unrelated to the topic of creating a separate version with simpler vocabulary.

It is an invitation, an exercise to show how one would/could translate a complex text from a very different era into understandable English, without use of archaic and/or dialectal terms, thus not unrelated.

stuurman.jpg (12.07 KiB) Viewed 2993 times

[ott]

I suppose Wralda is a little complicated, because although he creates both good and evil things, he is ultimately good, which would suggest that the evil things are there for a reason?

According to this Primal History, Wralda did not create the good and evil things. Earth (herself having been wrought by Time) brought them forth.

[ott]

Wralda cannot be seen, so perhaps he had to give the daughters joyful visions while his od created life inside them. So, this would make most sense to me: “As soon as they had matured, they experienced pleasure and delight in their dreams.” (or: in their visions)
(...)
A combined alternative translation of the past two lines would be: “(...) they had visions of pleasure and delight (...)”

Sandbach translated Ottema's dromen van Wr.alda into visions of Wr-alda.

Aside: Vision is from Latin videre (to see) which may have derived from Fryas WIT (white, wit, wet; once equated* to SÉ: sea) and/or WÉTA (to know). [*WITKÉNING. THÀT IS SÉKÉNING]

DRÁMA has well fitting cognates:
dreams - English
dromen -Dutch
drome - Afrikaans
Träume - German
dreamen - Frisian
drømme - Danish
drömmar - Swedish
drømmer - Norse
drauma - Icelandic

To translate it as visions would be unforgivable, i.m.o.

[ott]

Yes, there will be overlap between threads.

This translating challenge was intended to demonstrate [1] how important it is to [1a] read carefully, [1b] study the whole codex (in its original language) in order to best know how the authors thought, [2] that this sort of translating is not as easy as it may seem when you have not tried, [3] that it remains a matter of personal taste.

[ott]

To me, it makes most sense to say “Wralda, who alone is God and eternal.”

God (supreme being) will have derived from a more mundane adjective, meaning good (or whole). Otherwise it would be very strange to also describe animals as being GOD.

[ott]

I do not think that translating DRÁMA as visions (or sights, mental images etc.) is an issue, since it makes more sense in that context

I asked my oldest two children (almost 7 and almost 9) if they knew what a 'visioen' is. Even the oldest, who reads too much for his age and has a great vocabulary, had no idea. I could explain the word to them as 'daydream'. Even our 5 years old knew what dreams are and that they can be about a desire. When I asked her she answered: I dreamt of riding a horse.

When I said 'unforgivable', that was hyperbolical, but I really don't see why 'vision' would be preferable to 'dreams' here, as the context makes clear that they were not ordinary. I know I used the term 'vision' in a presentation once, and I have used it before in context of 'vision quest'. Anyway, de gustibus non disputandum est.