Elfling

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

SMF - Just Installed!

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Lotr Movie Dialogues  (Read 1764 times)

Thorsten Renk

  • Yahoo elfling member
  • Sr. Member
  • Newbie
  • ****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 462
    • View Profile
Lotr Movie Dialogues
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2007, 05:00:00 PM »

 (11)

_Havo dad, Legolas._ 'Sit down, Legolas'

This is a good example to illustrate the bias of one's own language in
translating. In German, there are two verbs: 'sitzen' = the act of
sitting in a chair and 'sich setzen' = 'the act of sitting down into a
chair'. In English, 'down' expresses the difference. Being German, I
would not naturally translate 'sit down' literally into Sindarin,
instead I would classify this as idiomatic English. I can imagine that
for a native English speaker the translation is obvious. In this case, I
have no idea what the correct solution would be. In some instances
Tolkien did translations into Elvish which for my taste are close to
English, in others his solutions are strikingly different.

(12)

_Losto Caradhras, sedho, hodo, nuitho I 'ruith!_ 'Sleep Caradhras, be
still, lie still, hold [your] wrath'

No comments from my side.

(13)

_Annon Edhellen edro hi ammen. Fennas Nogothrim lasto beth lammen._
'Gate of the Elves open now for me. Doorway of the Dwarf-folk listen to
the word of my tongue.'

By Tolkien obviously.

The translation should be 'open now for us' as _ammen_ doesn't mean
'for me', seems to be a mistake by Gwaith.

(14)

Haldir: _Mae govannen, Legolas Thranduilion._ Legolas: _Govannas vîn
gwennen le, Haldir o Lórien._ Haldir: _a Aragorn in Dúnedain istannen le
ammen._ Aragorn: _Haldir._

Haldir: 'Welcome Legolas, son of Thranduil.'  Legolas: 'Our
Fellowship stands in your debt, Haldir of Lórien' (lit. [Is] obliged)
Haldir: 'Aragorn of Dúnedain, you are known to us.' [Lit. 'Oh Aragorn
of the Dúnedain, you [are] known to us'.] Aragorn: 'Haldir'.

The main issue with this one seems to be the form _?istannen_ 'known'.
The problem is that the verb _isto_ is translated 'to have knowledge'
in the Etymologies and is identified as intransitive. Furthermore, its
past tense is given as _istas_ or _sint_ in the 'Addenda and
Corrigenda'.

However, for an intransitive verb, we cannot have passive forms. As the
verb cannot take an object, the subject-object relation cannot be
inverted. 'To know [something]' can evidently take an object and
therefore a passive participle 'known' can be formed, this is not
possibly for 'to have knowledge'.

Thus, any form _?istannen/?istassen/?sinnen_, regardless how one
attempts to form the passive participle, is manifestly not in agreement
with Tolkien's design. Forms of that type are nevertheless often
encountered in Neo-Sindarin (including my own) for the simple reason
that a passive participle 'known' ist just so useful to have. It's
one of the instances where I use a form knowing it to be wrong,
nevertheless this needs to be pointed out once in a while.

Additional comments and discussion welcome!

* Thorsten



[elfling ID#33895]
[original subject: Lotr Movie Dialogues]
« Last Edit: March 06, 2007, 05:00:00 PM by Thorsten Renk »
Logged

Atwe

  • Yahoo elfling member
  • Sr. Member
  • Newbie
  • ****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 658
    • View Profile
Lotr Movie Dialogues
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2007, 05:00:00 PM »

Dear Thorsten,

Regarding the transitiveness of _ista-_ I would like to note that
although indeed in the Etymologies the verb is marked as intransitive,
however in the Etymological Notes on ósanwe-kenta the root _isi_ and its
derivative seem to be transitive (as it is used as an auxiliary) and
although that is Quenya, it may indicate a shift in Tolkien's
intentions.


Thomas Ferencz

Let's discuss Eldarin languages - http://aglardh.middangeard.org.uk
Tolkien Wiktionary - http://eldarinwiki.middangeard.org.uk

-------------------------------------------------------------
Thorsten Renk wrote:




The main issue with this one seems to be the form _?istannen_ 'known'.
The problem is that the verb _isto_ is translated ‘to have knowledge’ in
the Etymologies and is identified as intransitive. Furthermore, its past
tense is given as _istas_ or _sint_ in the 'Addenda and Corrigenda'.

However, for an intransitive verb, we cannot have passive forms. As the
verb cannot take an object, the subject-object relation cannot be
inverted. 'To know [something]' can evidently take an object and
therefore a passive participle 'known' can be formed, this is not
possibly for 'to have knowledge'.











[elfling ID#33896]
[original subject: Lotr Movie Dialogues]
« Last Edit: March 06, 2007, 05:00:00 PM by Atwe »
Logged

Elhath

  • Yahoo elfling member
  • Sr. Member
  • Newbie
  • ****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 1218
    • View Profile
Lotr Movie Dialogues
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2007, 05:00:00 PM »

Thorsten Renk wrote:

> _Havo dad, Legolas._ 'Sit down, Legolas'
>
> This is a good example to illustrate the bias of one's own language
> in translating. In German, there are two verbs: 'sitzen' = the act of
> sitting in a chair and 'sich setzen' = 'the act of sitting down into
> a chair'. In English, 'down' expresses the difference. Being
> German, I would not naturally translate 'sit down' literally into
> Sindarin, instead I would classify this as idiomatic English. I can
> imagine that for a native English speaker the translation is obvious.
> In this case, I have no idea what the correct solution would be. In
> some instances Tolkien did translations into Elvish which for my taste
> are close to English, in others his solutions are strikingly
> different.

Note of interest: in both Finnish and Welsh the cognate of 'down' tends
to get included in this request.

Elhath



[elfling ID#33897]
[original subject: Lotr Movie Dialogues]
« Last Edit: March 06, 2007, 05:00:00 PM by Elhath »
Logged

Roman Rausch

  • Yahoo elfling member
  • Sr. Member
  • Newbie
  • ****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Lotr Movie Dialogues
« Reply #18 on: March 08, 2007, 05:00:00 PM »

Thorsten Renk wrote:
> (12)
>
> _Losto Caradhras, sedho, hodo, nuitho I 'ruith!_ 'Sleep Caradhras,
> be still, lie still, hold [your] wrath'
>
> No comments from my side.

Regarding _I 'ruith_ Gwaith gives _*gruith_ 'wrath' < g-ruk-
'terror' (wj:415). There in q&e we have _gruitha-_ 'terrify'
attested.

But wouldn't _*gruith_ rather mean 'terror'? Compare: n _maetha_ 'to
fight', _maeth_ 'battle, fight' (mak-) (caused by fighting) n
_nautha-_ 'conceive', _nauth_ 'thought' (nowo-) (caused by
conceiving) s _awartha_ 'forsake', _awarth_ 'abandonment' (war-)
(caused by forsaking) And so on..

Furthermore, it seems that a reconstruction is not needed here because
of the attested _rûth_ 'anger', as in _Aranrúth_ 'King's Ire'
(Silmarillion index).


I would also like to point out that there is a certain problem in
deriving _*losta-_ 'sleep'. In the 'Etymologies' we have the root
los- sleep' and with prefixed sundóma ã'los- 'dream'. Derivatives are
q _olor_ 'dream', q _lóre_ 'slumber', _lorna_ 'asleep', _oltha-_
'to dream'.

However, in ut:396-397 a reinterpretation of _olor_ or olo-s is given.
It is now neither 'dream' in the sense of 'desire', nor in the sense
of 'pictures seen while sleeping', but rather 'imagination,
construction of the mind, vision of an object of art before its
creation'. This reinterpretation is important because it is the
underlying meaning of Gandalf's Quenya name _Olórin_. The question is
now how los- 'sleep' would be linked with this reinterpretation and
whether it still can mean 'sleep' at all.


Rr.



[elfling ID#33902]
[original subject: Lotr Movie Dialogues]
« Last Edit: March 08, 2007, 05:00:00 PM by Roman Rausch »
Logged

Thorsten Renk

  • Yahoo elfling member
  • Sr. Member
  • Newbie
  • ****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 462
    • View Profile
Lotr Movie Dialogues
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2007, 06:00:00 PM »

(15)

Aragorn: _Haldir o Lórien. Henio, aníron, boe ammen I dulu lîn. Boe
ammen veriad lîn._ Aaragorn: 'Haldir from Lórien. Understand, I wish,
we need your support. We need your protection'

Here, I wonder about _I dulu lîn_ vs. _Beriad lîn_ (which is an old
story). Clearly, possessive phrases are always determined and would
hence never require an article for definiteness. In English, it is even
impossible to add one, 'the my friend' is not proper grammar.

Yet here we see two different variants. So we see in Tolkien's texts:

* The King's Letter has _#mellyn în_ 'his friends', _bess dîn_ 'his
  wife', _sellath dîn_ 'his daughters', _ionnath dîn_ 'his sons'
* The Ae Adar has no article in _Adar nín_ 'my father' but definite
  articles in _I eneth lín_ 'thy name', _I arnad lín_ 'thy kingdom',
  _I innas lin_ 'thy will', _I mbas (...) vín_ 'our (...) bread', _I
  úgerth vin_.
* Voronwe's cry uses the article implicit in _en_, _e·mbar nín_
  'of my home'


The emerging pattern could well be that an article is not used when a
person is involved (friends, wife, daughters, sons, father) whereas in
all other cases the article is used. (That's not actually my idea,
but I don't remember who brought it to my attention first - sorry to
this person).

In which case the phrase above should perhaps rather be _I veriad lîn_,
always assuming there is no deeper meaning in the length of the vowel in
the possessive marker.


(16)


Aragorn: _Boe ammen veriad lîn. Andelu I ven. Merin le telim. Henio,
aníron boe ammen I dulu lîn. Andelu I ven._ Aragorn: 'We need your
protection. The road [is] very dangerous. I wish we come to you'. [This
phrase is very obscure] Understand, I wish, we need your support. The
road [is] very dangerous.'

For most of the phrase, see (16) and (4). The only new part is _Merin le
telim._ Of which I would take its parts as 'I wish' (though why
_aníra-_ was not chosen here I don't know), 'to you' and 'we come'.
Probably the intended meaning is 'I wish we can come to you' or
something like that, I have no clue what the intended grammar is or if
the phrase is transcribed correctly at all.

(17)

Celeborn: _Le aphadar aen._ Celeborn: 'You are being followed'

See discussion in (1).

Additional comments and discussion welcome!

* Thorsten



[elfling ID#33923]
[original subject: Lotr Movie Dialogues]
« Last Edit: March 14, 2007, 06:00:00 PM by Thorsten Renk »
Logged

Edhil

  • Yahoo elfling member
  • Sr. Member
  • Newbie
  • ****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Lotr Movie Dialogues
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2007, 06:00:00 PM »

Thorsten Renk wrote:
>
>
> Yet here we see two different variants. So we see in Tolkien's texts:
>
> * The King's Letter has _#mellyn în_ 'his friends', _bess dîn_
>   'his wife', _sellath dîn_ 'his daughters', _ionnath dîn_ 'his
>   sons'
> * The Ae Adar has no article in _Adar nã n_ 'my father' but definite
>   articles in _I eneth lã n_ 'thy name', _I arnad lã n_ 'thy
>   kingdom', _I innas lin_ 'thy will', _I mbas (...) vã n_ 'our
>   (...) bread', _I úgerth
Vin_.
> * Voronwe's cry uses the article implicit in _en_, _eâ·mbar nã n_
>   'of my home'
>
>
> The emerging pattern could well be that an article is not used when a
> person is involved (friends, wife, daughters, sons, father) whereas in
> all other cases the article is used.

Cf. Italian: mia madre, mio padre, mia sorella, mio fratello etc. (not:
la mia madre, il mio padre etc.), but: il tuo nome, il tuo reame, la tua
volontà etc.

Edhil



[elfling ID#33924]
[original subject: Lotr Movie Dialogues]
« Last Edit: March 14, 2007, 06:00:00 PM by Edhil »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]