|
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
I'm going to post my notes on the Narn text in this thread, even though they apply to the whole text, not just the section on Turin's fostering. Hopefully that doesn't cause too much confusion.
Looking at these notes again, I see that I had intended to take a more detailed look at the "Union of Maedhros" section, since I note that I see some problems with it but don't go into specifics. So looking at that section again is something I will try to do.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aiwendil
Introduction:
Quote:
|
This version into 'modern' {English}[language], that is forms of {English}[language] intelligible to living users of {the English}[this] tongue (who have some knowledge of letters, and are not limited to the language of daily use from mouth to mouth) does not attempt to imitate the idiom of {Ælfwine, nor that of} the Elvish which often shows through especially in the dialogue. But since it is even to Elves now 'a tale of long ago', and depicts high and ancient persons and their speech (such as Thingol and Melian), there{ is in Ælfwine's version, and clearly} was in {Dírhavel}[Dírhaval]'s day{,} much archaic language
|
Some of the changes here, made in order to eliminate Aelfwine, seem a bit tortured to me now. What about this:
Quote:
|
This version into {'modern'} English{, that is forms of English intelligible to living users of the English tongue (who have some knowledge of letters, and are not limited to the language of daily use from mouth to mouth)} does not attempt to imitate the idiom of {Ælfwine, nor that of} the Elvish[,] which often shows through especially in the dialogue. But since it is even to Elves now 'a tale of long ago', and depicts high and ancient persons and their speech (such as Thingol and Melian), there {is in Ælfwine's version, and clearly} was in {Dírhavel}[Dírhaval]'s day{,} much archaic language
|
But should perhaps the whole translator conceit here be removed along with Aelfwine?
'Of the Union of Maedhros': This section suffers from confusions and redundancies as a result of having been put together from multiple texts.
NA-EX-40.4: Typo in the footnote: ‘turture’ for ‘torture’.
NA-RG-29: Here the revision places alliteration on the last stress of the line, which is not allowed (even though it is an 'accidental' alliteration, as it were):
Quote:
|
Though NA-RG-29 {Flinding}[the Noldo] shook him, __ he {felt}knew it not:
|
We could simply transpose the half-lines:
Quote:
|
Though NA-RG-29 {Flinding shook him, __} he {felt}knew it not[, __ the Noldo shook him]:
|
In the Finduilas/Gwindor/Turin section there seems to be a lot of redundancy between the prose and verse passages. The information in lines 2173-2212 of the lay is partially repeated in the prose paragraph from the Narn that follows ( NA-EX-53); and the prose paragraphs that follow are then partially repeated in the lay extract 2213-2260.
NA-TI-28: The text here follows the QS77, which here is the same as CoH. Presumably, this text comes from the Narn manuscripts. But GA gives a slightly longer speech to Turin here (section 271), and we ought at least to consider whether to take it up:
Quote:
|
'In love I hold thee for rescue and safe-keeping. And even were it not so, still I would do thee no hurt willingly, who hast suffered such great wrongs. Finduilas indeed I love, but fear not! Shall the accursed wed, and give as morrowgift his curse to one that he loves? Nay, not even to one of his own people. But now thou hast done ill to me, friend, to bewray my right name, and call my doom upon me, from which I had thought to lie hidden.'
|
Since the Narn material for this section is not in finished form, one might suppose that what we have here is omission rather than rejection. (I should admit that personally, I prefer the GA version since it clarifies Turin's attitude toward Finduilas and adds a certain poignancy, but of course that's neither here nor there).
We also miss the statement in GA section 272 (which was taken up in the QS77) that Orodreth gives Turin greater honour when he learns his identity.
NA-EX-55: Missing an apostrophe; also, unnecessary capitalization:
Should be:
NA-EX-58:
Quote:
|
Then Túrin sprang about, and strode against him, <CoH and fire was in his eyes,>and the edges of Gurthang shone as with flame{; but}<CoH . But> Glaurung withheld his blast, and opened wide his serpent-eyes and gazed upon Túrin. And NA-EX-58 <Ap Narn {and} Glaurung, desiring to rid Túrin of its aid and protection (since he himself feared it), taunted him, saying that surely Túrin claimed to be his vassal and retainer, since he bore his master's likeness on the crest of his helm.
|
In taking this sentence from the Narn appendix, we have lost the antecedent of the 'it' that Glaurung wants to rid Turin of the aid of. I suppose one could construe ‘its’ as referring ahead to ‘his helm’, but this seems a little awkward. Also, I think that since Glaurung has just been named, it would be best to omit his name the second time:
Quote:
|
Then Túrin sprang about, and strode against him, <CoH and fire was in his eyes, >and the edges of Gurthang shone as with flame{; but}<CoH . But> Glaurung withheld his blast, and opened wide his serpent-eyes and gazed upon Túrin. And NA-EX-58 <Ap Narn {and Glaurung}, desiring to rid Túrin of its aid and protection (since he himself feared it), he taunted him, saying that surely Túrin claimed to be his vassal and retainer, since he bore his master's likeness on the crest of his helm.
|
Confused:
Quote:
|
And if thou tarry for Finduilas, then never shalt thou see Morwen and never at all shalt thou see} Niënor {thy sister}<CoH again>; and they will curse thee.'
|
Should be:
Quote:
|
And if thou tarry for Finduilas, then never shalt thou see Morwen {and never at all shalt thou see}[or] Niënor {thy sister}<CoH again>; and they will curse thee.'
|
|
|