Tolkien Translations

[Galin]

After all, I am not sure what does Tolkien think, but the word "hobbit" is a translation, the "real" Westron word is kuduk, right? Therefore, I don't see why it should not be translated.

That's true, but hobbit is a Tolkien-invented word to represent a worn down form of holbytla, itself an Old English based construction intended to mean 'hole-builder, hole-dweller'... as kuduk was intended internally to represent a worn down form of a word used by the Rohirrim (thus 'Old English' holbytla) kûd-dûkan 'hole-dweller'

So kuduk has not simply been translated into English (as Quendi or Eldar with 'Elves'), but given an invented translation of Tolkien's own making, with the conceit of mirroring an internal relationship (kuduk to kûd-dûkan).

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Galin

That's true, but hobbit is a Tolkien-invented word to represent a worn down form of holbytla, itself an Old English based construction intended to mean 'hole-builder, hole-dweller'... as kuduk was intended internally to represent a worn down form of a word used by the Rohirrim (thus 'Old English' holbytla) kûd-dûkan 'hole-dweller'

So kuduk has not simply been translated into English (as Quendi or Eldar with 'Elves'), but given an invented translation of Tolkien's own making, with the conceit of mirroring an internal relationship (kuduk to kûd-dûkan).

Indeed! But now that is actually even "worse": now all translators should possibly start asking themselves whether they should not try to invent a word of their own which would resemble some ancient word for "hole-dweller" in their mothertongue... actually, thinking of that, at least within Indo-European languages, I wonder whether the "-bit" part at least could not be preserved (thinking of languages I know), in one way or another. But the beginning... I am just wildly guessing now, maybe something like Djerbyt or such would be appropriate in my mothertongue... but no, to be honest, I would prefer to keep the original to that.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Legate

Indeed! But now that is actually even "worse": now all translators should possibly start asking themselves whether they should not try to invent a word of their own which would resemble some ancient word for "hole-dweller" in their mothertongue... actually, thinking of that, at least within Indo-European languages, I wonder whether the "-bit" part at least could not be preserved (thinking of languages I know), in one way or another. But the beginning... I am just wildly guessing now, maybe something like Djerbyt or such would be appropriate in my mothertongue... but no, to be honest, I would prefer to keep the original to that.

Here's another way of looking at it: to the casual reader, "hobbit" is a nonsense word, but one that just sounds right: it fits into the structure of the language, and also into an existing pattern of English and Scottish fairytale-creature names (hobgoblin, boggart, etc). Maybe a translator should be aiming for a similar effect of half-familiarity, rather than worrying about the etymology?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Here's another way of looking at it: to the casual reader, "hobbit" is a nonsense word, but one that just sounds right: it fits into the structure of the language, and also into an existing pattern of English and Scottish fairytale-creature names (hobgoblin, boggart, etc). Maybe a translator should be aiming for a similar effect of half-familiarity, rather than worrying about the etymology?

I've heard it said that "hobbit" may have appealed to Tolkien in the context of The Hobbit being basically considered a "children's" story. The word bears a resemblance to "rabbit', so maybe there's something to that, since an eagle said Bilbo looked like a rabbit, and Beorn told Bilbo "little bunny is getting nice and fat...".
Children do have an affinity for cuddly things.

[Galin]

There's an interesting reference in the drafts for the Appendices...

Hobbit This, I confess, is my own invention; but not one devised at random. This is its origin. It is, for one thing, not wholly unlike the actual word in the Shire, which was cubuc (plural cubugin).*

...

* For another, I must admit that its faint suggestion of rabbit appealed to me. Not that hobbits at all resembled rabbits, unless it be in burrowing. Still, a jest is a jest as all cubugin will allow, and after all it does so happen that the coney (well known in the Shire if not in ancient England) was called tapuc, a name recalling cubuc, if not so clearly as hobbit recalls rabbit. [This note was later struck out]

In any case, I think Tolkien's choice of hobbit easily predated how he ended up explaining it within the translation conceit, yes. I don't think any of the Dwarf-names were necessarily even 'translations' in the early going, for example; rather Tolkien was probably just using a convenient external source for his tale.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galin

In any case, I think Tolkien's choice of hobbit easily predated how he ended up explaining it within the translation conceit, yes. I don't think any of the Dwarf-names were necessarily even 'translations' in the early going, for example; rather Tolkien was probably just using a convenient external source for his tale.

I'd forgotten that T. himself brought that up. I remember someone else writing of it after his death.

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Thinlomien

I'm a bit sad to learn Tolkien had so much against translating his names, because the Finnish translator, for example, has done awesome job there.

Originally Posted by Legate

this is the first time I get to disagree with Tolkien on something! Because when it comes to translation, I am a friend of translating the names where it seems appropriate (and if the translator is up to it, which is the most important part!)

Let me play devil's advocate and offer a somewhat contrary view - with the caveat, however, that I have only read LotR in the original, and cannot comment on the quality of any translation.

Personally speaking, when I read a work in translation, I want it to stick as closely as possible to the original, not only with regard to the sense of the words, but also to the atmosphere of the writing, to which names make an important contribution. When I read, for example, an English translation of an Italian novel, I am perfectly conscious of its provenance, and I don't need or want the translator to try to make me 'feel at home', as it were. It has to be in English for me to understand it, but it shouldn't feel English; it should feel Italian. If Roberto becomes Robert and Maria becomes Mary, something of the flavour of the work is lost. Even when the goði of an Icelandic saga becomes a 'priest' or a 'chieftain', I feel like something has been lost.

There are obviously shades of grey; I don't think every proper noun or peculiar word should necessarily be left untouched. When common words are used as names, there is certainly a good case for translating them. Things like the 'Old Forest', 'Mount Doom', and the 'River Running' certainly ought to be translated. But 'Hobbit', 'Baggins', 'Mirkwood', etc.? Let's just say that if I were reading a translation of a Finnish book with people called 'hobitti', a character named 'Reppuli', and a place called 'Synkmetsa', I would prefer those names to be left unaltered by the translator. And footnotes (yes, footnotes) explaining the meaning of the names are fine by me, and even welcome.

Now, with Tolkien there is the additional complication of the translator conceit - i.e., that the English is purported to be a translation of the Westron original. This would seem to provide cover for the would-be translator of names: he or she is really just doing what Tolkien did. This is certainly a nice little line of reasoning, but it seems to me to be, quite intentionally, missing the point. The translator conceit is just that - a conceit. The Lord of the Rings, and Tolkien's other writings, are, fundamentally and inescapably, English. And while the translation from Westron is an ingenious game, it strikes me as somewhat disingenuous to use this internal story about the work's origin to justify the handling of the work in the real world. Moreover, in creating his English 'translation', Tolkien stacked the deck in his favour. Clearly, he invented the English names first and then created the underlying originals in just such a way as to match the English in every important detail. The Westron names were invented so as to make the English a perfect translation, capturing every subtlety of meaning exactly. No real translator has the luxury of such an obliging original.

So, that's my view and the reason I prefer to err on the side of retaining the original names.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Things like the 'Old Forest', 'Mount Doom', and the 'River Running' certainly ought to be translated. But 'Hobbit', 'Baggins', 'Mirkwood', etc.?

I agree about hobbit, but not about the others. Baggins has the essential "bag" in it. The reader has to know that it's a bag, and not a random jumble of sounds. Mirkwood makes me think of a murky wood, so why not translate it so that it would give off a similar effect?

The difference between translation names such as "Maria" and Tolkien's names is that in the Italian book the author portrays something that everyone knows exists, that everyone has some kind of idea about. Tolkien wrote a 'fiction novel'. To me, it would also sound weird if Robertos and Marias in Italy would be Roberts and Marys. However, (pretending that I don't know English), if I read "Meerkvud", or "Beggins", or a whole host of names, I'd think What on Earth did the author write? If they are translated, I know what the author wants me to think about them (in a sense), because I understand what the name means.

Names like "Theoden" or "Frodo" definitely should not be translated, but the more obvious ones, IMO, should be.


I just thought of a line from TH, where Bilbo tells his name to Smaug, and says that he came from a bag, but forgot his bag. This pun wouldn't work in another language if "Baggins", "Bag-End", etc are transliterated.

Plus, they would not sound the same in another language, so if something just sounds right, or gentle, or evil, etc in English, when transliterated it may give off a totaly different melody.


EDIT: just to clarify myself in the 2nd paragraph: I meant to say that we know what Italy (or whatever from RL) is supposed to be like. We don't know about fiction stories. That's why the names should indicate that to the reader - in any language that the reader understands.

[Thinlómien]

Nice playing the devil's advocate, Aiwendil. Anyway I still (surprise surprise) disagree, partly because of what Galadriel said, partly for other reasons.

Partly it's something that is possibly totally invalid as an argument but works in my head nevertheless. In most cases, English doesn't have the same kind of atmosphere and character to me than other languages, it's not exotic or "characteristic". It's a pity but I think it's simply because English is so universal and because I know it too well (there's no big difference in how many obscure names I don't understand in the Finnish version and in the English version of LotR, for example), so names like "Baggins" would feel kind of lame in a text that was in Finnish. Can't really explain it any better than that!

Maybe that English names themselves are not enough to convey a sense of "Englishness" to me since they are what I see everywhere. To get the sense of "Englishness" I need more like certain atmosphere, way of phrasing things, dialogue. And once the text itself is translated into Finnish it's not a question of the names whether the text retains its "Englishness" - it's more about how well the translator has managed to convey the atmosphere. And it worked at least for me: now the Shire feels both English and familiar to me when I read LotR in Finnish - when I read it in English it doesn't feel familiar the same way but it's just a tad more English. Wondering if this makes sense...

And lastly and possibly more importantly, I really don't like reading novels where stuff has to be explained with footnotes. Sometimes it's ok, but I'm just trying to imagine the amount of footnotes required for LotR. Explaining things like Bilbo saying he comes from a bag or why there is "G" in the box Galadriel gives to Sam in footnotes is kind of lame - it breaks the illusion of the story when you have to look up some factual explanation to get a joke or a point...