Bjørn Stærk blog - Translating Shakespeare into English

erik | 2006-01-09 10:25 | Link

Bjørn, it's a good point about the Ibsen-English - Shakespear - English translations. I'd personally prefer to read a play in its readable sense instead of studying 16th century English.

But when it comes to actually seeing the plays in its right context - on stage - I yet appreciate the somehow uncomprehensible English as we can still understand the situations quite well through the actions and expressions of the actors if not catching every word and meaning. I feel it put the plays where it belongs: in a past setting, where also the language were different.

But again, your Ibsen argument applies also here, and a limit should be drawn as to where it becomes directly inpractical and destroys the pleasure of a good story by using the original language.

By the way, have you seen a Midsummer Night's Dream? My personal favorite.

KEE, Skien | 2006-01-09 11:26 | Link

A full translation is good, if done properly and with sensitivity to the 'atmosphere' of the oroginal text. But quite a lot of the translations are also abridged, and to read a readers digest of Shakespeare seems somewhat sacrilegous.

The discussion is also alive in the translation of norse texts into norwegian, and somewhat problematized in Ludvig Holm-Olsen's translation of the Eddaic poems. They are translated into bokmål (which of course set of an other discussion, since the purists demand a nynorsk translation if any translation is to be made.) The translation is in my opinion a good one, and it brought back my fascination of the era, a fascination I thought assassinated by force reading of original texts and bad translation at high school.

KEE

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-01-09 11:42 | Link

Erik: we can still understand the situations quite well through the actions and expressions of the actors if not catching every word and meaning

But aren't the words an important part of these plays? That's that strikes me when I read the translated King Lear, a long verse section is no longer a blob of incomprehensable archaisms to work my way through, they're beautiful, nuanced and powerful expressions of a character's thoughts, something I enjoy reading. Like in the section I quote above. It's one thing to understand that Kent is angry, another to experience the full onslaught of his vitriol.

I may have seen some version of Midsummer Night's Dream once, but I haven't really bothered to look closely into Shakespeare. Like I said, too much work, and the world is full of good stories that don't actively punish you for reading them.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-01-09 11:47 | Link

KEE: But quite a lot of the translations are also abridged, and to read a readers digest of Shakespeare seems somewhat sacrilegous.

Kent Richmond's translations aren't abridged, they're pretty much what you're looking for, preserving everything but the "linguistic grime", as he puts it. He has only translated three works so far, though.

Jan Egil Kristiansen, Hoyvik | 2006-01-09 11:48 | Link

Wherefore? Good thing we're Norwegian, we easily see that wherefore means hvorfor, while I doubt that why cames as easily to modern Englishmen.

Øyvind, Oslo | 2006-01-10 09:41 | Link

I agree that there is some gain in updating some of the language, but the example used was not a great translation.

For instance is the truly beautiful sentance: "Goose, if I had you upon Sarum plain, I'ld drive [send] ye cackling home to Camelot." It holds the meaning plainly and understandibly and has a great reference to the battlefields of mythological England of king Arthur.

The replacement on the other hand is just something about birds: "Goose, if you had a swamp in which to swim, I'd drive you cackling home to shiver in it".

So Bjørn: I am telling you that I would rather listen to the original in this example.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-01-10 10:19 | Link

Øyvind: but the example used was not a great translation

I agree, and that's actually one of the few verses that has an endnote, explaining that he felt the original reference was too obscure. It should have been left in, but of course there will always be disagreement over how to translate individual phrases. Considering how the original is barely comprehensible to most of us, my point about needing a translation stands - and this is overall a good one.

Franko | 2006-01-10 23:18 | Link

The plays of Shakespeare are not read because they are great stories. The stories themselves are generally good and dramatic and follow a logical sequence as a good story must. But the tales themselves are not revolutionary. They are about love and betrayal and the human experience in general. If you are looking for a really good story that revolutionized the way writers created stories, read Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. The language is much easier to understand, the story is riveting and the psychological undercurrents used were truly ground-breaking.

Shakespeare is read because the language used to propel his stories are some of the most poetic, artful, beautiful and expressive examples of the English language ever written. Yes the plays become more readable and easier to follow if the language is dumbed down but when you alter the language of Shakespeare you destroy the whole value of the experience of reading or seeing his plays.

Nothing worth doing is done easily and likewise few things worth reading are easily read. If you take the time to read and understand Shakespeare you will be richly rewarded for your efforts. No native English speaker can be considered well educated in literature with out a passing knowledge of the King James bible and the works of Shakespeare.

"Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win, by fearing to attempt".

Bill Shakespeare
Measure by Measure

I do concede however that, for non-native speakers, Shakespeare might be a bit too difficult to understand and not hold the rewards that the art of the language has to offer. I think your focus on the story as opposed to the language proves my point Bjorn.

Franko

Franko | 2006-01-10 23:53 | Link

Your post got me thinking about how deeply Shakespeare has influenced Anglo thought, literature and culture. I have included some of his better quotes below. Many of these phrases have ingrained themselves so deeply in our culture that over 400 years later, they are still used today.

Julius Caesar

"Cowards die many times before their deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once.

"Cry "Havoc," and let slip the dogs of war".

"Et tu, Brute!"

"But, for my own part, it was Greek to me".

Hamlet

"This above all: to thine own self be true".

King Richard III

"Now is the winter of our discontent".

King Henry the Sixth, Part II

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

King Lear

"How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child!"

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-01-11 00:11 | Link

Franko: If you take the time to read and understand Shakespeare you will be richly rewarded for your efforts.

Perhaps, but not richly in proportion to the effort it requires. And if you think any translation - even a good one - by definition dumbs down the language, then I trust you do not read any literature that has been translated into English. Which is odd, since you mentioned the King James Bible as a favourite. Translations are good or bad depending on the translator. This again has nothing to do with the purpose of a translation, which is to recreate a work in another language, so that more people can read it. The English of Shakespeare is not our English, it is, from a linguistic point of view, a different language, or dialect. Sure you can take the effort to learn that dialect, as you can learn any dialect of English, but you're still just learning a dialect, not unravelling some deep literary mystery. What is the point?

I do concede however that, for non-native speakers, Shakespeare might be a bit too difficult to understand and not hold the rewards that the art of the language has to offer.

I suggest you test that hypothesis by stopping random native English speakers on the street, show them a passage from Shakespeare, and test their comprehension. I may not be a native speaker, but it would astonish me if any of these can tell you what Shakespeare really meant by "a most select and generous chief", or even "be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar". Or ask them what a character signals by addressing another person with "thou" instead of "you".

I think your focus on the story as opposed to the language proves my point Bjorn.

Either that, or it proves you weren't paying attention. I said much about language as well. In fact, the language of this King Lear translation was part of what impressed me. It's beautiful, forceful poetry.

Also I think you misunderstood what I meant by story. A story is not just a sequence of events, it includes presentation and style and details. King Lear would not be a good story if you summarized it in a paragraph. It wouldn't touch anyone, all the emotions evoked by specifics of the story would disappear.

Anyway, remember that noone prevents you from enjoying the supposed profoundness of Shakespearean English. But it's ridiculous to expect others to read it in that way as well, and even call them uneducated if they don't! No wonder Shakespeare has become an icon, worshipped by a literary elite while his intended audience walks by in indifference.

Kent Richmond | 2006-01-11 20:25 | Link

After having translated 12,000 or so of Shakespeare's lines, I lack the energy to defend the decisions I have made.

I do remember struggling, though, with the Sarum Plain/Camelot line because every editor had a different take on it. Any links geese and Sarum Plain may have had in Shakespeare's day have long been broken. It was probably a joke (maybe about brothels), but it certainly does not work today. When jokes no longer work, I do my best to find a modern equivalent while maintaining the meter. I imagine Shakespeare, during a preview performance, noticing that the modern audience did not respond. The line gets reworked before opening night.

Kent

Franko | 2006-01-11 21:28 | Link

BS: I trust you do not read any literature that has been translated into English.

Nothing against translations here. Translations are the only option available to me if I want to read anything other than English. When I read Ibsen I understand that I am reading a translation from Norwegian into English. Unfortunately I am no doubt missing some interesting and beautiful linguistic nuances that a Norwegian reading Ibsen would pick up on. I have not read Ibsen in Norwegian so my analogy may not apply. Anyhow I am not saying that translating Shakespeare into Norwegian, or any other language, isn’t appropriate.

My point is that translating Shakespeare into modern English destroys the whole purpose of reading Shakespeare. I think the term, dumbs it down, is the correct one. The stories of WS are good but nothing special. It is the language used that makes WS so special.

BS: I suggest you test that hypothesis by stopping random native English speakers on the street,

No need to test that theory. Most people today will not have taken the time to read Shakespeare. But, as you should be aware, reading as a pass time is not exactly picking up steam these days. The novelist and poet are going hungry today.

BS: but you're still just learning a dialect, not unravelling some deep literary mystery. What is the point?

I don’t think you could be more wrong. You are not just learning a dialect and you are in fact unraveling a deep literary mystery. The point is to better understand who you are, where you come from and where you fit into history. The point couldn’t be more self evident. People see WS plays for the same reason they go to the opera to see Rossini or a symphony to hear Mozart or a museum to see Chagall or Botticelli. It is these works of art that help define who we are as a people and a culture. Without them I dare say we are lost, alone and rudderless.

None of these art forms are very popular with the hoi polloi but that doesn’t mean they are not important. And you can’t get a classic liberal arts education (in America I should say) without studying the original Shakespeare. And a translation will just not do the job. And if you have not studied WS, you are, in terms of English literature, ignorant. Or at least have a giant gaping hole in your knowledge. No big deal, there are many of subjects I am ignorant of and happily so. English literature just happens to not be one of those many subjects.

Franko | 2006-01-11 21:37 | Link

Well you have spent a lot more time with WS than I have Kent. No disrespect, and thanks for the link to your site it was very interesting.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-01-11 22:15 | Link

Franko: People see WS plays for the same reason they go to the opera to see Rossini or a symphony to hear Mozart or a museum to see Chagall or Botticelli.

This approach to art is one I can understand, but its flaws have been apparent for a long time. People go to Shakespeare plays because of the cultural status involved, because they feel bound by a duty as cultural people. And then there are a few like you who take the time to learn the dialect, so they can appreciate the poetry, but most merely show up and listen to what to them is incoherent babble - well-acted babble, within a story they may already know, but the poetry is lost. The very thing you want the audience to appreciate, the language, is the one thing this approach ends up killing.

There's a similar status problem with other "important classics" of the "fine arts". People are told that they should like this or that artist, that they should find their art important and profound, and so instead of taking an honest approach to a work of art (which may involve not liking it at all) they act, pretend to themselves that they understand perfectly well why this artist is supposed to be so important. So there's a certain hollowness and a pretentiousness, art appreciation becomes a status game. The result is that both those who want to play this game, and the majority who refuse, are prevented from genuinely enjoying the good art that is found among the "important classics".

The first part of the solution is to tear down the icons, bring the "important classics" down to earth, as artworks like any other. The second part is to reappreciate those classics that deserve it - which are many. The first part is actually the easiest, it's what popular culture has been doing for decades. It's the second part that is difficult, to overcome the distaste I and many others feel towards the arrogance and pretentiousness of those who have claimed these artworks for themselves. We must learn to appreciate these works for what they are, despite our dislike of their worshippers. It's like what someone said about Christianity: "I have nothing against God, it's his followers I can't stand."

Dean Esmay | 2006-01-12 10:56 | Link

Is Shakespeare overrated? Yes. Is he great? Yes.

Could a lot of his language do with translation into more modern English? Yes, although it must be done by someone skilled so as to preserve as much of the original flavor as possible--which takes a great deal of talent.

Like you, however, I find the original Shakespeare damn near unreadable. So I want to see the translations.

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2006-01-12 15:12 | Link

Bjørn:

I have felt the same way about much Norwegian literature for a while. In school, having to read classics was pretty much the same as having to read Danish. Old-fashioned Danish.

Yeah, I would to read Norwegian classics in Norwegian.

Øyvind

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-01-12 16:15 | Link

Øyvind: In school, having to read classics was pretty much the same as having to read Danish.

I don't remember it that way. Aren't most of the classics we think of as "ours" from the 19th century? The form of Danish they wrote in then is much closer to Norwegian than Shakespeare is to English, and I don't remember it as difficult. But then I tried not to read more of it than strictly necessary. It's a horrible fate for an artist to become a national hero, and be remembered only for boring us in school.

In principle I agree with you, though. The process of language change on old books is like a picture gradually going out of focus, even if you can still see what the picture represents, it's always better to have perfect focus.

Tor, Bergen | 2006-01-13 09:41 | Link

(Stærk on Shakespearian theatre)

[...] but most merely show up and listen to what to them is incoherent babble - well-acted babble, within a story they may already know, but the poetry is lost. The very thing you want the audience to appreciate, the language, is the one thing this approach ends up killing.

It has always been my understanding that what you want the audience to appreciate with a play (or an opera, or a graphic novel, or whatever) is not the language (or indeed any other component part) by itself, but rather the play as a whole. Although Shakespeare's use language in itself is of great cultural and historical significance, I must disagree with your assertion that an "authentic" approach to the language of the play destroys its value. For the same reason I have always felt cheated when being instructed to read a play - if the author wrote it intending it to be performed on stage, you are already "killing" part of what he intended you to appreciate when you read it.

Good translation is, in general, one of the most difficult tasks of which I know. Bad translation is, in general, a waste of time for the translator and reader both. For that reason, I much prefer to read literature in its original form, whether "classic" or "modern".

For some interesting essays on the difficulties of writing good literary translations, I recommend "Mouse or Rat" by Umberto Eco. (I would also add that Eco is a wonderful storyteller, that I don't understand Italian, and that Eco's English translators in general have been quite excellent.)

Sue, United States | 2006-01-13 14:35 | Link

The problem with paraphrases (I won't call them translations, since Shakespeare's English is modern, unlike, say, Chaucer's) is that they tend to slight the poetic nature of the language in favor of plot comprehension. Paraphrases don't do justice to the meter (they mess up Shakespeare's blank verse, where there is frequently a relationship between stress and meaning), and they reduce the ambiguities of connotation that enrich Shakespeare's own word choice.

Franko, you mention the 1611 King James Bible (KJV). I wonder if the reason that so many contemporary native speakers of English have a hard time with Shakespeare is because they are not exposed to the vocabulary and cadences of the KJV during childhood. In the 50s, for example, American Protestant churches largely abandoned the KJV in favor of more contemporary idiom.

As a teacher, I do not want to give up on encouraging students to understand other forms of language besides the one they use on a day-to-day basis. Literature will die if we have no historical consciousness of language change and no will to make the effort to understand the words of the past. Who will read our slang-ridden trendy junk in 100 years? No one will be able to understand it.

VamPus | 2006-01-13 14:48 | Link

I agree that your examples show how useful the updated translations are - but to be fair, there are classics that are more accessible than these. I've read the original Shakespeare - like Romeo & Juliet, Henry V, Midsummernights Dream etc - it's demanding, but not all that difficult. The original works also helps us understand where words and expressions actually comes from.

That being said - bring on the updated versions of the classics - I'd rather spend time enjoying the play, than ploughing through endless footnotes..

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2006-01-14 14:28 | Link

Bjørn:

Well. Of course your Norwegian and my Norwegian is not the same Norwegian, since I grew up in a little Western Norwegian community where people write nynorsk, but that is actually a detail. No, it was not very difficult to read Danish, but it was still more Danish than Norwegian.

It was not that boring either, but then I always was a geek for literature. I read Alexander Kielland before I knew who he was, and if I am not wrong I found both "Peer Gynt" and "Terje Vigen" in my fathers bookshelf. Indeed, if you read any of these writers, or for instance Welhaven, it is not difficult for a Norwegian. But what if you choose Wessel or Holberg?

This is very good literature written by more or less Norwegian authors, and yet - it is simply difficult to get hold off in Norwegian.

kim sook-im | 2006-01-15 09:17 | Link

I've always maintained that the scandinavian languages are really dialectal variations but for geopolitical reasons are designated as 'languages'....but then perhaps they do qualify as 'languages' per se , because one of the defining parameters for 'language' is a body of literature written in that language.

In a similar vein we currently have a somewhat half-hearted ? movement to revitalize/resuscitate 'galician'/ galego as a language. Galego is somewhat of a mongrel between portuguese and spanish, actually many claims it to be just a dialectal variation of portuguese...but don't tell that to a galician or you're garlic-toast ;)!!!

Oeyvind, I understand that Nynorsk was created from the dialects of the western rural districts, in order to carry on the tradition of Old Norse.You're from western norwegian country-side, is that why you favor Nynorsk? Is the use of Dano-Norwegian (Bokmål) more widespread than that of New Norwegian (Nynorsk)?...and currently how are things progressing in bringing the 2 mutually intelligible languages closer together gradually into a common Norwegian language, Samnorsk? ....are there much resistance to this plans for Samnorsk? ( you seem to favor Samnorsk in one of your earlier post )

Sook-Im

Tor, Bergen | 2006-01-15 11:11 | Link

Bjørn Stærk

[...] it's the good stories that matter. And they're found everywhere, in all ages, in all genres. The good ones are often old, but they're also eternal, retold again and again.

I agree with this assertion. It is a very rare phenomenon indeed that an author manages to write a new story, as opposed to a new way of telling an old story.

And therein lies, I think, the roots of my opposition to translation. If a work of literature is great, it happens solely as a direct result of that author's presentation of the story. Important aspects of thie presentation may range from macroscopic elements such as style and structure, to the low-level details of the language used.

When the greatness of a particular work is a result of its specific low-level qualities such as rhythm, choice of words, cultural references and word plays, and so on, and so forth, rather than as a result of more structural aspects, it becomes a veritably impossible task to translate it and preserve that greatness. Hence, for many great literary works it will probably be a better solution to read a good annotation if possible. Based on my limited recollection of Shakespeare from high school I suspect that this applies to him very much indeed.

Sometimes, translation as a necessary evil. Some of the best books I have ever read have been translated from languages that are quite greek to me. I find that this actually works as an incentive to learn the actual languages involved - because I want to read the original retelling of the story, and not an n'th generation retelling of the retelling. At some point I will probably go about attempting to learn Russian in my copious free time as a result of this fascination.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-01-15 14:25 | Link

Tor: If a work of literature is great, it happens solely as a direct result of that author's presentation of the story. Important aspects of thie presentation may range from macroscopic elements such as style and structure, to the low-level details of the language used.

But how much of this is really untranslatable? All languages can express all ideas. They're all equally capable of subtlety and complexity. Style, tone, attitude, all this can be achieved in all languages, by someone with the right abilities. The only thing you can't reproduce in a different language is the accidental symmetries and sounds of words: rhymes, puns, "music".

This is a larger problem for poetry than for prose, as poetry comes directly from those aspects of a language. And even in prose there'll always be some authors who use the sound of their language in a way that can't be reproduced. On the other hand, it is easier to translate between similar languages than different ones. Even poetry can be reproduced well when the language structures are essentially the same, with only 400 years of change between them. I really believe Kent Richmond's translation is a good one, there's no feeling that the language has gone dead. The translation is good as poetry.

And even when these symmetries and sounds are lost, as they always are to some degree, you really have to ask: what then? Is this the most important part of a piece of writing: the particular sound it makes? So important that it is better for us to appreciate that alone, at the cost of meaning, accuracy and story? In the real world, that is what happens. For anyone to truly appreciate a Shakespeare play, your way, they would have to study it for a long time, read all the footnotes, then reread the play again and again, until its actual meaning is clear to them, and only then should they attempt to see it performed. Anything less, and they'll lose something far more vital than the music of the words: they'll have no idea of what is happening, or only a broad idea, losing the details of the plot and the nuances of the characters.

So a large amount of work is required. Is this what happens? No. At best, people read the play once or twice, slowly, footnote by footnote, verse by verse. When they watch the play performed, they'll have forgotten what they read. They'll have a memory of it, but the verses won't be real to them when they're spoken. Only through hard work can they make the play so much their own that they understand it in real time.

So what have we gained by preserving the original, dead language? Only the least important part of the play: the sound the words make when they're spoken. And we have lost nearly everything else. Poetry is not just a game with sounds, it uses the unique feel of a language to express ideas, thoughts, emotions. What is expressed to the average Shakespeare audience? Nothing at all, because they do not understand what the words mean.

Put yourself in Shakespeare's place, as Kent Richmond suggests. You're writing a play, there's something you want to express to your audience. Now, how do you go about it: Do you write in a language that is 400 years old, because you just happen to like the sound of that language, and so what if barely anyone understands it, they'll just have to work harder. Or do you write in a modern language, so that all your ideas can be expressed and understood as accurately as possible?

Kim Sook-Im: and currently how are things progressing in bringing the 2 mutually intelligible languages closer together gradually into a common Norwegian language, Samnorsk?

Samnorsk was an experiment everyone hated, and I haven't heard of anyone seriously considering reviving it. I suppose we're stuck with two written dialects. Bokmål is more used, but the ideology behind Nynorsk is very much alive. Laws ensure that both dialects are used by the state, and taught in school, one as primary, the other as secondary, depending on where you live - every schoolkid learns to hate this, and brings that hatred with them into adulthood. It's no coincidence that on every copy of a "Nynorsk ordbok" (New-Norwegian dictionary) you'll ever find in a bokmål school, someone will have changed the title with a pen to "Spynorsk mordbok" (Vomit-Norwegian murder book). And that's why there'll be no rational compromise. I really see no alternative: We must invade Western Norway, and teach them to write properly.

kim sook-im | 2006-01-15 17:07 | Link

'I really see no alternative: We must invade Western Norway, and teach them to write properly.'

....Oh goody - i'll love to see a linguistic Jihad in Noreg - oops Norge ;)

Djihad Djane

Palode, Norway | 2006-01-15 17:59 | Link

In my experience Shakespeares plays are multi-layered, both plot-wise and language-wise. Take for example The Merchant of Venice. For me, the plot revolving around Shylock, Antonio and their bond is a masterpiece both in structuring and dialogue, with the theme being, of course, discrimination. But Bill had to take his audience into consideration - and they wanted laughs, romance, adventure - so whenever he wrote about more fundamental issues, he had to sugarcoat the pill with light-hearted comedy. This is most apparent i Merchant, where the plot revolving around Portia and Bassanio is (in my opinion) rather weak and without substance.

I think it's important to remember that theater-texts are roadmaps, and they need interpretation. You cannot read Shakespeare or Ibsen as if they were novelists. The difference is almost the same as between reading sheet-music and listening to a cd.

So, I guess I'm saying that I think it's great that Bills plays gets interpreted, translated and read _actively_ rather than _passively_. I love Shakespeares plays, but if I just sit down with the dusty old books, I get bored and confused. I work in the theater and I've produced The Merchant, Richard III and Taming of the Shrew. The first time I read those plays I understood little, because the words on paper didn't speak to me. After actively interpreting the plays, however, the characters, situations and themes will stay with me forever.

Go see a play, people! :)

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2006-01-15 19:00 | Link

Kim Sook-Im:

You wrote: "I've always maintained that the scandinavian languages are really dialectal variations but for geopolitical reasons are designated as 'languages'...".

Does this not apply to most languages. I believe Max Weinreich had a point when he stated a shprakh iz a diyalekt mit an armey un a flot, in one of the more disputed languages of the world. A language is a dialect with an army and a navy. The centralization of states has led to the centralization of language, and when a language is spoken in areas that are no longer controlled from one place, dialects have a tendency to develop into languages again.

Oeyvind, I understand that Nynorsk was created from the dialects of the western rural districts, in order to carry on the tradition of Old Norse.

That is partly true. As a matter of fact more dialects was used as a basis than the Western ones, but to a large degree it was dialects that were less influenced by Danish. The idea was more to create a language based on actual spoken Norwegian, than to carry on the tradition of Old Norse, nynorsk is distinctly different from the language spoken at the Faeroe Islands or from Icelandic, more so than it is different from Bokmål.

Icelandic: Guð hjálpar þeim sem hjálpa sér sjálfir
Nynorsk: Gud hjelper dei som hjelper seg sjølv.
Bokmål: Gud hjelper de som hjelper seg selv.

Bokmål on its side was a Norwegianizing of Danish, based on the Danish language, closer to the dialects spoken in the cities, and especially close to the sociolect of the upper classes in the cities.

You're from western norwegian country-side, is that why you favor Nynorsk?.

Partly. Nynorsk as a written language is closer to my spoken dialect than Bokmål (Dano-Norwegian) is. Also, in the part of Norway I grew up, Nynorsk was the "main" Norwegian taught in school, and bokmål was the hated "sidemål" (side language) - although we Westerners were slightly less arrogant about it than the people who go about writing Spynorsk ordliste on stuff.

Is the use of Dano-Norwegian (Bokmål) more widespread than that of New Norwegian (Nynorsk)?...

Definitely. Today, I believe one can also say that it is the written language that lies the closest to the dialects spoken by most people. However, it is also used broadly in for instance Northern Norway, were the dialect is absolutely different from both nynorsk and bokmål.

and currently how are things progressing in bringing the 2 mutually intelligible languages closer together gradually into a common Norwegian language, Samnorsk? ....are there much resistance to this plans for Samnorsk? (you seem to favor Samnorsk in one of your earlier post).

A samnorsk known by that name is at the time more of a utopia than anything else; most people simply do not want it, eventhough they not seldomly are writing more samnorsk than they are aware of themselves. When I favor the idea of samnorsk (as in; join the two dictionaries together and publish it as one) it is because it would enable people to write closer to their dialect. This would be equally true for those using bokmål and those using nynorsk.

Interestingly however, the languages are moving towards each other, and there is an increasing number of common forms. I believe pressure from other languages will eventually lead to the death of official nynorsk. Nynorsk will be eaten up by bokmål. That, of course, would lead to an obvious question related to this thread:

What to do with literature written in nynorsk; which - while mostly intelligible to bokmål-users (+) - is written in a de facto different language? Should it be translated into Dano-Norwegian already today? In some cases I believe the answer is yes.

Øyvind

[+] Aslaug Vaa, a well-known nynorsk poet who died in 1965, is difficult even to a nynorsk-user:

Fann eg dei stigar
den villande fot
trødde i urudde lende
såg eg dei steiner
på attlagde tuftir
- dei tala om segn etter segn.
Men det leikar ei hind
det hjalar eit viv
det svarar eit mål
- nordi nutan

But then, of course, her nynorsk was influenced by her Telemark-dialect, not Western Norwegian.

Tor, Bergen | 2006-01-16 13:10 | Link

Bjørn Stærk

All languages can express all ideas.

That is a very interesting assertion. Do you really think so? I do not.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-01-16 14:39 | Link

Tor: That is a very interesting assertion. Do you really think so? I do not.

I do. The question is how we want to balance precision against brevity. I believe that most thoughts can be expressed in most languages in roughly the same number of words. Maybe you'll need ten words in one language, and twenty or thirty in another, nothing that stands in the way of a good translation.

And then there are a few words that depend so heavily on context and/or multiple meanings that you need a lot of words to recreate the same thought in another language. Maybe you need 50 pages of cultural history to express the concept the word invokes in the minds of natives to the language. So it's possible, but a translator needs to balance precision against brevity. Some words are untranslatable, not because they're impossible to translate, but because they're impossible to translate accurately within an acceptable number of words. So you end up with approximations.

It often makes sense to prioritize brevity over accuracy. You can translate a one word pun with a whole sentence if you like, but it won't be funny. So it's usually better to think of a new pun or just let it drop.

kim sook-im | 2006-01-16 17:16 | Link

Shheeesh.... ,Allahuma ! Allahuma! You norwegians are such natural born glosso-jihadists
squabbling and engaging in such ferocious and fanatical internecine jihad :) over dialectal variations in pronunciation, syntax and orthography ! No wonder the Saracens find such safe haven settling in Oslo and Bergen ( nyuk, nyuk..uhh, njuk,njuk...or is it knjek,knjek... oooh sheeeesh now i can't even tease you properly without consulting the works of Henrik Ibsen !;)

Oeyvind - you may have something there when you say that the works in Nynorsk may have to be translated into Bokmål or Riksmål or a NySamnorsk or Sumpin' in the future....some of the norwegian dialects are so far out that urban norwegians have an easier time understanding standard swedish and danish than trying to understand some of those far flung dialects !:)...or you can always have Urdu (!) as a compulsory 2nd language ( njuk ,njuk ;)which will give a whole new meaning to Spymål and Mordbok/Mordmål tee-jeeee !!! Schaeme mich , schaeme mich :p !

I think Norweejahians are very tribal people -each vale and dale clinging to their little dialectal peculiarities and fiercely defending their linguistic tuft ..to the point of speaking to foreigners or other norwegians from afar in their quaint local dialects !? But i understand this may all be due to Norways topography --owing to Norway's mountainous geography, there is considerable diversity in vocabulary, grammar, and syntax among Norwegian dialects. For centuries, Norway's written language was closely related to Danish. As a result, the development of written Norwegian has been subject to strong controversy related to nationalism, rural vs. urban discourse, and Norway's literary history...

....Oy weh, Oy weh..i'm now so confused ...can i just opt for Småvandrer version of Norwegian-Romani or RODI ? when i do visit Noreg/Norge the next time ?!!! ;)

Hsalaams,
Hkim Hsook-Im

Geronimo, USA | 2006-01-16 22:26 | Link

Vell, Shakespeare might be yust fine for you high falooten Nordski’s, but us por yanks can’t understand his lingo. Da only ting I understand is an empty stomach, so bring on the lefse cuz I don’t like lutefisk and nider dos Lars.

Yust see if you get a chuckle from dis:

LUTEFISK AND YAMS
by Ulf Gunnarsson

Hark and ware, oh Warrior!
Weird of Sven now hear you.
How good Lars he harried,
pestered him with questions.
Late at meadhall light burned;
Lars did strive to largen
belly with a bowl of
boiled fish his mission.

And some chunks of chicken,
cheese and bread and peasoup,
finally pounds of pancakes
paired with lingon berries.

Smallish snack he snuck while
woozy wife lay snoozing.
When inside there wandered
forth a fellow northman.

Lars did greet him greatly
for he knew the gruesome
tales of host who hasten
travellers forth from doorstep.

Lars did ask his name then.
"I am Sven," he mentioned.
"Sven I am," he stated.
"Do you like lutefisk and yams?"

"Nay." said Lars, "though largely
like I food most goodly, but
I do not like lutefisk and yams,
I do not like them Sven I am."

"Ah," said Sven most sagely.
"Would you eat them on a trip?
Would you eat them on your ship?"

"Nay," said Lars, "though largely
like I food most goodly, but
I would not eat them on a trip.
I would not eat them on my ship.
I do not like lutefisk and yams,
I do not like them, Sven I am."
"Ah," said Sven. "Then maybe
might you eat them on a raid?
Might you eat them with a maid?"

"Nay," said Lars most strongly.
"Like I food most goodly, but
I would not eat them on a raid,
I would not eat them with a maid,
I would not eat them on a trip,
I would not eat them on my ship.
I do not like lutefisk and yams.
I do not like them, Sven I am."

"Hmmm," said Sven, "Good fellow,
would you eat them on the field?
Would you eat them off your shield?"

"Nay!" cried Lars most wrothly,
"Like I food most goodly, but
I would not eat them on the field,
I would not eat them off my shield,
I would not eat them on a raid,
I would not eat them with a maid,
I would not eat them on a trip,
I would not eat them on my ship.
I do not like lutefisk and yams.
I do not like them, Sven I am."

Sven then looked most crafty.
He then slyly stated:
"Would you eat them served up cold?
Would you eat them if I paid you gold?"

"Well," said Lars, "since largely,
Like I food most goodly...
I might like lutefisk and yams.
I might like them, Sven I am."

Sven produced this Swedish
yam and lutefisk sample.
Lars did test this tasty
treat then longly pondered.

Stoutly Lars then stated:
"I despise lutefisk and yams.
I despise them, Sven I am.
I will not eat them served up cold,
I will not eat them if you pay me gold.
I will not eat them on the field,
I will not eat them off my shield,
I will not eat them on a raid,
I will not eat them with a maid,
I will not eat them on a trip,
And I will NOT eat them on MY ship!
I do not like lutefisk and yams,
I do not like them, Sven I am."
And he slew Sven.

kim sook-im | 2006-01-17 12:29 | Link

Sjalom Geronimo,

Dis here leedle 'haiku' by Ulf Gunnarson/Wolf- son of Gunnar is quite reminiscent of Dokter Seuss! You'ses sure little Ulfy did'nt read them dang poetical books by good old Dr. Seuss such as 'Green ham and eggs'?

Aslaugh Vaa...hmmm fine norwegian folk poetry, but a wee bit too rustic for me to appreciate, tho' her folksy wordage has troubador-like qualities and would sound great as lyrics set to harp, lyre and maybe cymbalets and tambourines.

I think i'll stick with my Ny-Dutch/ Nieuw-Hollandse/Nieuw-Nederlandse poet Toon Herman. His 'haikus'/'haikoes'/hajkus ( oh I hate this landsmål/bokmål orthografic ijtihads ;)are catchy, folksy and yet a tat-bit urbane :

Strooiehoed
Mijn vader had'n strooien hoed
veel vaders hadden dat
en hing het hoedje in de gang
dan had dat hoedje wat

en als het hoedje er niet hing
had hij het op z'n kop
hing het er wel, dan fleurde het
de sombere gang wat op

zo stralen alle spulletjes
stroohoedjes, vestjes, dasjes,
hun eigen atmosfeertje uit
de tafeltjes, de kastjes

zo zingen alle prulletjes
hun eigenste gezang
de twijfelaar of't hemelbed
en het hoedje in de gang.

Zuster Jeltje Kim
Neo-Qoreanic troubadoress

현대 한국 보얻었

Geronimo, USA | 2006-01-17 16:41 | Link

Gretins from a Nordski shomakrson,

Veil, sistr Zuster Jeltje Kim, "Nay, I say" dis po imgrant son of a shomakr no can undr-stan da Dutch-Nederlandse poet Toon Herman any mo dan da ungalicman Shakespeare.

Ya, da poetic Sved Gunnarsson musta stol da po Dokter Seuss 'Green ham and eggs' storie ven he rote about ‘lutefisk and yams’...probly undr deres of a belie ake. Ya no how dos Sved’s are...can no tuss dem eder.

Michael Farris | 2006-01-24 10:23 | Link

What I remember in highschool (many years ago) was a) reading the plays outloud and not-understanding very much b) seeing excerpts acted in films and understanding the action more than the words (even when we knew the plot ahead of time following the dialogue as dialogue, even when watching the action was mostly impossible).

Partly this is due to the abyssmal nature of native language instruction in English speaking countries which is, quite simply, among the worst in the literate world (but that's another topic).

I later learned to ... appreciate Shakespeare in terms of dramatic structure and panoramic views of society, but I never did learn to enjoy him. So I'm all in favor of translating/massive editing of Shakespeare so that modern speakers who aren't philologists or theater historians can follow it more easily (while the specialists can still enjoy the originals). It's easy to forget that Shakespeare was not Shakespeare when it was new, it was popular entertainment like ER or the Sopranos (I can't think of a good modern equivalent of the comedies, since comedy is such dire shape nowadays, maybe All in the Family?).

The classicist approach takes all the fun out of it. Of course the unsullied originals will still be around for those inclined, but I'm favor of moving Shakespeare to modern audiences and not making people learn 400 year old slang.

Michael Farris, Poznań Poland | 2006-01-24 11:22 | Link

On Scandinavian languages (writing as a professional practicing linguist, which I am). I'm not a Scandinavian specialist by any means, but I've studied all four written forms a little (self study at home) especially Bokmaal and Svenska (I go back and forth as to which I prefer, currently Swedish as online SR is much better than NRK) and can read newspaper articles in either with the help of a dictionary.

There is no one standard that all linguists will agree upon in determing whether two spoken varieties are dialects of the same language or dialects of different languages (all spoken language is a dialect of something).
The closest standard is mutual intelligibility, but this is problematic since it often depends on other factors than those of mere linguistic similarity and is hard to measure accurately.
Cultural and identity issues also come into play and differences may be exaggerated or dismissed depending on whether or not speakers want to be seen as speaking the same or different language as some other group. The purpose of language is just as much to exclude as it is to include.

There is also a question of prestige and non-prestige forms, people who speak one variety may consciously look up to and try to emulate another variety. Writing just muddies the waters further and the traditional thinking goes that people will modify their speech toward the written standard they use and/or prestige varieties they are exposed to.

In terms of written language, Bokmaal, Dansk, Nynorsk and Svenska are all clearly separate prescriptive written standards. Even with only a cursory knowledge of a couple of them, it takes a few seconds at most to identify which you're looking at (Bokmaal and Dansk look the most similar but even I can still distinguish them pretty rapidly).
On the other hand, they're (mostly) mutually intelligible and a literate user of one has little problems in learning to read any or all of the others. I seem to recall that learning how to read the other standards is a part of the school curriculum in Sweden, Denmark and Norway (or is it?)

In terms of spoken language, at ground level, all the everyday spoken varieties of Swedish, Danish or Norwegian blend into each other with some unusual outlier pockets. In each country I believe the speech of (upper) middle class residents of the capital has a little more prestige than other varieties and is more or less considered the standard spoken form for Bokmaal, Dansk and Svenska respectively - Nynorsk doesn't really have any particular spoken standard form as I understand it). All in all linguistic unification (as is stressed in many countries) has never been that strong a value in Scandinavia. As I perceive it the value was in strong local identity balanced with concerns of mutual comprehension.

In those terms I'd say there are three standard spoken languages (Danish, Norwegian and Swedish) with a high degree of mutual intelligibility and four written standards, again with a high degree of mutual intelligibility.

So, Scandinavians can maintain separate national and linguistic identities while making sure that 'cross linguistic' communication is not normally very difficult.

kim sook-im | 2006-01-25 12:55 | Link

Michael ,

what are the positions of minority languages ex: Frisian in Holland , Faroese, Letzerburgisch and maybe even icelandic?

I mentioned Galician/galego, but apparently Valencio and Catalan is flourishing with some vengence in Iberia ;)

I really do love the songs of Umm Kalthoum ;)

Sook-Im
Mujahiddah ul-lughal-3rabiyah

michael farris, poznan poland | 2006-01-25 14:28 | Link

I don't know anything about Frisian but the others aren't, technically speaking minority languages since they're all the primary languages of their respective political entities.
Faroese the least so, but it has a high degree of autonomy from Denmark and Danish is known explicitly only as a second language (I don't know how enthusiastically).
Letzebergish is the main spoken language in Luxembourg and has official status though French and German are more commonly written. Written Luxembourgish looks a lot like slightly modified German trying to disguise itself as a foreign language.
Icelandic is the primary language of all spheres of life in Iceland. Faroese and Icelandic have very little mutual intelligibility with each other or the mainland scandinavian languages.

Catalan is doing well, and according to some sources is even expanding as a primary spoken language/language of education. Valenciano less well. There's a local dispute about whether to merge with written Catalan or maintain a separate local written version and try for recognition as a separate language (though it's completely mutually intelligible with Catalan proper in its spoken and written forms). Historically, Valenciano has done well when united with Catalan and poorly when it tries to stand on its own.

I prefer Fairuz, the most stylistically versatile of the big Arab lady singers.

kim sook-im | 2006-01-27 15:13 | Link

Ya Michael chez Poznan,

I recall reading some texts in valencio/valenciano and it appears to me closer to castillian than to catala'/catalan. I'm trying to remember the name of the University where their annual catalog and announcements were published bilingually in both valencio/valencia/valenciano and standard Spanish - which i thought was a waste of resources since both are mutually intelligible languages/dialect.

The same applies to galego and portuguese or galego and spanish - another waste of good paper and resources just to fete the provincial sentiments of the speakers of these dialects.

The same goes for Dansk/Norsk/Svenska, especially for Dano-norwegian/Bokmaal and Dansk. It seems rediculous to have product or merchandise labels duplicated in norwegian/danish then swedish . I actually want to propose that the scandinavian countries embark on unification of all 3 forms into a common NyVikingska :)!!!- think of all the money and paper that they will save and all the heartaches and travail it will save foreign infidels like us in having to learn 3 different forms of scandinavian ( but of course this is a tongue in cheek proposal - Svenska may be too differentiated to reconcile with Bokmaal and Dansk...I remember my swedish professor making a big deal about the bitonal features of swedish and norwegian - piece of cake compared to Hokkien/Minang or Mandarin with 4 or 5 tones to deal with ;).

.........a propos ...given the rather precocious reproductive capacities of immigrant m(o)uslims (pfun intended ;) ( guaranteed by the draconian evolutionary pressures of a theofascist expansionist Cult!) might there not be a remote possibility of the fusion of several of the immigrant languages with scandinavian thus giving us hybrids such as Norabic, Swerabic, Darabic or even Nordu,Swedu,and Danurdu or Durdu for the respective countries of Norge, Sverige und Denmark?

.....I suspect such a scenario would please leftist-leaning and multiculturalist scandinavian apologentsias to no end !!! :)

Allah is monolingual and can only understand supplications in Arabic ( al Lughal fushaa faqat!). This may not seem as preposterous a scenario as one would initially think. Remember Persian ( an indo-european language more akin to hindi/sanskrit/greek/swedish than to arabic) has been totally emasculated and arabized by the invading Saracens over the centuries!. How much better to subjugate the infidels than to rape their language :)!!!...the same can be said about Urdu which is really Hindi transmogrified into a Dhimmi-dialect of arabo-persian post subjugation of the indian subcontinent by Eeklam.

Kamal Atatuerk did right to mandate the writing of modern turkish in romanized script rather than the arabic script. Turkish lends itself well to the latin script. Young turks find it a drugery to have to learn another script/arabic just to read the Quran in the original ....safe-guarding them temporarily from memetic mind invasion !

I wonder if Oeyvind would support the proposal of Nynorsk being written in arabic script in order to facilitate the learning of Norwegian or Norabisk by older arabic speaking immigrants who may not be so pliant and facile in learning a new script.???

Mangga Shukran or is it Shukran Mycket or شكرا mycket :)

شكرا جزيلا

Sister Zainab Kim
Supporter of Syncretic Religions and Languages

p.s. Sikhism is somewhat of a syncretic religion fusing elements of hinduism and sufi islam.
Perhaps in the brave new world of tomorrow one may dare envision the syncretic fusion of the old Gods of the Norsemen with Allah of the Saracens to give us the birth of a new God-Head

...Allahdin ( Allah + Odin ):)! old lamps for new;)

.... a new hybrid of syncretic Norslims

.... a new breed of syncretic language = Norabisk

kim sook-im | 2006-01-27 15:44 | Link

Ya Mikhael,

PPS: actually my above wishful ramblings although superficially jocular does find support for statistical probability and possibility .

Many are not aware that the 6th pillar of Islam is predestination. In this we find an eerily similar concept of predestination in the Norse mythology involving the Norns.

In Germanic/Norse mythology, the Norns were a group of supernatural beings who corresponded to the Greek Moirai; they were usually represented as three maidens who spun or wove the fate of men.

With divine power the Norns twine the threads of destiny. They fasten them to the midst of the heavens and throw them out in different directions: the land of the conqueror-to-be is measured out in advance. The belief in The Norns interfering with the birth of a child has in some areas lived on in folk tradition into modern time.

The Norns allotted destiny for better and for worse.The Norns appear as universal powers. Their abode is next to the spring at the foot of Yggdrasil. There are three of them, and their names are Urd, Skuld, and Verdandi. Their power is great: they decide the destiny of all humans and the laws of cosmos.

Laws they gave,
Lives they chose
for the children of men,
the destiny of men.

.....in the brave new world of stochastic uncertainties and random fortuity - - - our fates may vvvvell be in the hands of the three Norn Sisters and the birth pangs of Eurabia/Norabia may well be in the offing !

Sister Kassandra Kim
Sufi-Buddhist Psychique for Syncretism

Tor, Bergen | 2006-01-29 19:25 | Link

Bjørn Stærk:

All languages can express all ideas.
[... and in a later post ...]
IThe question is how we want to balance precision against brevity. I believe that most thoughts can be expressed in most languages in roughly the same number of words. Maybe you'll need ten words in one language, and twenty or thirty in another, nothing that stands in the way of a good translation.

I've been thinking a bit about this, and I still do not buy it completely. I can of course not prove or disprove such a claim, but I am still highly sceptical (although I will revise my position somewhat).

I am a mathematician by trade, and it is clear to me that mathematics is a language. In fact, it is several. Looking at mathematical history, it is also clear that language shapes thought. However, it is not true that any language can express any thought, even though it is possible to "bolt on" a new term for a new concept.

Hence, mathematical concepts that were deep and complex when first discovered have become much simpler with the evolution of language, in some cases gradual evolution, but in other cases by paradigm shifts in which a whole new language framework has been created in order to express concepts in a way that allows the human mind to wrap itself around them. For simple examples of the latter kind of shift, consider the discovery of the concept of "zero", and the transition from Roman to Arabic numerals.

It turns out that good mathematical notation is simply a necessity for shaping useful mathematical thought. Although any stupid concept may be expressed "in theory" by the way of a lengthy exposition or by inventing a term for it, that rarely gives rise to any enlightened thinking on the subject.

It is my belief that translation between natural languages gives rise to analogous problems. Sure, it may be technically possible, and it may even convey some useful information, but if you claim that it is possible to convey the entire informational content of the original text, I think that you are somewhat delusional.

But enough ramblings on translation - the philosophical problems can get ugly enough without translating a single sentence. Consider, for example, the case of Pierre Menard.

r.j. santos CA | 2006-05-09 17:47 | Link

i want to know if you could help me translate this

it is from midsummer nights dream
the four lovers scene

it is lysanders line at the end of this scene between lysander demetrius helena and hermia

lysander: Now she holds me not. Now follow if thou dar'st, to try whose right, of thine or mine is most in Helena