This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1myshelves
Does anyone think that Chapman's Homer, Pope's Homer, etc., etc., etc. are the same "Work"? Same question for the numerous translations of Greeks plays. (I find them very different, but it seems it would be pretty impossible at this stage to find out who has which translation.)
2alibrarian
This question has come up before. I think the line of comments pointed to the desire to be able to treat the different translations as separate "works". Which is why many users enter the translator in the author box instead of Homer.
I would like a perfect world where we could enter Homer as the author and then put the translator in the translator box. And then LT would show all of Homer's "megaworks" with distinct "subworks" for each specific translation clustered beneath them.
I would like a perfect world where we could enter Homer as the author and then put the translator in the translator box. And then LT would show all of Homer's "megaworks" with distinct "subworks" for each specific translation clustered beneath them.
3rebeccanyc
I've been putting the translator in the "other authors" box (along with coauthors, contributors to edited volumes, etc.) so that when LT provides support for these it will be easy for me to find them.
4boekerij
>2 alibrarian:
I think the line of comments pointed to the desire to be able to treat the different translations as separate "works".
In this case, we 'd better separate all and every translation. For if two translations into--accidently--one language--i.e. the same language--are differing that much that they are to be considered separate "works", what about translations into different languages?
I think this proposition is to and will kill LT's "work" concept.
I think the line of comments pointed to the desire to be able to treat the different translations as separate "works".
In this case, we 'd better separate all and every translation. For if two translations into--accidently--one language--i.e. the same language--are differing that much that they are to be considered separate "works", what about translations into different languages?
I think this proposition is to and will kill LT's "work" concept.
5lilithcat
Myshelves -
Tim has explained here why different translations of Homer are, indeed, the same "Work" for LT purposes (and also why the original is a different work).
Tim has explained here why different translations of Homer are, indeed, the same "Work" for LT purposes (and also why the original is a different work).
6alibrarian
>4 boekerij:
I think this proposition is to and will kill LT's "work" concept.
Many users commented earlier in Combiners' threads that they did not consider different translations into English of Homer's works to be equivalent simple straight forward translations.
Rather they found them to be literary works in their own right. Thus, many enter the translator as the author rather than Homer (which defeats combining and the LT "works" concept the way LT works right now with 142 copies of Homer's Odyssey entered under Robert Fitzgerald and 182 copies entered under Richmond Lattimore and scattered copies under W.H.D. Rouse, Stanley Lombardo, George Chapman, and Alexander Pope, all separate right now from the 2374 copies of the Odyssey under Homer
As for myself, my copies of the Odyssey and the Iliad have Homer entered in the author box.
I am hoping for a restructuring of the "work'" concept which keeps Tim's general concepts, but allows more flexibility. If it is possible to work out, all the copies of the Odyssey would cluster together in one "megawork" under Homer as the author. But within that big single "work", "subworks" could appear as their own little clusters based on information in a new box for translators. And perhaps this idea could also be applied to other issues that have been discussed as Abridged editions, Expanded editions, etc.
I think this proposition is to and will kill LT's "work" concept.
Many users commented earlier in Combiners' threads that they did not consider different translations into English of Homer's works to be equivalent simple straight forward translations.
Rather they found them to be literary works in their own right. Thus, many enter the translator as the author rather than Homer (which defeats combining and the LT "works" concept the way LT works right now with 142 copies of Homer's Odyssey entered under Robert Fitzgerald and 182 copies entered under Richmond Lattimore and scattered copies under W.H.D. Rouse, Stanley Lombardo, George Chapman, and Alexander Pope, all separate right now from the 2374 copies of the Odyssey under Homer
As for myself, my copies of the Odyssey and the Iliad have Homer entered in the author box.
I am hoping for a restructuring of the "work'" concept which keeps Tim's general concepts, but allows more flexibility. If it is possible to work out, all the copies of the Odyssey would cluster together in one "megawork" under Homer as the author. But within that big single "work", "subworks" could appear as their own little clusters based on information in a new box for translators. And perhaps this idea could also be applied to other issues that have been discussed as Abridged editions, Expanded editions, etc.
7myshelves
lilithcat wrote:
Tim has explained here why different translations of Homer are, indeed, the same "Work" for LT purposes (and also why the original is a different work).
----
I saw that, but didn't think that it dealt with the fact that verse translations can differ considerably, prose translations can differ considerably, and verse and prose translations are hardly the same animal.
Obviously enough people have read some version of Homer to make his fans (assuming that he existed)feel that they have company. :) Perhaps the significant social statistic would be the number of members who have read the works in the original Greek.
Reminds me of a problem I'm having trying to get an old (early 1600's) Latin memorial inscription translated. I have 2 published versions, and it is difficult to believe that the translators were looking at the same original. It gets worse when they come to the verse on the monument - - - the 2 verse translations don't even express the same idea. (sigh)
Tim has explained here why different translations of Homer are, indeed, the same "Work" for LT purposes (and also why the original is a different work).
----
I saw that, but didn't think that it dealt with the fact that verse translations can differ considerably, prose translations can differ considerably, and verse and prose translations are hardly the same animal.
Obviously enough people have read some version of Homer to make his fans (assuming that he existed)feel that they have company. :) Perhaps the significant social statistic would be the number of members who have read the works in the original Greek.
Reminds me of a problem I'm having trying to get an old (early 1600's) Latin memorial inscription translated. I have 2 published versions, and it is difficult to believe that the translators were looking at the same original. It gets worse when they come to the verse on the monument - - - the 2 verse translations don't even express the same idea. (sigh)
8SimonW11
I have huge doubys about translations.
look for example at this comparison between the Archer and Tiina Nunnally Translations of Kristin lavransdatter. English only readers might want to skip the red text.
http://www.undset.no/born.html
there is a huge difference in the passages compared. It presents a good example of the power of a translator. Given how worked up some authors become about copyeditors I suspect that some translators should fear for their lives if their clients ever learn the language of translation.
look for example at this comparison between the Archer and Tiina Nunnally Translations of Kristin lavransdatter. English only readers might want to skip the red text.
http://www.undset.no/born.html
there is a huge difference in the passages compared. It presents a good example of the power of a translator. Given how worked up some authors become about copyeditors I suspect that some translators should fear for their lives if their clients ever learn the language of translation.
9glendac
There is a related post in The FRBR Blog to which Tim responded.
I am aware that LT's concept of 'work' may or may not dovetail with that of FRBR (for legitimate and good reasons - their service models are different), the diagram about Family of Works in Barbara Tillett's What is FRBR? (page 4) might be helpful in delineating when a derivative or descriptive work becomes substantially different in content from the original that it should be considered a new work.
I am aware that LT's concept of 'work' may or may not dovetail with that of FRBR (for legitimate and good reasons - their service models are different), the diagram about Family of Works in Barbara Tillett's What is FRBR? (page 4) might be helpful in delineating when a derivative or descriptive work becomes substantially different in content from the original that it should be considered a new work.
10Hera
Ooh. I have spent the past year painstakingly reading The Odyssey in Greek. Now, my Greek is very very basic but I ploughed on so I could get a sense of repetition, rhyme, rhythm and 'style'. The Loeb two-volume edition's translation is literal, if archaic, which helped with the language / vocabulary (plus my trusty Langensheidt Pocket Greek Dictionary). The E V Rieu translation is my favourite, though the extracts by Trypanis in Penguin's Greek Verse are nearer to the poetry and 'feel' of Homer, to my mind; if anyone's found a Trypanis translation of the whole thing or The Iliad, I'd be indebted.
