[acqq]

What is jarring to me are always the anachronisms. E.g. while I can imagine that some form of short "bro" could have existed earlier, when I read the line using "sushi" I can't help but remembering that "sushi" didn't exist until recently. Then I feel cheated, knowing that the original form said something with the different meaning, and I'm aware that I can't know what it is reading the "modern" "retelling".

Another anachronism I remember: in another otherwise easy to read translation of an antique text (as is, originally written around 2000 years ago) the translator decided to regularly use the word "sadistic" which is constructed from the name of a real person living less than 300 years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Sade

Otherwise, modernizing meter (moving to another, more suitable to the the language of the new version, or even doing away with it if the goal is just to retell the story in a more approachable way, with the acceptance that it would simply be too clumsy in the target language) I consider very acceptable.

[ecdavis]

A strange aspect of our written culture is the extent to which documents are imbued with a sense of permanence from which they cannot easily escape. Beowulf was told and retold for at least decades - more likely centuries - before someone decided to write it down. Now, retellings[0] of the story are called translations, judged by many for their accuracy and historicity.

Sashimi's been around for a long time. "Gravlax" would've been less alliterative.

[0] It's telling that you put that word in quotes. Stories are things to be told, aren't they?

[082349872349872]

As the cousin thread points out, possible translations are a bit like Helen vs #nofilter Penelope: they may be either very beautiful or very faithful, but unless one has been blessed by the gods, that or is exclusive.

Hipsters who prefer early Beoƿulf will enjoy http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_vitel...

Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24293894

https://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bēowulf

[goto11]

Translations of ancient texts are anachronisms per definition. The English language did not exist at the time.

[acqq]

Ever watched some film about ancient Rome from around middle of 20th century? I am of course aware that the Romans didn't use shampoos and hairspray 2000 years ago, but that's the level of "incorrectness" that I'm used to accept in order to watch any such movie. Still, imagine that the protagonists in the same movie have Seiko watches -- that would be to me much more distracting.

I'm of course aware that in both cases for somebody from that time much more would seem "wrong."

[goto11]

Yeah, it is funny which kinds of anachronisms we accept and which we don't. In movies it is common to have people in authentic-looking historical costumes using modern language and having modern values and thinking. In theater it is often the other way around - historical texts acted in modern or anachronistic costumes.

[smhost]

> Then I feel cheated, knowing that the original form said something with the different meaning

ironically, "meaning" as a thing that belongs to a technical dissection of single words/phrases is a fairly modern notion.

[acqq]

> is a fairly modern notion

I believe it is ancient, the way I remember the texts, the false etymologies of words and names are present even in the Bible. People always loved the stories about how why something is named something, even when the story is false, if it's good, it will be repeated. We are all storytellers.

Exactly because I know "the story of sashimi" that word is for me jarring in Beowulf. It's not only anachronistic for the setting where the story takes place, it is also from the wrong part of the world, implying today's global trade of culinary fashion to that time and place:

   "skinny-dipping in a sleeping sea
   and made sashimi of some sea monsters."

[smhost]

That's exactly what I mean. Pre-modern etymology was different than it is now. For example, the ancient greeks weren't interested in tracing a word back to some geographic-historical commodity. They were interested in tracing a word back to the source of its own meaning (which they often traced back to the gods), whereas for you, the meaning of a word is just the geographic-historical roots of its signified or whatever.

[goto11]

Do you also consider "monsters" anachronistic?

[acqq]

> Do you also consider "monsters" anachronistic?

No, but I'll enjoy reading your argument why you are asking that.

[goto11]

Monster is from Latin and only entered English after the Norman conquest. Anachronistic and from the wrong part of the world!

[acqq]

> from the wrong part of the world

Can that be argued? It's not that the "contact" and influence didn't exist, it's just that these specific people wouldn't use that language at that moment of time. The Romans were already on English ground long before Beowulf was written so using Latin words there is still much more acceptable to me -- it doesn't imply some access or historical impossibility that didn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar%27s_invasions_of...

The same can't be said about sashimi. Again, like in the example of the movies (in other messages), I'm simply not expecting absolute purity, I just find Seiko watches too distracting there.

[autisticcurio]

Dats sick bro!