Perhaps not *good*... however, it is probably, at least, an *accurate* translation. Homer certainly liked to "stack" particles. We don't do that in English.
(By the way, I'm Suzanne, the one who's auditing your Friday morning Homer class... just in case you didn't know who the hell this is.)
I'm not entirely sure that "accurate" rightly describes it either. Since the function of the particles as connective, adversative , and emphatic nature of the "stack" isn't truly conveyed. There is a fluid nature to particles that cannot really be understood by means of a static approach to defining them. The contrasting nature of the "men..de" structure is vastly varied from stark to nearly none at all
( ... )
we should not attempt to decode Homer, but in reading him, we ought to show a true understanding by making and effort to reconstitute him in the best English we can find for his meaning.
Yes, I agree completely. Then again, you run up against the rocks of the "untranslateable." Sometimes the little buggers, as you call them, fall into this category. However, I also don't like simply skipping over them. It feels too much like the easy way out. Greek is the only language I know of where one can spend half an hour musing over the translation of a two-letter word. It's amazing.
Comments 3
(By the way, I'm Suzanne, the one who's auditing your Friday morning Homer class... just in case you didn't know who the hell this is.)
Reply
Reply
Yes, I agree completely. Then again, you run up against the rocks of the "untranslateable." Sometimes the little buggers, as you call them, fall into this category. However, I also don't like simply skipping over them. It feels too much like the easy way out. Greek is the only language I know of where one can spend half an hour musing over the translation of a two-letter word. It's amazing.
Reply
Leave a comment