Tolkien; Different languages+ other cultures.

H

Huan71

Lorien
(Following on from from a few comments on another thread...At Compa Mighty's advice ! [:)])

I'm intrigued about how Tolkien translates to other languages and how Middle-earth, how can i put this?.."seems or feels" to people outside of western (specifically northern European) culture.
I read else where that somethings in the books come across differently when translated into another language. I realise this is true of all translation but there is the added, somewhat ironic point, of Prof. Tolkien's "exactness" with the language, spelling and pronunciation used in his work.
I bet most of you know all about the "dwarves to dwarfs, elvish to elfish, elven to elfin" gripes he had. I've read that these REALLY got on his nips!!
How does this stuff translate ? What would Tolkien have made of the translations, especially given his knowledge and expertise in philology?
Also, someone said that the book came together when they saw the films because they'd no experience of the KIND of historical background it was set in. I'd never thought about it but if you've come from a part of the world that's never heard of Beowulf or Norse mythology, or seen any imagery that has anything to do with this type of culture, then i guess it's kinda obvious !
You could argue the same of us here in the west reading novels and stories set in ancient China or India (or Thailand !)
It's partly due to modern cinema that many (most ?) of us can really picture whats going on in books with these settings and maybe get more of a feel for them !
(I would love to travel and see first hand but moneys VERY tight, ya know...)

Any thoughts or experiences anyone? I'd be most interested to hear them !!
Cheers for any time you can spare.... [:)]
 
about how those of us without the experience of reading of other cultures may have trouble relating to stories set in those lands... and that's certainly true with Tolkien. I'm one of those miscreants who has never read Beowulf and like novels. I admit that if it weren't for films/tv shows, I'd think everywhere in the world looked like Michigan ;) I'm afraid my entertainment-styled images of other lands are also tainted since they're processed according to Hollywood-esque standards. Thank Goodness for the Travel Channel!! ;)

As to how Tolkien's works translate into other languages; again, I'm afraid I'm a victim of my own limitations and have no comparisons to make. I barely handle the English version; but I know there are several sibbies who have read it in other languages, so I'm eager to see what they have to say about it. I can't imagine how the stories (especially LotR/Sil) could carry over Tolkien's phrasing and use of words. He has a brilliant way of weaving words that are as comforting or evocative for me as the event he's describing.

I'm eager to see what others more worldly than I have to say.

Thanks lots Huan71! Great first post :D
 
How does this stuff translate ? What would Tolkien have made of the translations, especially given his knowledge and expertise in philology?
Click to expand...


Tolkien’s work brings together many of the most difficult challenges a translator ever has to face. No doubt.

Tolkien read some of his own works in translation – at least, in the languages with which he was sufficiently familiar and which were published during his lifetime. The first two translations of The Lord of the Rings were the Dutch (1956-7) and Swedish (1959-61), and Tolkien had major criticisms of both, especially where it came to changes made to his carefully crafted nomenclature. He was furious, in fact. To assist in future attempts (or to retain some measure of control), Tolkien prepared a guide for prospective translators in which he provided a wealth of detail and even suggestions for how translators should handle this – at least, if they cared at all about satisfying Tolkien. Tolkien’s British publisher, Allen & Unwin, sent copies of this guide to translators, though for the most part, we can only judge translators’ adherence to them by the finished product (and only when we ourselves have sufficient mastery of the target language to assess the success of failure of their work). This guide was published in Jared Lobdell’s Tolkien Compass (1975), and again in an updated and more complete form in Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull’s The Lord of the Rings: A Reader’s Companion (2005).

Several books have been published on the issues and challenges inherent in translating Tolkien; as well, some work has been published on the related issue you brought up: reconciling the “essential Englishness” of Tolkien’s work with other cultures. A few I can recommend off the top of my head are: Translating Tolkien: Philological Elements in The Lord Of The Rings, by Allan Turner; Translating Tolkien: Text and Film, edited by Thomas Honegger; Tolkien in Translation, edited by Thomas Honegger; and Tolkien Through Russian Eyes, by Mark Hooker. Some of these are out of print, but there is always interlibrary loan. :)

If you’re looking for personal assessment, I can only speak to the French and Italian translations, the only ones I’ve read myself. These I found to be very good for the most part; however, one must admit that something of Tolkien’s “Englishness” is definitely lost. One interesting side effect of translation is the inevitable choice between the familiar and formal forms of second person address. The is a common issue in many languages (e.g., German, French, Italian, Spanish, Japanese, et al.). Tolkien retains some sense of this in English (in “you” versus the much more formal “thou”, used sparingly), but in many translations, the issue has to be addressed at a much more fundamental level, with ramifications in almost every line of dialog. In The Hobbit, should Bilbo address Gandalf formally, and should Gandalf address Bilbo informally? Should this change over time as the characters evolve and become good friends? And what about the Dwarves? The situation is even more complicated in The Lord of the Rings! At least in The Silmarillion, most everyone can use formal address and be done with it!

As I said, a big question with a long answer ... But this was a start, at least. Anyone else?
 
It's more formal to distinguish between them, but "thou" is the personal "you", right?

I remember a review of the 1974 French film, Lacombe Lucien that complained that what in French meant "Stop calling me 'thou'!" was rendered in the English subtitles as "Don't talk to me like that!"
 
Last edited:
because while 'thou" is historically familiar, (like "tu" in Spanish), to our modern ears it sounds formal, through its use in church settings. We don't really have a second-person familiar form of address anymore, except for endearments and nicknames.

It was interesting reading the Spanish version of LotR because they used the second person familiar plural, "vosotros", which I never learned in school. I learned Mexican Spanish, and the language of the books was more like what would be used in Spain. (That Spain Spanish really jumped out at me in Pan's Labyrinth too.)
 
And by when, I mean, in what century. [;)]

You’re right: thou was originally the “familiar” form – the singular form, to be more precise; whereas, you is the plural. Originally, I don’t think there was a formal/informal distinction; just the number was relevant: whether you were speaking to one person or to more than one. (I could be mistaken about that, but I can’t rcall any sense of this in the Old English.) So, the further back you go, the more familiar the second person singular; however, as you come into the present, the dying out of that form rendered it, when used, far more archaic and therefore formal. It’s an interest situation, and unique, so far as I am aware.

The example from film that you give reminds me of a similar one. In the 1988 film Nuovo Cinema Paradiso (no spoilers), there is an exchange where one character refers to the other deferentially (in Italian, this is done with Lei, the third-person feminine – as in German, coincidentally, with Sie). The character spoken to in that way questions the form of address – having grown up in the town, and being younger than the speaker, he expected the familiar, informal address of his childhood. Since we have no direct equivalent in English, the subtitles rendered his questioning this as something like, “why do you call me Mr. Di Vita?”

I thought that was a good solution.
 
Perhaps ya (sing.) and y’all (pl.), as in “see ya later” or “y’all come back now” ...? Nothing consistent or rigorous about these, but it seems that language tends to want a distinction between familiar and formal. As this has been lost in everyday English, perhaps this is how it’s coming back to us.
 
...has been noted by some readers: he calls her "you" until her engagement is announced, when he refers to her as "thee".
 
I read Tolkien in spanish becoz I am a spanish speaker, obviously i Have to read in my language.
For me OK, and basically the same.

But I agree translators have a very tough work with Tolkien!!!! XD Translated books have mistakes, but in general it´s a great work.

Well, how can I explain, translation doesnt change. And I know about it coz I know a bit of english and have read books in english, so in spanish, and I watch movies with captions, so I can see the differences on both languages, there are differences and sometimes mistakes...
And yes, translators Has to Make Changes to put sense on that translations, there are differences in languages, but anywayz at the end is the same.

Tolkien Spanish books are very good, basically translations here are very good, I am very happy really dont need to have the english versions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As per the language course "Trippingly on the Tounge" By Laura Crockett ( a great help back when I was first getting into reenactment), "Thou" is classified as the informal singular form of "you". It was used for conversation with people of equal status as being inter-changable with "you". Whereas if you were talking to a person of a lesser rank "thou" was all that was used. It is rather common place in some reenactment societies to refer to "trash talking" as "thouing", and it can be a fun competition (which also helps newer people to strengthen their slang skills). "Ye" is the formal replacement for "thee", but it is also the equivalent to the modern "y'all". "You" as stated is the formal or plural familiar replacement for "thou". So the translation in the subtitles in Lacombe Lucien is a contextual translation that helps speakers of other languages understand what was meant by an expression. Another example of this can be seen in the Spanish subtitles to Labrynth. "It's a piece of cake." is translated to "Es muy facil." or in English, "It's very easy." Idioms in one language are usually common in others but are worded differently. For example, the American expression "The pot called the kettle black." when translated from Manx (the ancient language of the Isle of Man) is "Burnt bottom!, cried the oven to the kiln."
http://www.historicalresources.com/ This is a link to Laura Crockett's web-site for any that might be interested in checking out the above mentioned language course.
 
"Thou" as used in the King James translation of the Bible is in there because of the fact that the translators wanted to bring across the personal relationship with God that is at the center of a Christian spiritual life. I THINK that William Tyndale used the same method in his translations before the KJV, but I'm not certain. The Wycliffe NT definatly uses this form, and it carries over to other more modern translations like the Revised Standard Version.
I on second thought, don't think that the formal/informal distinction was a convention during the time of the Wycliffe NT even though that convention did take hold sometime during the middle-early modern English transition. I don't speak Geman so I can't look to the Luther translation to confirm this therory, but I think the Churchy usage of "thou" started during the reformation.
 
Last edited:
Somewhere in the LotR appendices (I think) it's explained that the hobbits had lost the formal second person pronoun in their version of Westron, and called everyone by the familiar form. And so Pippin apparently called Denethor by the familiar form, which according to the narrator may be one of the reasons he was assumed to be a prince!

I've read bits of the French translation, and that clearly does have the hobbits using the formal version of 'you', except amongst each other (with Sam being an exception even to that rule). So clearly the translator didn't follow that idea of Tolkien's. And in fact I'd say that using the familiar form inappropriately sounds more childish than princely in modern French!
 
Well, let’s go by parts. Huan, you bring up some very profound topics, way beyond the simple translation problem.

SmeagoloftheStoors, as a matter of fact, we have an equivalent idiom in Spanish: “Es pan comido” which literally translates “It’s eaten bread”, pretty close to the cake reference, I believe.

FarFromHome, I agree with you. After reading the whole text with “vous” it would certainly sound all but princely to read dialogue with “tu”. Part of the elegance of French, I have always believed, indeed comes from the vouvoiement.

Back to Huan’s initial questions…

The cultural thing is something I hadn’t really ever thought about, at least not seriously. In Mexico we are really bombarded by American and Western European cultural manifestations, so I guess it’s not all that unknown, provided you have a certain social-cultural level, which IS a huge deal in Mexico, and something not to be taken lightly when discussing almost any topic. We are Western European in culture. But Latin in every way. Similarities between family life and popular culture between Mexico and Italy are almost scary, and we cannot deny the 300 years of Spanish influence in national soil. Add to that the strong liaisons there were with French culture in from 1830 to 1920, and you have an interesting mix.

I can tell you we, as most children in France, England and the States (I wouldn’t venture a generalization about other countries) used to play that we were cowboys, indians, pirates and knights. Four universes in which western children play. We do have a strong knowledge and exposition to chivalry topics, and Germanic myth is probably second to Greek in general knowledge.

So, even if the themes were not unknown by any means, I do have to tell you Lord of the Rings and Middle Earth as a general thing was all but unknown to most of the population. We have to stress that Mexicans read less than 1 book a year per capita, so people stick to some classics and what they are told to read in school. Tolkien was put on the map thanks to Peter Jackson. At least much more than he was before. I did not know him, and I am, fortunately not in the statistic, and never have been.

It does not help that most book are translated in Spain, and that, as Aunt Dora said, does put off many people. The Harry Potter + Lord of the Rings phenomenon, originated by the movies in the 2000’s is really a success, for many people started reading different things and started to get exposed to Celtic/Germanic myth. It was a huge cultural awakening for many, indeed.

So… TRANSLATIONS. It is funny that many Spanish translations are actually strongly criticized by cultivated Spanish speakers worldwide. It turns out many are made in Barcelona, by Catalan-speaking natives, which, according to some, hurts the translation, due to lack of proper language.

We have to say here, that what all of you know as Spanish, is actually called Castellano, the native language of Castille, the province and former independent kingdom in Spain in which Madrid and Toledo are located. Since many nationalist movements in Spain arose, native languages were retaken, and while most Spaniards speak official Spanish, they are native speakers of other local languages. Barcelona is in Catalunya… so, according to Castillians, and language purists, translations are not “pure”. Unfortunately, for them, a great many publishing houses are based in Barcelona. Another special point in the whole Tolkien’s precision in his language.

Personally, I believe it was great. I have only read Children of Hurin in English, and having read all major Tolkien works in Spanish, I have been able to participate in discussion forums for two years now, without any problems of context or story. Of course, I have had to catch up in specific names, but it wasn’t all that problematic.

What is interesting is that Spaniards, the same as Frenchmen, love to translate everything humanely possible to translate. Hobbit names are something to be analyzed in their own right in both translations. Names are dissected and translated by parts!

Take Baggins. Separate the evident “bag” particle, and translate it. You get Bolsón in Spanish and Sacquet in French.

And interesting thing with Hobbit names is the fact that both French and Spanish translators chose to keep the phonetic quality of “Took” intact. Making it “Tuk” in Spanish and “Touk” in French.

The Spanish translation is not without its (most) clever uses of language, which I will illustrate with Treebeard. Literal Spanish “Barba de árbol” (barba =beard, árbol = tree) beautifully put together into “Bárbol”. Really clever in my opinion.

Ah! So many things that could be said, but I think I have rambled on too much, risking that you lose interest in a post that was most interesting to me.

I’ll post more as the discussion advances.
 
You remember correctly:

Hobbits indeed spoke for the most part a rustic dialect, whereas in Gondor and Rohan a more antique language was used, more formal and more terse. One point in the divergence may here be noted, since, though often important, it has proved impossible to represent. The Westron tongue made in the pronouns of the second person (and often also in those of the third) a distinction, independent of number, between 'familiar' and 'deferential' forms. It was, however, one of the peculiarities of Shire-usage that the deferential forms had gone out of colloquial use. They lingered only among the villagers, especially of the Westfarthing, who used them as endearments. This was one of the things referred to when people of Gondor spoke of the strangeness of Hobbit-speech. Peregrin Took, for instance, in his first few days in Minas Tirith used the familiar forms to people of all ranks, including the Lord Denethor himself. This may have amused the aged Steward, but it must have astonished his servants. No doubt this free use of the familiar forms helped to spread the popular rumour that Peregrin was a person of very high rank in his own country.
Click to expand...
 
He changes from the more formal "you" to the more informal "thee".

Just why he should do so is something we can speculate on :-) Perhaps now that she's betrothed and publicly "no longer wish[es] to be a queen" he feels safer allowing a little more closeness. Perhaps as the betrothed bride of Aragorn's vassal (and remember that betrothal had a far more significant status in former times than our modern "engagement"), he's now claiming something of a fatherly status. Or perhaps now that he has come to his throne and regards Eomer as a brother monarch, Eowyn is by extension like a sister to him.

All of which is speculation on my part, obviously.
 
From the alt.usage.english newsgroup (Heavens, I'm showing my age quoting from these old USENET groups!!) comes the following explanation, see the page also for longer explanations:


You may have been told that "thou" and "thee" were for familiar use, and "you" and "ye" were formal. This was not true originally, but it was true for about two centuries, roughly 1450-1650, including Shakespeare's time. The previously plural "you" was used in the singular to signify politeness and respect, which left "thou" and "thee" for all the other singular uses, ranging from endearing intimacy to bitter rudeness. Eventually, the politer "you" drove out nearly all uses of "thee" and "thou"; they survived mostly in poetry and religion.


Surely all of thee know, I don't really know what is correct! I certainly always thought that "thou" and "thee" was familiar and "you" formal, but maybe that's not the original intent, it's just an evolved language custom?

a.s.
 
I've certainly got a few detailed answers here to think about.... written by some pretty smart people (well, smarter than me ! lol).
with all the obvious complexity that comes from translating (a very fussy!) Tolkien, it's a wonder anyone ever took on the job!! Then you've got the various types of the same language (i.e. Spanish...), even English is splitting up (UK, USA, Australian).
If some of the language that Tolkien used changed from formal to informal then back again, and given language changes over time...why was Tolkien sooo obsessive ? He'd have known all this stuff. I've heard how people have read translations and still "got" what was going on just fine!
And lets not forget how many times the Bibles been translated and changed over time. The point being, nothings sacred!!! lol
I think i need more time to digest some of the points and maybe see if anyone else has some stuff to say!
Much thanks for your time thus far though ![:)]
 
"...that he now dares to use to her the familiar thee with which she addressed him in her wooing but which he avoided in addressing her. Never has Tolkien looked into the human heart to better purpose than in this inset tale of Éowyn and Aragorn."

That's p. 154 of Master of Middle-earth (1972). Kocher's comments are also cited by Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull in The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion.
 
I may have been dimly remembering Kocher's remark (we have Master of Middle-earth).

It's one of those lovely subtle details that the reader doesn't have to notice, but which enhance the enjoyment if one does notice them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top