Monday, 28 June 2010
Saturday, 26 June 2010
Wild Gardens of Fernwood and Rockland
Here are some of the gardens (some definitely not wild) we drive by or walk through or ride by to and from work. The cherry picker is in our back lawn - it's a painting year.
Translation as imposition
This morning I was buying a whole fish - fresh salmon - Sockeye, on special at 1.79 per something. What do you think? Was that priced per pound, per milligram, per kilogram or something else? Then as I left with the package, both the meat packer and I said to each other 'thank-you very much' and another client buying shrimp said the same.
I thought for some reason about those syllables thank you - with the hyphen, very much, רב תודות (rav todot) or תודה רבה (todah ravah) according to Google. I imagined the phrase in Japanese - why I don't know. I don't know any Japanese except that one word arigato. Why when I can't remember the names of my friends, I should think of Japanese for thank-you at that time, is a mystery to me - the human mind at work - or not! In Hebrew I thought me'od rather than rav- maybe I like gutturals.
Would I have associated real gratitude with these words in a foreign tongue? They are automatic enough in English and meant. The smooth functioning of our interactions at the grocery store is something we are grateful for. Also the cleanliness, the packaging, the ease of purchase (however much it cost!), the local fishers and the local fish.
Associate thought - feeling - tone - intent - culture - and a few things besides - with just one simple phrase. What do we do when coming from a language no longer spoken with such associations into our own language? Do we study the words to death? Are we rigid or free? Do we appeal to sound? What knowledge of intent do we have? Our clues are many but our output - the phrase / gloss / tone / feeling that we write is mediated through a lens - our being - that we are dimly aware of, whatever our training.
Both BBB and God Didn't Say That are blogs that are written about - really they focus on - translation issues. I the self-trained translator respond occasionally. J.K. Gayle, not regularly blogging at this time shows his mettle with a response to one of these posts here. BBB's current series on foundations has had many comments, especially the hard one on audience. Whom are you translating for? Theophrastus whose blog I should be following, gives a lovely response concerning the problem of language and the issue of ignorance and how to deal with it:
Joel Hoffman has been concentrating on translation traps and has written of a number of them. Some are traps, I suppose. Some are simply facts of life - what do you think? What are the real traps - are they among these?
I have answered the question - 'how I translate' here. A recent phrase I have used is 'deep guesswork' as a description of what I do. Even translating that common experience - 'thank-you' into another tongue implies the guesswork that the other is also feeling gratitude in one way or another that these words will convey my feeling in transmission. So when I translate using dictionary, structure, sound, rhythm, history, geography, culture, grammar, close reading, awareness of parts of speech and their forms and how disputed they are, and whatever else I am feeling at this time: the wars over meaning and rights and wrongs and cosmic things that are in this age, what you get is a personal translation in which I am imposing my limited knowledge and my cultural bias onto the text in a way that gives me pleasure.
But I left one thing out - it's not a thing though it could be translated into דבר even if this word expresses itself in unexpected associations. The thing that is not a thing is that incommensurate and indefinable love that has gripped my life with all its contradictions and troubles and somehow taken it up into its own and allowed itself to know me through its self-emptying. This is my motivation, and I hope the spark in my own thank-you in whatever tongue it is expressed and at whatever price - 1.79 per 100g. Big fish, little fish...
I thought for some reason about those syllables thank you - with the hyphen, very much, רב תודות (rav todot) or תודה רבה (todah ravah) according to Google. I imagined the phrase in Japanese - why I don't know. I don't know any Japanese except that one word arigato. Why when I can't remember the names of my friends, I should think of Japanese for thank-you at that time, is a mystery to me - the human mind at work - or not! In Hebrew I thought me'od rather than rav- maybe I like gutturals.
Would I have associated real gratitude with these words in a foreign tongue? They are automatic enough in English and meant. The smooth functioning of our interactions at the grocery store is something we are grateful for. Also the cleanliness, the packaging, the ease of purchase (however much it cost!), the local fishers and the local fish.
Associate thought - feeling - tone - intent - culture - and a few things besides - with just one simple phrase. What do we do when coming from a language no longer spoken with such associations into our own language? Do we study the words to death? Are we rigid or free? Do we appeal to sound? What knowledge of intent do we have? Our clues are many but our output - the phrase / gloss / tone / feeling that we write is mediated through a lens - our being - that we are dimly aware of, whatever our training.
Both BBB and God Didn't Say That are blogs that are written about - really they focus on - translation issues. I the self-trained translator respond occasionally. J.K. Gayle, not regularly blogging at this time shows his mettle with a response to one of these posts here. BBB's current series on foundations has had many comments, especially the hard one on audience. Whom are you translating for? Theophrastus whose blog I should be following, gives a lovely response concerning the problem of language and the issue of ignorance and how to deal with it:
Finally, even for those who [sic] no training in original languages at all, the presence of original languages is certain to raise their curiosity, and in some cases, even provide a first inductive lesson.Yes - we are curious - and such curiosity is personal, stimulating, growth inducing, and has therefore potential for joy - all good things! Also here are posts on grammar, accuracy, naturalness, collocations, word order, nouns and I expect Wayne Leman will go on with other parts of speech and stuff.
Joel Hoffman has been concentrating on translation traps and has written of a number of them. Some are traps, I suppose. Some are simply facts of life - what do you think? What are the real traps - are they among these?
- Dependence on the Dictionary
- Mimicry
- Missing the Point
- Myopic Translations
- Relying on Structure
- Forgetting your own Grammar
- Pretending some words don't exist
- Slavery to parts of speech
- Seductive translations
- Short Circuit translations
I have answered the question - 'how I translate' here. A recent phrase I have used is 'deep guesswork' as a description of what I do. Even translating that common experience - 'thank-you' into another tongue implies the guesswork that the other is also feeling gratitude in one way or another that these words will convey my feeling in transmission. So when I translate using dictionary, structure, sound, rhythm, history, geography, culture, grammar, close reading, awareness of parts of speech and their forms and how disputed they are, and whatever else I am feeling at this time: the wars over meaning and rights and wrongs and cosmic things that are in this age, what you get is a personal translation in which I am imposing my limited knowledge and my cultural bias onto the text in a way that gives me pleasure.
But I left one thing out - it's not a thing though it could be translated into דבר even if this word expresses itself in unexpected associations. The thing that is not a thing is that incommensurate and indefinable love that has gripped my life with all its contradictions and troubles and somehow taken it up into its own and allowed itself to know me through its self-emptying. This is my motivation, and I hope the spark in my own thank-you in whatever tongue it is expressed and at whatever price - 1.79 per 100g. Big fish, little fish...
Friday, 25 June 2010
Prayer
There have been a number of posts on prayer etc this week. I note particularly this one at Everyday Thomist. Yesterday while walking alone to choir practice, I had an explanatory conversation I can't remember now about this subject - if indeed it can be called a subject. Subject like object requires a certain distance and distance is not what prayer is about, rather presence.
Here is a letter one of my characters wrote when 'explaining' to one who is beloved what prayer is about.
Here is a letter one of my characters wrote when 'explaining' to one who is beloved what prayer is about.
When you pray, speak to God as you would to anyone, and listen too.
You don’t need big words.
You don’t even have to be polite.
You can pour out your complaints to God,
(better to complain to the one who has power,
than to grouch behind his back) and you can pray in silence.
No place is required; any place will do.
Any time too, whether short or long.
But it is a secret. No outward show is needed.
The conversation and the presence are yours and God’s alone.
And when you find out what he is like,
you will not want to keep silence before others,
but you will not find it easy to explain,
and you will always remember and know his mercy.
You might ask: to whom are you praying?
But the question is not to whom – but with whom;
praying is living with God who already lives with you.
There’s a lot to say about God –
but the face-to-face encounter is better
for it is God who teaches you face to face.
Jacob wrestled with God – and his hip was dislocated.
Prayer can be tough and is intimate.
You might also ask: why pray
we’re not telling God anything he doesn’t already know;
he’s too big to care about us; what will be will be anyway.
There are many excuses not to pray,
but only one reason to pray:
we pray because we are commanded to.
I don’t mean ordered but commanded.
We are given the mandate to be with God.
To pray is not a burden in any way. To pray is to agree
to the relationship with the one who created us.
The reward is God himself.
Our mutual friend, John the Elder, names the reward: to him who overcomes I will give a white stone with a name written on it that is known by no one but only to the one who receives it. The relationship is unique and personal and forever.
Why the God of Jesus?
Why the God of the Jews, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
No explanation will suffice.
Doing is, however, satisfactory.
You’ll know how positive I mean that word, satisfactory.
Satisfaction needs no modifier.
As the psalmist says:
O taste and see for the Lord is good.
Happy the warrior who trusts in him.
Monday, 21 June 2010
Searching out the foxes.
Catch the foxes,
the little foxes
that spoil the vineyards,
for our vineyards are in flower.
Instructions on searching out the meaning of a text. We absolutely must understand the plain meaning of the text, but we should also be ready to turn it and turn it, and discover new, additional meanings as well. (From the Maggidic blog here - ht Midrash blog)
The Midrash blog notes one form of searching out the text: begin the discourse with a “distant” scripture... which is used to shed light on the text being interpreted. This example also uses a parable.
1. We absolutely must understand the plain meaning of the text.
What have foxes to do with the Song? The word occurs 7 times in the Hebrew Scripture. The vineyard in the Song is the place where the lovers live and work. One may be forced to keep the vineyards of others and not able to keep one's own (Song 1:6). The Beloved is like a vineyard (Song 1:14). The foxes spoil the vineyard, the place of love (Song 7:12). One may have many such vineyards but in the end it is
2. Now turn it and turn it
While the enemies of Israel are round about, and can be interpreted as foxes (as my old Jerusalem Bible does - rather bluntly as if no other interpretation was possible), the troubles of a life are closer than geography.
In the Song, the foxes (shu`alim) occur twice in one verse and the Shulamite twice in one verse. This too can be seen as an inclusio around the word of peace (shalom). The beloved herself must learn to care for her own vineyard and must not be like a fox.
Twice only is fox referred to in the New Testament, the king Herod is such (Luke 13:32) and the foxes are said to have holes while the son of man has nowhere to lay his head (Luke 9:58, ||Matthew 8:20). The Herod family is generally thought to be Idumean, but this note might indicate otherwise. In any case, the reading of the foxes as political enemies around Israel requires the reading of Israel as the beloved of the Song.
How is the vineyard of the son of man to be kept from the fox?
And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third [day] I shall be perfected.
The perfection achieved is sufficient to the task of catching the foxes (shu`alim) and bringing them to peace (shalom). Let it be then that one read the Song both individually and corporately, both as a love song of the time and as a love song for the present, both as a song of the Beloved for his people then (Isaiah 5:1) and also for the 24 elders who sing the new song now and in the time to come (Revelation 5:9).
But let it be, Beloved, I speak as one, that nothing be lacking.
3. Now summarize with a distant text, then a near text.
The fox is one who brings trouble to the lovers. The trouble cannot be sufficient to destroy love. For Love is strong as death, passion as fierce as the grave. The grave is overcome by the one who gave his life for the life of the world. So the foxes are caught, but they had their reason for giving trouble, that the Shulamite might learn to lean on her Beloved and not on her own strength, nor even on the forceful orders of her brothers. Daughters of Jerusalem, this is my beloved and this is my companion, he is all sweetness.
This is not a simple process...
the little foxes
that spoil the vineyards,
for our vineyards are in flower.
אֶֽחֱזוּ־לָנוּ שֽׁוּעָלִים
שֽׁוּעָלִים קְטַנִּים
מְחַבְּלִים כְּרָמִים
וּכְרָמֵינוּ סְמָדַֽר
Song of Solomon 2:15Instructions on searching out the meaning of a text. We absolutely must understand the plain meaning of the text, but we should also be ready to turn it and turn it, and discover new, additional meanings as well. (From the Maggidic blog here - ht Midrash blog)
The Midrash blog notes one form of searching out the text: begin the discourse with a “distant” scripture... which is used to shed light on the text being interpreted. This example also uses a parable.
1. We absolutely must understand the plain meaning of the text.
What have foxes to do with the Song? The word occurs 7 times in the Hebrew Scripture. The vineyard in the Song is the place where the lovers live and work. One may be forced to keep the vineyards of others and not able to keep one's own (Song 1:6). The Beloved is like a vineyard (Song 1:14). The foxes spoil the vineyard, the place of love (Song 7:12). One may have many such vineyards but in the end it is
כַּרְמִי שֶׁלִּי לְפָנָי
My vineyard that is mine is before me.
(Song 8:11,12 vineyard is an inclusio for the whole poem.) How will I tend it? Psalm 63 O God you are my God
I will seek you early
My life thirsts for you
my flesh faints for you
in a land dry and languished failing in waters
I will seek you early
My life thirsts for you
my flesh faints for you
in a land dry and languished failing in waters
...
for your loving kindness is better than life
...
and those who seek to destroy my being
they will go to the nethermost parts of the earth
they will vanish by the hand of the sword
they will be a portion of foxes
they will go to the nethermost parts of the earth
they will vanish by the hand of the sword
they will be a portion of foxes
2. Now turn it and turn it
While the enemies of Israel are round about, and can be interpreted as foxes (as my old Jerusalem Bible does - rather bluntly as if no other interpretation was possible), the troubles of a life are closer than geography.
In the Song, the foxes (shu`alim) occur twice in one verse and the Shulamite twice in one verse. This too can be seen as an inclusio around the word of peace (shalom). The beloved herself must learn to care for her own vineyard and must not be like a fox.
Twice only is fox referred to in the New Testament, the king Herod is such (Luke 13:32) and the foxes are said to have holes while the son of man has nowhere to lay his head (Luke 9:58, ||Matthew 8:20). The Herod family is generally thought to be Idumean, but this note might indicate otherwise. In any case, the reading of the foxes as political enemies around Israel requires the reading of Israel as the beloved of the Song.
How is the vineyard of the son of man to be kept from the fox?
And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third [day] I shall be perfected.
The perfection achieved is sufficient to the task of catching the foxes (shu`alim) and bringing them to peace (shalom). Let it be then that one read the Song both individually and corporately, both as a love song of the time and as a love song for the present, both as a song of the Beloved for his people then (Isaiah 5:1) and also for the 24 elders who sing the new song now and in the time to come (Revelation 5:9).
But let it be, Beloved, I speak as one, that nothing be lacking.
3. Now summarize with a distant text, then a near text.
The fox is one who brings trouble to the lovers. The trouble cannot be sufficient to destroy love. For Love is strong as death, passion as fierce as the grave. The grave is overcome by the one who gave his life for the life of the world. So the foxes are caught, but they had their reason for giving trouble, that the Shulamite might learn to lean on her Beloved and not on her own strength, nor even on the forceful orders of her brothers. Daughters of Jerusalem, this is my beloved and this is my companion, he is all sweetness.
This is not a simple process...
Sunday, 20 June 2010
Seasonal colour
It is time for more of the poetry of the Beloved. Here are some recent blooms. From the top left...
- Impatiens,
- an unknown - shrimp flower?
- Peonies and a spread of lobelia and impatiens with bright lonicera nitida 'Baggesens Gold' behind,
- yellow foxglove,
- closeup of lobelia,
- bonsai maple (6 years old?) in a pot with begonia behind,
- yellow rose,
- a pot full of miscellaneous succulents purchased from the Lieutenant Governor's from a year or two ago,
- a pink peony and some purple foxglove near the fence,
- and a brightly coloured trumpet plant with a stray Solomon's seal in it - The trumpets lived over the winter and bloomed again.
 |
| From Collages |
Variations on שלמ in the Song
If one was to search out this letter combination in the Song - what could one make of it?
So we have in order
- Jerusalem 7+1 times,
- Solomon 4+1+1 times,
- Foxes twice,
- 'which all of them' twice,
- the Shulamite twice
If we eliminate the ones that are comprised of relative and personal pronoun with all (#4), we have only 4 words playing on the Shalom sound. I can see one could go somewhere with this.
Both structure and allusion are present in many of the texts I have read closely. Allusion is very easy to hear but may be misleading. Take for instance the comments on this post on this same subject. Carl asks for my 'umble opinion. And I immediately think of Uriah Heep - but is that what Carl meant? It would be very appropriate since in Dickens' Copperfield, David is called Dodi, my beloved in Hebrew and definitely a Song word, by his wife. But one dropped h is not necessarily an allusion. How much do we need to establish allusion or structure in a Biblical text when we can't ask the authors?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
