Comment by mklyachman

18 days ago

Does it matter? Genuine question-- does this (mis)translation change anything

>According to the historical linguist, rather than reading: “Listen! We have heard of the might of the kings” the Old English of “Hwæt! We Gar-Dena in gear-dagum, þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon, hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon!” should instead be understood as: “How we have heard of the might of the kings.”

So semantically... no difference.

Do you know the joke about the priest who died, and discovered God meant priests to "celebrate", not "celibate"?

It matters to those who care about this piece of literature. Maybe not as much as a lifetime of coital bliss missed, but who's to say?

Not really. It does however help drive home the point that such interjections were unlikely to be used by speakers of Nordic languages in order to begin a tale. (On the other hand in Latin and Celtic traditions, interjections were widely used in story-telling, eg. "Ecce!" and "Féach!" respectively). Old English speakers would have been more inclined to used interjections in a responsive context. For example, to the statement "The boat is taking on water!", one might respond "How?!". But to begin a conversation with an interjection, that just isn't consistent with what we see in any of the speech patterns found in languages which developed from Old Norse.

  • > It does however help drive home the point that such interjections were unlikely to be used by speakers of Nordic languages in order to begin a tale.

    Beowulf was written in Old English, which is not a Nordic language.

    > ... any of the speech patterns found in languages which developed from Old Norse.

    Similarly, Old English didn't develop from Old Norse.

    • Beowulf has a Scandinavian background to the story. Shortly after "hwæt", it mentions "gar-Denas" or spear Danes. (Old English had become heavily influenced by Norse by the time of the Norman invasions, especially in ita northern dialects.)

      There may be a Celtic influence upon it as well, as with some of the Icelandic sagas, but you would have to dig much deeper for that.

      4 replies →

  • > that just isn't consistent with what we see in any of the speech patterns found in languages which developed from Old Norse.

    What's up with the phrasing? Old English isn't a language that developed from Old Norse.

    • When the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons arrived in England around fall of Rome in the early 400s, the "official" language was Latin (as Britain had been a Roman colony since 43 AD) whereas locals spoke various Celtic dialects. The newcomers brought with them Scandinavian tongues and for the next 500 years or so Old English developed with minor changes (with sparse inclusions from Latin and Celtic influences). That all changed in 1066 with the Norman Invasion where Old Northern French became the new official language. (French also began as a Nordic language, but over time only a few hundred or so words remained, with the rest being mostly Latin-based.) As far as Modern English is concerned, while only ~20% is based on Old Norse, those words form more than 80% of what is most commonly used on a day-to-day basis.

      6 replies →