![]() It's like translating an English song into another language while keeping the same tempo and beat.Īs far as nonverbal communications, the marvel of the oath is that it is in meter, so it has a rhythm, a pattern to be followed, so that nonverbal sounds, lights, vibrations, anything that can oscillate can be pulsed to the rhythm of the oath. It's most likely that in an alien language that has any kind of rhythm, the words will be transliterated to fit into the right meter. We do know that the oath has the same meter- iambic tetrameter, whenever it's recited. We have no idea what they do in other languages. The oaths do rhyme, but that's only in English. Perhaps the commonality of oaths is a reflection of something greater.Īnd how often is this not the case. Regardless of all of the aforementioned: an oath does not seem to be required, however purity of motive does seem to be. ![]() One must always remember that the human perspective is not the only perspective and that, while such a perspective may be vast and wonderful, it is quite limited. Perhaps it is the vibrance, or the width of wavelengths used, or some other metric for beauty with which the use to emote and connect with those they wish to share meaning with.īut, I digress, I believe what your inquiry is suffering from is a form of sociocentricism, namely (as some have termed it) sapiocentricism. Surely for the creatures (we among them) who find meaning, mostly intuitively emotional in nature, in rhythm and rhyme the Oath would be taken in that fashion (as is most reasonable for that creature to do so).įor, as I believe another researcher's reply speculated, a creature which communicates via the sending and bending of light perhaps there is not such thing as rhyme. I believe it comes down to aesthetic, beauty, and how beings assign meaning (whether culturally determined (or cultivated) or otherwise) to events and intentions. In the lanterns' case you'd just have to live with the fact that you had a slightly fuzzy version of what any other said. How well does this apply to languages that you simply don't understand? Pick the translation YOU like best and attribute it to the the writer and translator. The translators personal twist is based on their own experience and knowledge at the very least changing the artistry and at worst mistranslating based on a false assumption no longer the same work but another. Poets, on the other hand, very carefully chose their words to be perfect for the job. When it comes to ordinary speech the translators personal flair is nessecary for the conversation to fully make sense, a direct translation with out of order sentences and cultural references would be pretty useless. In the case of Goethe you'd be told that the translator chose those words and it's best to the poems read as written, if you can understand the language well enough.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |