tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post1043337756955791158..comments2024-03-11T16:29:13.619-05:00Comments on Lingwë - Musings of a Fish: Jonah and the ColocynthJason Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-75657890117458391772014-11-08T18:33:55.305-06:002014-11-08T18:33:55.305-06:00Nice points, Hlaford. I especially like your obser...Nice points, Hlaford. I especially like your observation that an uncommon word is a better stylistic choice to translate a hapax legomenon than a common word would be.Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-41539146089065366292014-11-07T18:04:34.093-06:002014-11-07T18:04:34.093-06:00There is also this: 'colocynth', being not...There is also this: 'colocynth', being not so common as (say) 'gourd', is stylistically more appropriate for translating a h.l. Note Tolkien's letter #234 concerning his choice of 'plenilune' and 'argent': 'They are beautiful words before they are understood - I wish I could have the pleasure of meeting them for the first time again! - and how is one to know them till one does meet them? And surely the first meeting should be in a living context, and not in a dictionary, like dried flowers in a hortus siccus! [...] I think that this writing down, flattening, <i>Bible-in-basic-English</i> attitude is responsible for the fact that so many older children and younger people have little respect and no love for words, and very limited vocabularies - and alas! little desire left (even when they had the gift which has been stultified) to refine or enlarge them.' [emphasis added]<br /><br />Not that it makes 'colocynth' a better solution semantically. But once one admits that one is not in a better position than other translators to decide which meaning is better, capturing the <i>effect</i> of the h.l. in the Hebbrew text is surely a gain.Hlafordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01570318115206193131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-27512563804324849422014-11-05T12:40:05.043-06:002014-11-05T12:40:05.043-06:00Thanks, Carl!Thanks, Carl!Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-80202142036824344672014-11-04T18:35:32.730-06:002014-11-04T18:35:32.730-06:00The Vulgate has _hederam_ (nom. _hedera_) 'ivy...The Vulgate has _hederam_ (nom. _hedera_) 'ivy'.Aelfwinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750294376581801762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-44665541268778387712014-11-04T18:16:52.211-06:002014-11-04T18:16:52.211-06:00Yes, that certainly seems reasonable to me, so I w...Yes, that certainly seems reasonable to me, so I wonder why other later translators have not done likewise. And what's in the Vulgate? I haven't looked but probably will — unless you get to it first. :)Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-33450934298184068522014-11-04T17:36:03.604-06:002014-11-04T17:36:03.604-06:00Tolkien may simply (and arguably quite rightly) ha...Tolkien may simply (and arguably quite rightly) have thought that the witness of the ancient Jewish translators who produced the Septuagint as to the meaning of this Hebrew _hapax legomenon_ carries more weight than the speculation of translators/critics from a much, much later time.Aelfwinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750294376581801762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-81679701165097218112014-11-04T10:32:03.369-06:002014-11-04T10:32:03.369-06:00Ah, thanks, Carl; much obliged for that informatio...Ah, thanks, Carl; much obliged for that information, which I had not thought to check. Isn't it interesting that no other English translation (at least, that I know of) uses the English word "colocynth", opting for "gourd" or similar instead? Maybe it's just a matter of choosing a word likely to be more familiar to readers. Or maybe it's a matter of consensus among biblical scholars that the Septuagint translation is wrong? Though Tolkien apparently thought it may have been right. Even the <i>New Oxford Annotated Bible</i> has "a bush", with a note: "Heb[rew] <i>qiqayon</i>, possibly <i>the castor bean plant</i>".<br /><br />The French Jerusalem Bible, on which the English translation was based (though not without reference to the original languages) has: "Alors Yahvé Dieu fit qu'il y eut <b>un ricin</b> qui grandit au-dessus de Jonas, afin de donner de l'ombre à sa tête et de le délivrer ainsi de son mal. Jonas éprouva une grande joie à cause du ricin." This is a clear choice of the castor plant, but skepticism obviously prompted Tolkien to copy out its OED definition for further rumination. He evidently found it unsuitable when looking at the Hebrew and considering, as Carl notes, the Greek translation in the Septuagint.Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-26315117483948047382014-11-04T08:50:30.685-06:002014-11-04T08:50:30.685-06:00Tolkien here is following the Septuagint, which ha...Tolkien here is following the Septuagint, which has κολοκύνθῃ 'gourd, pumpkin".Aelfwinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04750294376581801762noreply@blogger.com