LL-L: "Logic" [E/Danish] LOWLANDS-L, 20.SEP.1999 (04)

Tue Sep 21 03:48:23 UTC 1999

 =========================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 20.SEP.1999 (04) * ISSN 1089-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/~sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 =========================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =========================================================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =========================================================================

From: Gerald Tighe [gftighe2 at home.com]
Subject: LL-L: "Double negative" [E] LOWLANDS-L, 17.SEP.1999 (02)

John Feather wrote:

snip

> Language is just not "logical". The late novelist and critic Marghanita
> Laski had an obsession about the word "only". She argued that it could be
> inserted into a sentence such as "I saw the mountain" in five different
> places to give at least four different meanings - assuming as she did that
> "only" qualifies the immediately following word or phrase. But English
> doesn't work like that.

> In real E "I only saw the mountain" conveys the same.
> sense as the "logical" I saw only the mountain .

I am confused here with the use of "sense" and '"logical"', what "real
E[nglish]" is, and why
"I saw only the mountain" is considered "logical".
Reference to sense or logic over one isolated sentence is a bit of a 'red
herring'. (And I am beginning to
wonder if I should be feeling a sharp tugging on my lip.)

As I understand it, logic is more appropriately used in the discussion of ideas.

I find no idea in the above sentence. In either of the two forms, it is a
statement of fact: The person did, or did not see the mountain. An idea may be
logical but not sensible, but if sensible it must be logical.

 The difference between "I only saw the mountain" and "I saw only the mountain"
has nothing to do with "sense" or "logic". The difference is in the meaning
assigned by the writer in his choice of one over the other to convey a
character's emotional response or attitude, to or during the 'mountain seeing
scene'.

If  there is "real E[nglish]" what is unreal English?

--
Regards

Gerald           http://artphotoprints.com

----------

From: Lone Elisabeth Olesen [lone at studentergaarden.dk]
Subject: Re: "Logic" [E]

Hello Lowlanders...

>  Sandy Fleming wrote:

>> I think it's potentially enlightening to ask why "nonsense" language such as
>> that written by Lewis Carroll and Edward Lear is so much harder to translate
>> than "sensible" stuff. The first verse of a poem from "Through the Looking
>> Glass":
>>
>> JABBERWOCKY
>>
>> 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
>> Did gyre and gimble in the wabe,
>> All mimsy were the borogoves
>> And the mome raths outgrabe.
>>
>> and my rough attempt at translating it into Scots (bits that I can't get
>> right at all are in brackets, and this is a lot easier in Scots, since the
>> two languages are close enough for some words to go straight across):
>>
>> YAMMERWOCHIE
>>
>> 'Twis hoytri[g] an the [sclithy] t[o]ves
>> Did gyre an [wimmle] in the wy[b]e
>> Aa [mim]sy wis the boragoves
>> An the [r]ame raths oot[grybe].

Gerald Tighe answered:

>I can't disagree with the translation, but I do question the need, or value.
>
>JABBERWOCKY
>
>['Twas] brillig, [and the] slithy toves
>[Did] gyre [and] gimble [in the] wabe,
>[All] mimsy [were the] borogoves
>[And the] mome raths outgrabe.
>
>Is a translation that addresses more than 'my' bracketed words not
>bowdlerization? What is gained by translating one "'nonsense' language" into an

>other? Lewis Carroll, like all diligent writers, surly constructed/chose those
>particular non-sense words with care (For their sound, for their look?).
>To translate these truly original parts is a greater loss to veracity than the
>translation of one to an other recognised language.

As a child I read the Danish translation of "Through the looking glass"
with great pleasure. So I first got to know "Jabberwocky" in Danish. I
think the nonsense was transferred very well. Inevitably, the sound of the
words was altered, but the translator was using the "explanation" given
later in the story by Humpty-Dumpty, so that the nonsense words would fit
the explanation and the original drawing. In Danish it is:

Et slidigt gravben vridrede
i brumringen paa tidvis plent.
Lappingen var vaklig,
og det borte gro/fgrin grent.

The poem - inspite of its nonsense - reveals itself to be a mock hero
story, with a very logic structure to it: "'Twas briling... etc." is the
setting of the scene, the obligatory landscape description, next a young
knight is sent out by his father to kill a dragon... the "Jabberwock with
eyes of flame/ came whiffling through the tulgey wood".... He does so and
returns home...
 "'Twas briling...etc." ends the poem as well and could also be seen as the
chorus of a medieval song, which today we do not understand unless words
and context are explained. Only, when Humpty-Dumpty explains later in the
story, he takes out some words of verse one only, explaining them one by
one, relating nothing to a context...
For the translation of the first verse, it seems that the guidelines are
already given by Lewis Carroll himself: the Humpty-Dumpty explanation,
illustrated by a drawing of the most adorable imaginated creatures. (Lewis
Carroll had very specific ideas as for how he wanted the illustrator to
draw!)
If I translate back again, from Danish into English, the verse "fits" the
drawing except for one creature:

A slithy dig-bone was writhing
in the brownset at timely lawny
All staggery was the patch-bird
and the away ditch-grin grunted

Of course, the Humpty-Dumpty explanation is wasted on this...( L.C. is
probably turning in his grave...) But it might be a point that structured
nonsense is easier to translate than random nonsense, because some ground
rules are given already.
Lewis Carroll wrote the lesser known novels about "Sylvie and Bruno", where
he asks if the reader can guess which verses were written to fit a chapter
and which chapters were written to fit some verses. This is hard to tell
when you deal with nonsense verses and semi-nonsense chapters, and thus he
plays around with the reader's sense of logic.

This is going to be my last contributionfor quite a while... After many
months of "lurking" I have sadly come to realise that I'll have to sign off
the list due to lack of time.
I hope to return here later - it has been a real pleasure to follow the
discussions :-)

Greetings, Lone Elisabeth Olesen

----------

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Farvel

Kære Lone,

Farvel så længe!  Jeg håber Du kommer snart tilbage.

We'll be missing Lone.  Thanks to her for her interesting contributions while
she was with us.

Regards,

Reinhard/Ron

==================================END======================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 =========================================================================