why did /lit/ tell me that was a good translation? that sounds awful
he chose a prose translation, what did you expect a fucking mouth-breathing ignorant film dork to select, kek
I like how the tweet poses the question in such a sincere and curious way as if twitter users read, let alone read anything older than 40 years lmao
>>25261947/lit/ hates Wilson's translation you dumb fuck. Most of them shill Lattimore or Fagles.>>25261988Wilson's translation is in iambic pentameter, it's not prose.
>optional luxury product is not even out>redditors and chuds are already malding and seethingI will absolutely make sure to go see this shit at the cinema, together with godzilla minus zero, TADC and backrooms, and you literally can't stop me, cry more on the internet retards I'm sure I will hear your sour grapes cope
>>25262002>iambic pentameterWoke tranny academic garbage
>>25262012Do what you want. But remember that you have to be 18+ to post here.
>>25262023So ignorant of vagina art thou that thy mother gave birth to thee in a caesarean
>>25262028>But remember that you have to be 18+ to post here.You don't. Literally anyone can pull up 4chan and start posting.
"play time's over" is actually a rad translation that fits the scene perfectly
>>25262045It sounds like Sonic Adventure
>>25262023>anything more complicated than doordash menus is LE PRETENTIOUS
>25262044>Literally
>>25261947>ending the ad with a soulless double bind question to bait engagementwe live in completely meaningless, hollow times
I think it’s just the My Little Pony fetish subculture of /lit/ that recommends Emily Wilson
>>25261947canapes is fine, but why the fuck would they need to say tote bag?
>25262083Seething.
>Seething.
>>25262080Which is a good thing
>>25262137Kek he really does look like he’s trying to hold in a laugh.
>>25261947>Homer didn't sound archaic to the GreeksImpressive. She's not only a bad translator/poet, she's also a bad scholar. Homer deliberately introduced archaisms to make his poem sound grander.
>>25262428The Odyssey unlike the Iliad blends formal and almost archaic speech with sections of very informal, everyday usags. Think of Shakespeare
>>25262428>Homer deliberately introduced archaisms to make his poem sound grander.soice?
Tolkien:>But take an example from the chapter that you specially singled out (and called terrible): Book iii, "The King of the Golden Hall'. 'Nay, Gandalf!' said the King. 'You do not know your own skill in healing. It shall not be so. I myself will go to war, to fall in the front of the battle, if it must be. Thus shall I sleep better.'>This is a fair sample — moderated or watered archaism. Using only words that still are used or known to the educated, the King would really have said: 'Nay, thou (n')wost1 not thine own skill in healing. It shall not be so. I myself will go to war, to fall . . .' etc. I know well enough what a modern would say. 'Not at all my dear G. You don't know your own skill as a doctor. Things aren't going to be like that. I shall go to the war in person, even if I have to be one of the first casualties' — and then what? Theoden would certainly think, and probably say 'thus shall I sleep better'! But people who think like that just do not talk a modern idiom. You can have 'I shall lie easier in my grave', or 'I should sleep sounder in my grave like that rather than if I stayed at home' – if you like. But there would be an insincerity of thought, a disunion of word and meaning. For a King who spoke in a modern style would not really think in such terms at all, and any reference to sleeping quietly in the grave would be a deliberate archaism of expression on his part (however worded) far more bogus than the actual 'archaic' English that I have used. Like some non-Christian making a reference to some Christian belief which did not in fact move him at all.>Or p. 127, as an example of 'archaism' that cannot be defended as 'dramatic', since it is not in dialogue, but the author's description of the arming of the guests – which seemed specially to upset you. But such 'heroic' scenes do not occur in a modern setting to which a modern idiom belongs. Why deliberately ignore, refuse to use the wealth of English which leaves us a choice of styles – without any possibility of unintelligibility.>I can see no more reason for not using the much terser and more vivid ancient style, than for changing the obsolete weapons, helms, shields, hauberks into modern uniforms.
>anglophones a giant shart upon Mediterranean gold >again
>>25261947Neither did Homer sound like a 14-year-old girl to the Greeks
>>25262637Cry about it you irrelevant shithole
>>25262198Cory get off the fucking board
>>25262626>But people who think like that just do not talk a modern idiom. You can have 'I shall lie easier in my grave', or 'I should sleep sounder in my grave like that rather than if I stayed at home' – if you like. But there would be an insincerity of thought, a disunion of word and meaning. For a King who spoke in a modern style would not really think in such terms at all, and any reference to sleeping quietly in the grave would be a deliberate archaism of expression on his part (however worded) far more bogus than the actual 'archaic' English that I have used. Like some non-Christian making a reference to some Christian belief which did not in fact move him at all.I think most people intuitively know this, even if they don't understand why, and that's why the reaction to the dialogue in Nolan's movie has been poor even with normies
>>25262106That's an interesting example because her translation is technically correct, that's pretty much what the names mean in Greek, but she's deliberately chosen cutsie words.
>>25262616978-83-7306-932-9
>>25261947>>25261988Shouldn't a film dork fag choose Lawrence of Arabia's translation?
>>25262044Not for long.
>>25261947>playtime is over>Tote bagYou are kidding right...? Tell me it's bait.
>>25261988Modernization automatically disqualifies it from prose.
>>25262044Newfag
