02-03-2010, 05:44 PM
Paul,
Duncan said it very well in few words. I'll use some more hoping to help you understand.
I agree with you that different languages (and cultures) have different ways to use their words. You're right, English is not my native language, and one way you see this is that in my writing you find a not so accurate translation of my native non-English thoughts. Whenever I realize and I can, I try to make my wording as English as it can be, but obviously my success will be always limited and the native speakers will always know. Of course, a good translator must make the text translated from Greek (or French, in your example) sound as English as possible, however this is not the case here, because both Greek and English speakers have some distinct words to express notions such as 'man', 'Egyptian', or 'slave'.
In Ancient Greek some words are polysemic, that is they have several meanings. This is obviously true for many other (most?) languages, including English. For instance 'wood' can be a 'a piece from a tree' or 'many trees'.
You're right in saying that words change meanings (that means also gain or lose) over time. One favourite example of mine is 'nice'. However in our case the translators should have no worries, ???? meant 'spear' even in the times of Homer: ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ????? (Od. I.256) = "with his helmet and shield and two spears"
Duncan said it very well in few words. I'll use some more hoping to help you understand.
I agree with you that different languages (and cultures) have different ways to use their words. You're right, English is not my native language, and one way you see this is that in my writing you find a not so accurate translation of my native non-English thoughts. Whenever I realize and I can, I try to make my wording as English as it can be, but obviously my success will be always limited and the native speakers will always know. Of course, a good translator must make the text translated from Greek (or French, in your example) sound as English as possible, however this is not the case here, because both Greek and English speakers have some distinct words to express notions such as 'man', 'Egyptian', or 'slave'.
Quote:...No, you seem to have misunderstood, perhaps because English may not be your native tongue. 'Doru' does NOT literally mean 'spear' - it meant originally 'tree, stem, shaft' ( e.g. Homer Iliad V.666 'doru meilinon'/ ashen shaft). The ancient Greeks were great ones for using 'slang' and thus 'Doru', though not originally literally meaning 'spear', came to refer to spear - a new meaning for the word.I have just interpreted your earlier "could be used to mean" as knowledge of the fact. Duncan astutely pointed out that ???? actually means (also) 'spear' (and you can also check my Perseus link where you can find the definition of this word in several major dictionaries). And this is no slang, because the word with this meaning is widely used by many different ancient authors in what we regard to be a literary (standard) language.
In Ancient Greek some words are polysemic, that is they have several meanings. This is obviously true for many other (most?) languages, including English. For instance 'wood' can be a 'a piece from a tree' or 'many trees'.
You're right in saying that words change meanings (that means also gain or lose) over time. One favourite example of mine is 'nice'. However in our case the translators should have no worries, ???? meant 'spear' even in the times of Homer: ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ????? (Od. I.256) = "with his helmet and shield and two spears"
Quote:For the former instance, one of the major points I tried to make in my post was that in English we have just one word for 'slave', but in Greek there were many concepts and degrees of slavery - and many words for 'slave' too - I gave some examples. To be a 'slave' to your own King/Absolute ruler ( and hence not be a 'free' man in the Greek sense) is quite different to being the 'slave' in a more literal way to a foreign conqueror - and indeed, to get this concept across, De Selincourt translates the literal 'enslaved' as 'conquered'. The difficulty and confusion here arises precisely because of the problems of literal translation I was referring to .'Conquered' is not necessarily a bad translation, but 'enslaved' is closer to the original Greek.
Quote:In the second instance, I had already referred to the fact that 'proper' slavery had come into existence in Egypt from the time of Ramses onward......so yes, there were 'proper slaves' in Herodotus' day in Egypt. ( but note that here the noble daughter is forced to dress as a 'hand-maiden', or household slave, not a 'field-hand' or more lowly type of slave......and that even Pharoah's daughter is technically, in the Greek sense, Pharoah's slave/subject and not 'free' because she would have to carry out the will/whims of Pharoah as Absolute Ruler)Arguably those girls were not war captives or any other type of slaves, yet they were dressed as ??????. For a coherent narrative, they must have some other status but that of a slave.
Drago?
