try to translate some foreign poems / 洋诗试译

[studentyoung]

Perhaps more polishing is needed for your 詞亡.

Please have a look.

词亡？

作者：艾米莉•狄更生

某人如是说——

于词出口时，

此词已亡矣。

然吾力驳之——

此词命方始，

恰恰于此日！

（translated by studentyoung）

It appears very 三及第 to me.

呵呵，我之前都没听说过“三及第”呢，这回我可是“落第”了。

Cheers!

[rob07]

Thanks studentyoung. I enjoyed your translation.

[studentyoung]

The Sorrow of Love

By William Butler Yeats （1865-1939）

The quarrel of the sparrow in the eaves,

The full round moon and the star-laden sky,

And the loud song of the ever-singing leaves,

Had hid away earth's old and weary cry.

And then you came with those red mournful lips,

And with you came the whole of the world's tears,

And all the sorrows of her labouring ships,

And all the burden of her myriad years.

And now the sparrows warring in the eaves,

The curd-pale moon, the white stars in the sky,

And the loud chaunting of the unquiet leaves,

Are shaken with earth's old and weary cry.

情殇

作者：威廉•巴特勒•叶芝

檐上麻雀唧唧闹，

星空圆月朗朗照。

浓浓树荫沙沙唱，

湮没嚎啕声声渺。

卿来丹唇含哀怨，

卿来清泪溢潇湘。

神伤压尽千舟扁，

心忧熬去万载长。

檐上麻雀喳喳战，

惨星昏月黯黯然。

浓浓树阴哗哗唱，

摇落呜咽句句寒。

（translated by studentyoung）

[Hanyu'sWay]

Great! Let me give it a try too.

Concealed Feelings

By Lori

Crumbled papers of poems about you

Written with words that may not come true

Written in ink that will never fade away

The sincere words I wish I could say.

Hands still shaking as I continue to write

Scribbled letters of black and white

Eager to tell you how I feel

Wishing I could prove my love is real

揉皱诗笺总为卿，情缘未必诉心倾。

冰魂墨底痕应久，热望君前语欲明。

笔下唯从灵震颤，行间但任意纵横。

且将白纸存衷曲，写我胸中一字诚。

Edited August 20, 2008 at 02:24 AM by Hanyu'sWay

[studentyoung]

Great! Let me give it a try too.

Welcome! 欢迎，欢迎，热烈欢迎！

笔下唯从灵震颤，行间但任意纵横。

Hehehe. Great! 朋友真个下笔如神了，是个读书万卷的才郎吧？

Cheers!

[Hanyu'sWay]

Hehehe. Great! 朋友真个下笔如神了，是个读书万卷的才郎吧？

呵呵，才学诗两年。过奖了。

[studentyoung]

呵呵，才学诗两年。过奖了。

才学诗两年就这么有才气了，可喜可贺呢。呵呵。

All that is gold does not glitter

By J. R. R. Tolkien in “The Lord of the Rings”

All that is gold does not glitter,

Not all those who wander are lost;

The old that is strong does not wither,

Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,

A light from the shadows shall spring;

Renewed shall be blade that was broken,

The crownless again shall be king.

黄金未必都闪光

作者：J.R.P. 托尔金 于《指环王》

黄金未必都闪光

徘徊或非因迷茫

老健能保不凋零

根深自可尽避霜

火自灰中愤然醒

光从影后别样恍

断剑之刃当复原

无冕之人重称王

(translated by studentyoung)

（小注：我没看过《指环王》的电影，也没读过小说，纯粹是有人在网上放了这首诗，我看了看，还有点意思，就译了。）

Cheers!

[HashiriKata]

Just noticed that Tolkien's original title and Studentyoung's translation of it don't seem to mean the same thing:

Tolkien: "All that is gold does not glitter" (= Gold does not glitter.)

Studentyoung: "黄金未必都闪光" (= Gold does not necessarily glitter.)

So, logically "Gold does not glitter" and "Gold does not necessarily glitter" are different, but how can we be sure that "Gold does not glitter" is not intended to mean the same as "Gold does not necessarily glitter"? No, we probably can't, because there seem to be several semantically-contradictory versions of the saying in English that are commonly taken as to mean the same:

"All is not gold that glitters"

"All that glitters is not gold"

"Not all that glitters is gold"

And so, there's no reason to assume that "All that is gold does not glitter" is intended to mean anything different from the other three, and Studentyoung's translation of the tiltle is after all what it should be.

Am I confused? or is English confusing? or is all that glitters confusing?

[imron]

"All that is gold does not glitter" (= Gold does not glitter.)

Actually, I read this to be Not all gold glitters, which is basically "Gold does not necessarily glitter.", which is what you said studentyoung's translation meant.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with the translation.

[HashiriKata]

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with the translation.

That is also what I said, Imron! :

Studentyoung's translation of the tiltle is after all what it should be.

As for what else I need to say, it is this:

As always, at the gate of logics, I'm hesitant to enter... (hence my previous post)

[HashiriKata]

Actually, I read this [All that is gold does not glitter'] to be Not all gold glitters

Ok, let's see:

Tolkien's "All that is gold does not glitter" = Anything, as long as it is gold, then it does not glitter = Gold does not glitter.

Imron's "Not all gold glitters" = Some gold glitters (and some does not) = Some gold glitters.

Conclusion: "Gold does not glitter" DOES NOT MEAN "Some gold glitters"!

A very reluctant logician,

HK

Edited August 31, 2008 at 08:34 PM by HashiriKata

[imron]

The issue is that IMO “Anything, as long as it is gold, then it does not glitter” is not an accurate interpretation of "All that is gold does not glitter".

[HashiriKata]

The issue is that IMO “Anything, as long as it is gold, then it does not glitter” is not an accurate interpretation of "All that is gold does not glitter".

I understand what you're saying, Imron, but I suspect we may be talking about different things: the logical meaning of a sentence may be very different from our interpretation of it, and I already referred to the likelihood of this (post #28 ) :

there seem to be several semantically-contradictory versions of the saying in English that are commonly taken as to mean the same:

"All is not gold that glitters"

"All that glitters is not gold"

"Not all that glitters is gold"

Let's look again at the two variations from the quote:

Variation 1. "All that glitters is not gold"

Variation 2. "Not all that glitters is gold"

These are the most established versions of the saying in English and every English speaker would take them as to mean the same' date=' but this is a matter of interpretation. Their meanings, if they have to be strictly established, are very different:

Variation 1. is saying [i']"[All and everything that glitters] [is not gold][/i]", which is an exclusive statement in the form of {x can never be y}.

On the other hand, Variation 2 is saying "[Not all (= some) that glitters][is gold]", which is a qualifying statement in the form of {some x will be y}

From this, it should be clear that {x can never be y} is not the same as {some x will be y}.

Then, going back to Tolkien's "[All that is gold] [does not glitter]", I think it's perfectly possible to interprete it as "Gold does not necessarily glitter" as Studentyoung did. It's also possible to take it in its logical sense to mean "Gold does not glitter" (Since it's poetry, it's not unreasonable to take this meaning as to be intended by the poet!). But by saying that it can only mean one thing and no other, we may be erring on the wrong side.

Cheers,

[realmayo]

the logical meaning of a sentence may be very different from our interpretation of it

I disagree, unless you're talking about a poorly written sentence.

It's like saying, this food -- or this combination of ingredients -- has a logical taste (add salt + water + wine = a very nice taste) but its interpreted taste, interpreted by anyone who actually puts it in their mouth, is very different (= "yuk").

In the case of "All that glitters is not gold" "all" can of course = "everything" or "not everything", given what follows, but to most people, at least at first, it means the latter. Hey, the ambiguity may be there for a reason, not to satisfy "logic", but the readers or at least the writer.

Also: Google confirms that this phrase (or one v similar) has been used at least since Chaucer ("Hyt is not al golde that glareth").

There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold...

...And you know sometimes words have two meanings

[Hanyu'sWay]

Am I confused? or is English confusing? or is all that glitters confusing?

I don't know. I am confused enough about Chinese.

下雨天留客天留我不留

[HashiriKata]

...And you know sometimes words have two meanings

That's brilliant, realmayo. Thank you!

[studentyoung]

I don't know. I am confused enough about Chinese.

下雨天留客天留我不留

呵呵，呵呵呵，一边笑，一边咬牙，一边译！

下雨天留客天留我不留。

The rainy day keeps a guest this day does I don’t do.

下雨天、留客天，留我? 不留？

The rainy day keeps a guest, this day does? I don’t do?

下雨天留客，天留，我不留！

The rainy day keeps a guest, this day does, I don’t do!

下雨天留客天，留我不？留！

The rainy day keeps a guest this day, does I don’t? Do!

Cheers!

[HashiriKata]

I am confused enough about Chinese.

One good thing I find in knowing another language is when I'm not sure what something means in one language, I sometimes try translating it into another and this usually clears the air of the confusion:

Variation 1. "All that glitters is not gold" = 闪光的东西都不是金子。

Variation 2. "Not all that glitters is gold" = 闪光的东西不都是金子。

The result shows clearly the difference between the two sentences in Chinese, and that not all languages are as forgiving (or sloppy ) as we sometimes are in English with regard to where to put "not" in the sentence.

Edited September 2, 2008 at 07:38 AM by HashiriKata

[realmayo]

Well, at the risk of being argumentative ... ... the ambiguity could easily be cleared up by rewording, eg "Not everything that glitters is gold" but the writer chose not to do it that way (ie I don't think you can just call it sloppy).

As studentyoung's post shows, Chinese can be just as ambiguous. Actually, it seems that classical Chinese poetry leaves things far more open-ended than comparable English-language poetry.

I know what you mean about translating into another language to clarify something, though. Translating from Chinese, I often get distracted puzzling over English....

[HashiriKata]

I don't think you can just call it sloppy

Hey, don't forget my primary choice of words was "forgiving"!

("Slopy" was only an afterthought intended for the picky )