Print

Print


>Thanks Liz!

 Liz Gabay <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 >I read your explanation of how Loch Derg might have been called Loch Gerg

in the past, but it looked very speculative to me and not convincing enough
to

change the placename in a translation.



lrf: I'm happy to go along with that, sure it's early days and we (or at
least I) still don't really understand what's happening.



>Taidg ūi Cheallaigh re snīomh slegh

>'re' is probably a form of 'fri' or 'la' here, as in previous verses of
this poem.

Use of the word 'sním' with weapons in Bardic verse is discussed at DIL S

303.61.  The sense is "twisting or wrenching (perhaps twirling or
brandishing)

weapons, hence fighting, doing battle".  They quote our text but don't

translate it.

 >I suspect 're' translates 'by means of, through' here.  'Slegh' could be

genitive plural.  So maybe --



From those days in Glenn Gerg

Any king who ever bloodied a wound

Has not had followers like the followers of my king

Tadg Ua Cellaigh by brandishing of spears.

  Liz

lrf: I follow the various steps of your argument alright, but I don't really
see what the last line is supposed to mean:  who is brandishing the spears?


And this 'any king' is a bit awkward.  How about:


'no king who ever bloodied a wound

has had f. like the f. of my king'


and then I would be tempted to follow that up with:


'TO'C, brandishing spears.'

which is beautifully vague in terms of referent, a fact that scarcely
matters, given that the whole point of the spears brandished is to fill out
the syllabic line.

By the way, I picked up a classic piece of translation at the Congress (I
hasten to add that the paper's content per se was quite good, well observed
and carefully researched).  Listen to this:

 'In addition those, from the ten dishes of food or thirteen, they [the
Cluniacs] demand what is to be owed to them only by right of custom, with
the starvation of famine advancing famine, rather than temporarily stopping,
they would permit their lands, houses and great estates to be torn apart
from inside and given away in perpetuity, they would permit the poor
amassing at their doorways to collapse, and go weak from hunger, they would
not sustain them in compassion.  Those others [the Cistercians], just as the
canons too, rather than see a single poor person in unusual need, of the two
dishes they alone use they would withhold from one through the zeal of
charity.'

I do sincerely hope that when I am finally done working on this poem, I will
have raised it from this level of gibberish (where my translation started)
to something that makes some plain sense.  And I also sincerely hope that
the well-meaning student who wrote that piece I just quoted gets some good
advice down the line somewhere.



Cheers, and thanks Liz,

Lenore