Dear, Eratosphere, I am putting a few finishing touches on a translation about mythical figures who were transformed into constellations.

I have been trying to decide which verb is more likely to be familiar to the "general reader".

1.) "Catasterize" is a technical term for this process;

2.)"stellify" is archaic in English and has "poetic" associations--it shows up in Chaucer and Spencer. Cast your votes--"catasterize" or "stellify"

P.S. I can only use "made X into a constellation" so often, it's wordy and "-ation" rhymes only rarely float my boat.

I don't think either will be familiar to the "general reader." "Stellify" would be easier to guess, though, and also sounds better. I had no idea that it was actually an English word -- I thought I remembered my Ovid prof. in college saying she had made it up; maybe she thought she had, it's kind of an obvious coinage.

As long as you're borrowing scholarly jargon or reviving archaic terms from Chaucer, you might consider making "constellate" into a verb...

Chris

Can I vote for "None of the Above"?

It's really impossible to comment on this totally out of context, but I'm probably as good as you can hope for in a "general" reader - well read, but not in the classics, decent vocabulary, reasonably unstupid - and neither word means a thing to me.

"Catasterize" is also, unfortunately, close enough to "castrate" to create unfortunate connections.

But answering this well without the poem in front of me is impossible. Is the context such that the meaning of the word is quite clear anyway, and it's essentially in there as window dressing? Then you have less of a problem? And how does the sound of the word work with the rest of the poem? Does either nestle in there sonically, or play some helpful chords? And do the associations help? "Catasterize" sounds vaguely Greek in origin, and has a certain apocalyptic sense to it; "stellify" sounds dull, nerdy and scientific to me - based on that, i would be very much inclined to reach for "catasterize" in a poem about constellations.

But neither will do you any good if the meaning is not apparent in context. If understanding the word is critical to the flow of the poem, it's gonna crash the poem.

Hmmm. Given only those two choices?
-- stellify, no question.

However! It seems to me you've got a terrific opportunity here to conjure-up a brand-new out-there word.

Constellify?
Constellifling?
Constellevolve?

Stellevolve?
Stellasynthesis?
Sambastellatoss?

Nebulaunch?
Luminosiwhirl?
Galaxospatter?

Catasterize sounds a little too much like a painful operation.

Stellify rolls off the tongue, and is definitely more poetic. Maybe it's nerdy. But this nerd doesn't mind it. Vote [1] Stellify!

~ Bruce

Yes, casterize . . . why not Polluxulate? Or Gemenize?
Stellify . . . makes me think something liek "Stella's Hell on Wheels."

You might try to refashion the word "Apotheosis," make it a verb--or use the phrase "apotheosis to a star configuration" or something like that.

Pua, you are too much! When Hardy needed a word, he just made it up. Definitely Gallaxospatter.

I like Nebulaunch...

Can't one of the mythical figures just stand in the alley after working up a sweat in a wifebeater and start yelling "Stellar?"

"Stellify" sounds like something out of "Streetcar Named Desire."

And if you go with "catasterize" you've got to be aware that most people who don't quite know what a word means go with the root sound.

Hence the reason I heard Marlon Brando yelling in the background and also why "catasterize" won't work, either.

You're hosed.

Lo

[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited January 23, 2008).]

Firmamented? (Seems somehow appropriate for this circle anyway.)

[This message has been edited by Jan D. Hodge (edited January 23, 2008).]

Stellify: To rethink one's approach to painting, and work in an increasingly geometric and Minimalist manner. alt. To treat one's wife brutishly, yet as an object of Desire.

Catasterize: To turn into an unmitigated disaster. "Bush and Cheney have catasterized both the economy and the Middle East, and the two catastrophes are now catasterically related."

Poochifize: (1) To provide fun and games that divert those who should be working on their own stuff; (2) to pose a language problem without providing sufficient surrounding context.

Place him in the stars.

"Transform to stars," "set in the sky." I would avoid terms that sound too technical or precious.

Susan

(Supersize this!)

Women galactate.

Men . . . 'aster'ate?

Actually Aaron, David L. has the "correct" answer; there's even a verb form ready to use, "apotheosize." But you know that, of course--you're looking for an alternate, you greedy poet, you.

apotheosupersize?
apotheosupernovasize?
or just apocolocyntosize?

Pumpkin Pie with that?

Steve C.

p.s. Noted with great pleasure display of nutty genius by Pua Sandabar.

p.p.s. Edited back. Stelltify?



[This message has been edited by Stephen Collington (edited January 23, 2008).]

stellifize(d)

translate(d)?

Starkle starkle little twink!

ps:

transitive verb
1 a: to bear, remove, or change from one place, state, form, or appearance to another b: to convey to heaven

------------------
Ralph

[This message has been edited by RCL (edited January 23, 2008).]

I put in a vote for "stellify".

"Catasterize" sounds too much like you're castrating a cat.

'astralify'...?

I never imagined that my little philological question would gather so much attention. I have gotten the answer I needed--not "catasterize". "Stellify" both sounds better and is easier to figure out. "Apotheosize" would also be a possibliity--thanks, David and Stephen. It means both to glorify and to make a god. Only one of my constellations (Virgo or the Maiden) has divine ancestry but I could make it work in a pinch.

Michael's option (none of the above) is also a possibility--the damned thing is 1,156 line long and runs through all the constellations--I will try to resort to "stellify" sparingly--it looks like I'll only need it twice.

The poem in question if you are intersested is Aratus' Phaenomena, an astronomical didactic poem. Ever heard of it? No? That's sort of the problem. I think I'll be putting out an edition in the next year or so. It really is delightful--it works, too: I read exceprts of it a while back at the Minneapolis Planetarium while I went from star to star and constellation to constellation with my little laser-pointer.

I wish I could use Pua's galaxospatter (and some of Stephen's suggestions) but I fear the Classicists would not approve--they prefer dead humor. Pua, you should write us a poem called "Galaxospatter."

Thanks--may you all live to be 100 and turn into constellations upon your departure from the sublunary sphere.

Aaron,

Coming into this discussion late, I see that you may already have a solution, but I also wonder whether you might just find a word for "place/transpose into the sky" (rather than focus on the star aspect).

Claudia

Aaron,

As mentioned before, "stellify" sounds better for all the above reasons. But I'd also use Alicia's suggestion mixed with it and do something like:

"and those who have been stellified, now set among the stars"

so that "stellify" is immediately followed by its definition. Shakespeare uses this same trick with "...incarnadine, making the green one red" in case there's anyone in the pit going "Incarnadine? WTF?"

Once you've defined the new verbiage in the text of the poem, you can use it as often as you want.

Oh, goodness, I missed a couple of people in my first response. What can I say?--I posted before my afternoon power-nap.

Yes, Ralph, I also may use "translate to heaven"--I just fear I would be calling attention to my own "translation" as a translation--hmn--meta-translation?

Alicia and Susan, thank you--yes, I will go with "place him in the stars" and "set in the sky". Dear ol' Aratus is, bless his heart, precious and highly artificial. It's the same problem I run up against again and again when translating--the ancients in general had a much higher tolerance for artificial language in poetry than we do here in the 21st century. To be true to the original in that sense would be to make a translation contemporary readers couldn't stomach. For me to take "stellify" from Chaucer as Aratus took diction from Homer is, in a sense, more accurate but readers of translations are happier with "place him the stars" or "set in the sky." Is readability, in the end, the objective that trumps all other concerns in translation?

Claudia, yes, I think I have been won over to the "clear and contemporary" school. "Transpose" is good, too--lots of rhymes.

Kevin--yes, I do "editorialize" in my translation a little here and there. I want the translation to need as few footnotes as possible and I want these footnotes to concern the original text and not my Chaucerian word choices. I may do just what you suggest.

Thanks, again, all--and my apologies to those whose posts I missed the first time around.

[This message has been edited by Poochigian Aaron (edited January 23, 2008).]