Two translations:
a) former
b) latter
c) neither
d) both

Dial in your votes.

Brian—

What are we voting for? Correctness? Likeability?

Grammatically, neither is correct. In the first example, a singular subject is paired with a plural predicate nominative. In the second example a singular subject is matched with the wrong form of copula and a plural predicate nominative. I suppose, while you can't say one is more correct than the other, you could say that the first example is less wrong than the second.

The only thing that shines is the thing that is yellow flowers. Do you like that? I don't much. But I think you could argue that yellow flowers could be a thing. Do you agree that yellow flowers could be a thing? If you so, then the first sentence is correct. I don't think the second one ever could be.

c) neither, I'm afraid.

How about these:

The only thing shining
is yellow flowers.

Only yellow flowers shine.

Yellow flowers do all the shining.

Yellow flowers. Shining, all.

The only shine
came from yellow flowers.

These yellow flowers
do some serious shining.

Flowers. Shining. Only things. Really.

Brent

Why not "the only things that shine are yellow flowers"?

c

c

Those were two translations of lines from Tanströmer's April and Silence, the first by Robin Fulton, the second Bly.

All it would take to match the singular thing with plural flowers would be the insertion of some collective noun such as clump of.... It could be argued that in the first example [group of...] is understood.

But neither sound quite right to me.

I too wondered why neither translator made thing plural.

Brian, though I hadn't gotten around to reading it, I have the Fulton translation, The Great Enigma: new collected poems, (New Directions) but not the original text.

For:

The only thing that shines
is yellow flowers

My guess though is that the Swedish reads:

Det enda som lyser
är de gula blommorna. (är being both "is" and "are" in modern Swedish.)


And the translation is complicated by a wish to retain a parallel construction with the concluding stanza which is (Fulton translation)

The only thing I want to say
glitters out of reach
like the silver
in a pawnbroker's.

And that seems actually not very successful either. I am guessing that the final Swedish staza starts "Det enda som jag ville säga" or "Det enda som jag önskar säga"

A further guess is that the translator was trying to retain the parallel that both stanzas begin "Det enda som…" (The only thing)That is probably why the translators didn't use "things".

"Thing" in Swedish is "ting" and it is both plural and singular, ett ting, flera ting, one thing, several things. tinget, tingen, the thing, the things[/i] (article -et singular, -en plural) alla goda ting är tre, "all good things come in threes".

Aware that it is easier to criticize a translation than to do one, I want to see the Swedish text. I'll check the library on Monday if the creek don't rise. I think Fulton is Tranströmer's designated translator. I have received the impression that Bly is known for taking liberties with the texts he translates, but he was early in translating Scandinavian poets who translated him back, usually more successfully, since they knew English and he did not know Swedish/Norwegian. I think he did Danish poets also, but won't swear to it. Duncan would know.

Now I have found the Bly translation
http://wisdomportal.com/RobertBly/Bly-TheThousands.html

and it has several good qualities not in the Fulton one.

I can pretty well guess the Swedish but I am quite curious to read the original.

It might be (rather than "Det enda som") Allt som jag vill.

Tranströmer is a marvellous poet. I do have much by him, but not that particular volume "Sorgegondolen (1996)" (The Sad Gondola). He deserves the Nobel, but I doubt they will give it to a Swede. He has numerous prestigious awards. Since his stroke in 1990 he has not been able to talk.

More about him here. http://www.tomastranstromer.com/contents.htm

Thank you Janice. I had wondered if it had something to do with how the Swedish for thing operates in Swedish.

I love Tranströmer. I have The Great Enigma, The Half-Finished Heaven (Bly's selection and translation), Charter's translation of the long poem Baltics, and The Deleted World (15 "versions" by Robin Robertson).

There's something flaccid and wordy about many of Fulton's translations, though in places his quieter more writerly style is superior to Bly.

Bly is colloquial, and favours independent clauses and the active voice. I prefer his more energetic translations, although the link you gave shows a good example of how silly he can be "The night heaven gave off moos". That just sounds idiotic to me. Fulton: "The night sky bellowed"; Robertson: "The night sky was lowing". (Original: Natthimlen råmade).

I like Robertson the best. Unfourtunately he only tranlsates 15 poems, but the Swedish original is supplied, which I like though I speak not a word. He calls his translations "versions", but I think there are only a couple places where he's decided to take large liberties.

An I love Baltics, for which the Charters' tranlation is subtly superior to the Fulton.

What Juster said.

Brian, it might interest you to know that Modern Poetry in Translation (third series, number seven) "Love and War" has a review by Robin Fulton on Robertson where he lambasts Robertson rather strongly for various reasons. Among them; Before their publication as a small book, Robertson's versions appeared in various magazines, presented as if they were his own original poems. (...) On p. 25 we find "after Tranströmer" in small print beneath the title: what we then read is not a "version" or adaptation but a straight-forward line by line translation. Obviously, the poem should have been credited to its real author. (About a third of the text is identical to my translation, and there are several phrases identical to Bly's.)

[This is followed by a lengthy reference to correspondence in Poetry about including a reply from Robertson--I'm still quoting Fulton's review), thus:]

Robertson tells Shipley that she "has not grasped the difference between a translation and a version", and claims that his version "takes a number of liberties with the oriignal but is, he hopes, "an independent poem that is true to the tone of the Swedish". Considering how arbitrary the few liberties are, and how the "tone" is scarely to be distinguished from that of many other translators of Tranströmer, it is hard to see how this particular translation, or any other of the same kind, can be regarded as an "original poem".

For the entire (lengthy) review, refer to MPT (series 3, Number 7) might be available at your public library. (It is of course available from the publisher at http://www.mptmagazine.com/

Additionally Fulton does say this:

I suppose that, in terms of quantity, Robert Bly and myself have been most industrious [in translating Tranströmer]: I like to think that Bly's American-English versions and my British-English versions complement each other nicely. Good-sized selections of his work have been published by, among others, Samuel Charters, Don Coles, John F Deane, Eric Sellin, and May Swenson (with Leif Sjöberg). At least half a dozen others have given us smaller selections.

I mention this as you might want to keep an eye out for these names since you, like myself, are an admirer of Tranströmer.

An aside: Bly has translations of Olov H. Hauge in the "translations" volume of Poetry April 2008. He is a Norwegian poet whom I greatly admire. I have his work in Norwegian only. Both Fulton and Bly (and others) have translated him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olav_H._Hauge

It makes me so happy to know that our Scandinavian poets are read and admired outside our lingual and geographic confines.

Janice

A Powow River poet, Bill Coyle, is probably the best of the lot. He's starting to look for a publisher for his translations of Hakan Sandell.

I recently read an article by Bill Coyle in Swedish. It was Maryann who drew my attention to him then his name started popping up at regular intervals. He had a Sandell translation in the most recent translation issue of Poetry. I wish him the best of luck with finding a publisher. I don't doubt but that he will succeed.

It was cool to learn that he was a powwow poet. Lucky all of you to have such a fine base.

Re the Robertson: I distrust "versions" for this very reason. Several UK prominent poets have published versions of other poets int he same way, and unless you have the original, or a literal prose translation, beside you, it's impossible to tell what you're reading. I know of at least one case where the original poet had collaborated, thought he was being translated, and was then horrified to find that the by-line had gone to the "translating" poet, and that he had no copyright over it! (Last I heard there were lawyers on the case.)

And as a reader, you have no way of knowing where what you're reading originated, with which poet. Any serious reader, seeking to engage with a writer, would, I imagine, be hampered by this.

Robertson's The Deleted World is presented honestly: Tranströmer's name is the more prominent on the cover, the original Swedish is supplied side-by-side, and "versions by" is necessary because of one or two large liberties.

However, I can tell from comparison to the original and to other translations that Robertson's "versions" are for the most part straight translations. Thus Fulton's charge, that prior to being collected in The Deleted World these "versions" were not poperly credited to Tranströmer, is a serious one.

Anyway, thanks Janice for listing some additional translators. I'd be particularly interested in looking at what May Swenson does with him, and whether Charters translated anything in addition to Baltics.

Katy, yes, I have had that experience at different times, when two translations differ so much that you are not sure which one best echoes the poet's intentions.

Brian, I am going to put up a reference to this thread at Translations. Thanks for starting it.

Katy -
I agree absolutely. I cant abide the idea that I've been deluded into relating to a poem one way, then discovering that some entirely other wording could have possibly been used far more eloquently, correctly, appropriately. I've been battling with publishers for ages to please, put translated work into side-by-side page formats, or provide an additional accompanying booklet with the original works, even in eensy print to reduce bulkiness, costs, whatever. Nada and zilch so far. I also read a translation of a fairly recent Israeli poet (operative years 1920-1970), translated by someone with no religious background, who completely let slip by the multitude of liturgical references that the poet, an ultra-orthodox woman, used; but the work is done, & the copyrights copyrighted. The more frequently this kind of situation becomes apparent, the more wary I become of anything at all that's translated.

And I think that any attempt at verse translation has to include a line-by-line literal rendering as well. The main aim of the translated poem is (according to Sam Johnson and me) to be a good poem in its own right. There's no point in writing verse translations at all if that isn't the case. If this is so, then free-ish "versions" are fine but the addtion of the literal prose is vital to keep the translator honest. I think what Robertson has done is dubious, though he's a pretty good poet.

As for the examples that started the thread - both are pure translationese, and therefore my vote is for C.

Thankyou Brian for this interesting discussion, and Janice for letting us know over at Translation.

Best to all,
Adam