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