Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 590 KB, 1996x2560, xenophon_landmark.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18624716 No.18624716 [Reply] [Original]

AAAAH I CAN'T FUCKING WAIT ANY LONGER

>> No.18624721

How many unread books do you own OP?

>> No.18624726

>>18624721
i have no books

>> No.18625010

>>18624716
You've been waiting 2400 years; what's another few months?

>> No.18625022

>>18624716
This book has been out for a few thousand years.

>> No.18625030

>>18624721
Reading is for midwits

>> No.18625044
File: 21 KB, 540x540, 1603781143295.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18625044

>>18624716
i want to get my copy signed by xenophon

>> No.18625111

>>18625044
I asked xeno to sign my copy but he just said, "... " because he's a skeleton and can't talk nor sign things

>> No.18625114

I keep forgetting to remove that stupid name

>> No.18625136

They should do Tacitus

>> No.18626563

>>18625136
they probably will

>> No.18626586

>>18624716
>doesnt have the 1day bezos speedpass
ngmi

>> No.18626590
File: 7 KB, 177x284, download (16).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18626590

>>18624716
Landmark editions are the most s 0 y editions and waiting for an ancient book to be "published" is peak plebbit. Pic related is what normal people read

>> No.18627211
File: 50 KB, 499x636, cacoreact.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18627211

>>18626590
>waiting for an ancient book to be "published" is peak plebbit

>> No.18627258

Are the translations for these editions actually good?

>> No.18627289

>>18624716
>translation

>> No.18627290

Someone told me once that Xenophon was actually a brainlet and that all of his accomplishments were purely the result of hard work and perseverance

How much truth is there to this?

>> No.18627291

>>18627258
They are dumbed down for the modern reader, e.g. easier synonyms are substituted in and the long sentences become chopped up into multiple, smaller ones.

>> No.18627307

>>18627291
>easier synonyms are substituted in
any examples?

>> No.18627369

>>18627307
De bello Gallico, Caesar, Book 1 Section 15

1869 translation
>Caesar [however] restrained his men from battle, deeming it sufficient for the present to prevent the enemy from rapine, forage, and depredation.

Landmark 2019
>Caesar held his soldiers back from fighting and considered it sufficient to keep the enemy back from plundering, foraging, and destroying property.

>> No.18627413

>>18627369
Is the older translation more faithful to the original text?

>> No.18627461

>>18625111
>he's a skeleton
I kind of doubt he's even that at this point.

>> No.18627480

>>18624716
How long must I wait?

>> No.18627552

>>18627413
Original
>Caesar suos a proelio continebat, ac satis habebat in praesentia hostem rapinis, pabulationibus populationibusque prohibere.

Essentially, they get the same information across but the older translation retains the higher literary quality of Caesar. This was just a short example but when Caesar goes off in a paragraph long sentence describing the madness of a battle, the new translation drops the intensity and haste, with which a longer and syntactically more complicated sentence could deliver, in favor of broken up sentences.

>> No.18627601

>>18627369
HAHAHHAHAHA LANDMARKKEKS

>> No.18627888

>>18627369
landmarkbros...we got too cocky

>> No.18628253

>>18627369
Jesus Christ, I'm sure their 99.9% male audience could handle the word rape.

>> No.18628848

>>18624716
>>18627369
>>18627601
It never even began for Landmarkcels

>> No.18628860

>>18625111
Fucking BASED

>> No.18628901
File: 109 KB, 465x485, 1622242428091.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18628901

>>18627552
>pabulationibus populationibusque prohibere.
That triple alliteration gets me hard.

>> No.18628914

>>18627369
Now with Google Earth, Landmark is completely worthless.

>> No.18629560

>>18627369
Not everyone is an incel who spends their time memorizing pretentious words.

>> No.18629579
File: 56 KB, 645x729, 7400282D-37C0-40FC-871F-3C41B8389811.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18629579

>>18629560

>> No.18629609

>>18629560
anon i only read cool old books to learn fancy new words

>> No.18629634

>>18627369
Looks fine. What happened gets transmitted equally.

>> No.18629661

>>18629634
cope

>> No.18629822

>>18624716
This came out 1000+ years ago lol.

>> No.18630079

>>18627369
The absolute state of modern times

>> No.18630117

>>18627369
Kek

>> No.18630580
File: 62 KB, 976x850, 1625779441427.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18630580

>>18627369

>> No.18630851

>>18627552
Thanks for the post, anon. I've read that the new Ceasar translation should be the English standard, but that, then, is an opinion you wouldn't agree with?

>> No.18631024

>>18624721
This is why I only buy books that have lots and lots of images and only some sidetext. I've read all of my books I bought myself which makes me the most effective reader on /lit/

>> No.18631035

>>18626590
>complete works
poorfag editions

>> No.18631040

>>18627369
Looks like the landmark edition is esl friendly

>> No.18631089

>>18631040
More like brainlet friendly

>> No.18631093

>>18631035
Better than landshit

>> No.18631264
File: 192 KB, 680x538, bd1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18631264

>>18627369

>> No.18631302
File: 219 KB, 464x729, obscene.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18631302

>>18627601
>>18627888
>>18628848
>>18630079
>>18630117
>>18630580
>>18631264
holy samefag

>> No.18631341
File: 317 KB, 1200x655, 1625761152810.jpg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18631341

>>18631302
mfw

>> No.18631433

>>18624716
Watch Walter Hill's Warriors, make sure it's the theatrical version.

>> No.18631449

>>18631341
photoshop skill: over 9000

>> No.18631502
File: 34 KB, 424x186, 2021-07-11-151220_424x186_scrot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18631502

>>18631302
You got the landmark edition haven't you?

>> No.18631537

Does the Loeb edition have maps?

>> No.18631550

>>18631537
There are free maps on the internet anon do you need to be spoonfed everything?

>> No.18631556
File: 550 KB, 978x1019, 1625992126684.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18631556

>>18631550
umm...there is more to a good historical map than you can find in "free maps on the internet"

>> No.18631887
File: 203 KB, 300x386, 1624362326535.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18631887

>>18627369

>> No.18631922

>>18627369
My Oxford World Classic has it as
>Caesar restrained his men from fighting, content for the time being to prevent the enemy from pillaging, foraging, and plundering.

My edition was issued in 2008 but it was first published in 1996

>> No.18631965

>>18631922
That's still fine. The Landmark one is dumbed down to an embarrassing degree.

>> No.18632174

>>18631965
Why is it considered the English golden standard, then?

>> No.18632185

>>18632174
By whom? If you can't judge by comparing the translations and you need some authority to tell you, then you're the target market of Landmark.

>> No.18632187
File: 1.47 MB, 1334x750, A81672E8-57B4-4034-8A8B-D1AEBB31B8EF.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18632187

>>18631537
Yes. Loeb always has the best old translations, desu. I'll always respect them for not shying away from Adlington's 1566 classic translation of The Golden Ass, instead of a """"""modern""""""" translation.

>> No.18632449

>>18630851
Landmark still has value in that it provides the reader with a lot of insight and context with its copious footnotes and the copious amount of recent scholarship. Information wise, it is worth your money. Unless you are specialized in classical warfare and history, this edition is perfect for the layman, which, in this case, I am.
Nevertheless, if you want a closer experience to the literary experience and rhetorical flair of the original, you can almost always depend on older translations.

>> No.18632552

>>18632449
just peruse through the Landmark footnotes after reading another translation

>> No.18632591

>>18632185
>If you can't judge by comparing the translations
I cannot read Latin.

>> No.18632652

>>18632552
This a great compromise.

>> No.18632692

>>18632552
Landmark footnotes are trash. I tried to do the same for Herodotus and Thucydides, but the footnotes were a waste of time and seemed to be addressing literal retards. Instead, I followed in parallel some courses and academic notes that were publicly available. They were much better and I just stopped using the Landmark because it was only pointing out the most obvious things.

>> No.18632757

>>18627290
Compared to Plato or Pericles? Maybe. Compared to your average olive picking, barley shearing, sheep fucking Attic peasant. Nah.

>> No.18632799

>>18632757
>pericles
>smart

>> No.18632884

But bros I was about to buy the Landmark Herotodus. Someone skilled it the other day and it sounds very comfy.

>> No.18632950

>>18632884
People here seem to have issues with a translation of Caesar, not Herodotus.

>> No.18632972

>>18632950
They're the same. Landmark are produced to appeal to the modern "reader" with a limited vocabulary. If you want proper translations, stay away from it.

>> No.18632982

>>18632972
>They're the same. Landmark are produced to appeal to the modern "reader" with a limited vocabulary. If you want proper translations, stay away from it.
How so? Is this an issue with all the translations?

>> No.18632994

>LANDMARK IS CATERED TO MODERN READERS AAAARGGHHH
>the Landmark Thucydides uses a translation from 1874
hm....

>> No.18633063

>>18632994
http://thelandmarkancienthistories.com/Thucydides.htm
> Based on the venerable Richard Crawley
translations, updated and revised for modern readers
Modern reader who can't read detected

>> No.18633069

>>18632982
That's the point of Landmark books:
> The Landmark Ancient Histories feature contemporary translations
They want to appeal to modern readers who are too dumb to read normal translations.

>> No.18633089
File: 100 KB, 1023x477, Capture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18633089

>>18633069

>> No.18633093

>>18633089
What are you trying to communicate?

>> No.18633100

>>18633093
agreement with the statement
>They want to appeal to modern readers who are too dumb to read normal translations.
dumdum

>> No.18633201

>>18633063
Alright, but it's hard to argue that the translation is necessarily dumbed down just because it is updated.

>> No.18633216

I've been conviced by this thread that the Landmark editions are simpler and easier to understand if nothing else - we'll have to see with their upcoming Anabasis translation if that means accuracy or simplification.

>> No.18633277

>>18633201
>revised for modern readers
I don't care what shitty translation you read anon. For Thucydides, the only correct English translation is Hobbes. You can read dumbed down translations if you're low IQ, I'm just letting normal people know that they shouldn't fall for it. /lit/ maintains a high standard for translations that helped me challenge myself, so I'm continuing the tradition. You can read the Wikipedia summary.

>> No.18633304

>>18633277
Have you *read* significant parts of the Landmark Thucydides, since your opinion of it is so low, or is this an assumption based on other Landmarks?

>> No.18633338

>>18633304
I downloaded it and used it side by side to compare certain paragraphs, check their maps, and their footnotes. You can do that for yourself now because the Landmark is on b-ok.cc and Hobbes' is free on libertyfund.org

>> No.18633348

>>18633216
>Easier to understand
But simplifying it obscures the author's original intention. Cope.

>> No.18633400

>>18633338
Thanks for the spoonfeeding - I'll probably do the same.
>>18633348
Not necessarily - there's a reason why Xenophon is read as one of the first texts for learners of Ancient Greek.

>> No.18633407

>>18633400
>Not necessarily
His prose is clean, that doesn't mean it's impervious to the negative effects of scrubbing.

>> No.18633427
File: 151 KB, 500x300, anabasis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18633427

>>18633407
Oh, absolutely, I agree that simplifying a text in translation is always bad, as the translation is less accurate for it, but simplifying a lucid and straightforward text that has been previously translated in a florid and stylistically inappropriate manner is not a bad thing. Accuracy is the goal. I don't have too high of hopes for the Xenophon if what has been expressed in this thread stands, but perhaps the text itself being more straightforward lends itself to being translated accurately by the Landmark people.

>> No.18633441

>>18633427
>has been previously translated in a florid and stylistically inappropriate manner
No one said that.

>> No.18633452

>>18627290
>Xenophon....all of his accomplishments were purely the result of hard work and perseverance
What a fucking looser. Imagine actually putting effort to achieve something

>> No.18633470

>>18633441
Most of the replies to the Caesar post seem to focus on the language being less archaic than the older translation, regardless of accuracy.

>> No.18633479

>>18633470
Bo, that's just you willingly misinterpreting to cope. See>>18627552

>> No.18633487

>>18633479
My point wasn't that the Landmark isn't less accurate, but that anons on here tend to blindly favour a translation if it seems more ''sophisticated''.

>> No.18633525

>>18633487
see >>18633441

>> No.18633555

>>18633525
I'm aware that no one has said that, but it's a tendecy I've observed not only in this thread but on the board as a whole. Do you really think that the anons replying ''kek'' and ''Landmark BTFO'' know Latin, or do you think they're going by the Landmark translation being simpler to read?

>> No.18633557

>>18633487
>anons on here tend to blindly favour a translation if it seems more ''sophisticated''.
You're just purposefully misrepresenting everyone's position. Are you just insecure? The problem that everyone has is that Landmark chooses simpler and more inaccurate words than the original to appeal to the zoom zoom "readers".

>> No.18633676

>>18633557
See >>18633555
I'm sure all those anons preferring ornate Dostoyevsky translations known Russian, for example, even though his style is relatively colloquial, or that the anons dogpiling Emily Wilson for being simple are aware that her translation is closer to the source than Pope.

>> No.18633736

>>18633676
Now you're just making shit up.

>> No.18633757

>>18633736
If this wasn't your first week you'd know that I'm not.

>> No.18633795

>>18633757
No one ever says that Pope is accurate, he's praised for other reasons. Reading Wilson's Iliad first lines tells you everything you need to know about her translation. Again you're purposefully misrepresenting other people's arguments to favor your surreptitious intentions.

>> No.18633841

>>18633795
*Wilson's Odyssey

>> No.18633851

>>18633795
>No one ever says that Pope is accurate, he's praised for other reasons.
I'm aware, but /lit/ seems to only recognize accuracy in highfalutin language - something which becomes apparent when Wilson is attacked for her (admittedly grievous) inaccuracies, but isn't recognized for the parts of her translation which is commendable work.
>Reading Wilson's Iliad first lines tells you everything you need to know about her translation.
Of course it doesn't.
>Again you're purposefully misrepresenting other people's arguments to favor your surreptitious intentions.
Histronic accusation, but whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

>> No.18633886

>>18633851
>>No one ever says that Pope is accurate, he's praised for other reasons.
>I'm aware
Not what you said first:
>anons dogpiling Emily Wilson for being simple are aware that her translation is closer to the source than Pope
Stop moving the goalposts.

>but /lit/ seems to only recognize accuracy in highfalutin language
Now that you're proven wrong you're backtracking and making more shit up that you'll refuse to back up (because you can't), appealing to ridiculous "if you've been here long enough you'd know I'm right."
It's ok if you prefer shit translations, just don't pretend they aren't.

>> No.18633911
File: 102 KB, 750x1334, FAC8398C-FEF9-4B90-91E5-EA2719BF30F2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
18633911

>>18633851
>Of course it doesn't.

>> No.18633920

>>18633886
Moving what goalposts? My point is that people that claim to seek ''accuracy'' never point out Wilson's accuracies, only the opposite, but assume that the simple language that, in some places, mars her translation means that it does not have accuracies, while not even knowing that her translation is much more accurate than a translation that they normally praise (which it should be).
>Now that you're proven wrong you're backtracking and making more shit up that you'll refuse to back up (because you can't), appealing to ridiculous "if you've been here long enough you'd know I'm right."
It's ok if you prefer shit translations, just don't pretend they aren't.
Proven what wrong? Making what up? You're welcome to prowl the archives for Odyssey translation threads and to take a look for yourself. It's always ''complicated man'' etc.
Look, believe all you want that the anons in here replying with pepes to a post comparing Caesar translations are philologists, I'm not going to stop you from being a retard.

>> No.18633931

>>18633920
People praise LATTIMORE for accuracy. Strange how you're beating around the bush in regards to his translation.

>> No.18633953

>>18633931
Why would I be ''beating around the bush''? I'm not saying that ALL of /lit/'s goods and bads are uninformed, just that it seems to be based on a penchant for ornate language, which, with regards to a translation of Xenophon (which was the original post), isn't necessarily a good standard.
If you absolutely INSIST that this isn't the case, then there's no point in us discussing this any longer. I can only tell you to lurk moar or something, but that seems to elicit a response akin to an enraged chimp.

>> No.18634051

>>18624716
>reading something written by a j*urnalist
Uh.... ew.

>> No.18634079

>>18627369
1869:
>128 IQ
2019:
>95 IQ
the new translation of Ningen Shikkaku (no longer human) also botched it with a dumbing-down. Are modern people simply fucking retards who can't read? Thanks for reminding me never to read anything written after the 1950s.

>> No.18634107

>>18633089
Why are modern readers so undereducated despite spending more years in schooling than any generation in human history? What is retarding everyone? Television? Plastic contaminants in water? Petrol fumes in the air?

Every teacher should be put against a wall because they are clearly destroying the minds of the children they are charged with rather than educating them.
>easier to understand
>accessible
Whenever you see the word "accessible" spoken by a modernite in the publishing industry, know that they mean "might be able to coax a pavement ape into reading it." It's all about dumbing everyone down to the level of the stupidest, most hopeless elements of society. We, the literature readers, must be made to suffer because Jamal and Shaquanda have to be forced to pass 10th grade English class. Blue hairs are collectively kneecapping civilization in the vain hope of getting a basketball-American to read a book if only they could be written in simpler words and shorter sentences. What will leftism not destroy?

>> No.18634118

>>18634107
>Television? Plastic contaminants in water? Petrol fumes in the air?
Yes.

>> No.18634130

>>18624726
Nice

>> No.18634172

>>18633953
Nah m8, we (and everyone else ITT) were originally discussing accuracy. Since you were proven wrong in that front, you're attempting to slide this into a terse vs. ornate discussion. I graciously accept your concession, though.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action