Smhing at a translator

[Anonymous No.16976938]

>in a tree's dense foliage/ Hides a pliant gold-leaved gold branch, dedicated / To Juno of the underworld.
> Hides a pliant gold-leaved gold branch
Why are women so bad at translation?
For comparison, here's the actual Latin with a literal translation:
>latet arbore opaca/ aurues et foliis et lento vinime ramus,/ Iunoni infernae dictus sacer
>In a shady tree hides /a brough golden in leaves and pliant stem,/ declared sacred to infernal Juno.

[Anonymous No.16976962]

>tell me about a complicated man

[Anonymous No.16977083]

>>16976938
thats not a more literal translation at all, to go even more coarse:

>latet arbore opaca
latet: lies in/lurk/hide
arbore: tree
opaca: shady/dark/thick/opaque
>aurues et foliis et lento vinime ramus
aurues: gold/gilded
foliis: leaves/foliage
lento: slow/clinging/pliant
vimene: twig
ramus: branch
>Iunoni infernae dictus sacer
lunoni: Juno
infernea: infernal/of the underworld
dictus: declared/dictated/said
sacer: sacred, holy

if you compare em like that both are perfectly fine.
its completely a matter of preference

[Anonymous No.16977110]

>>16977083
I was talking about the 'pliant gold-leaved gold branch' part. It's a terrible translation. Sure, the translator got the meanings of the words correctly, but destroys the grammar of the middle line and unnecessarily repeats the word 'gold'

[Anonymous No.16977153]

>>16977083
The second translation is completely literal. It respects both the vocabulary and the grammar. In fact, it's only missing the "both... and" that is the "et... et" of the Latin. The first translation is stupid though

[Anonymous No.16977170]

>>16977110
they both work i think, the double use of 'gold' captures the element of almost droning repetition with the multiple 'et's' you have in the original,
which would literally be something like 'Golden and foliaged and pliant(ly?) twigged branch'
both translations keep the same metre using different translation methods.

[Anonymous No.16977198]

>>16977170
No, it's literally "a brough both in leaves and in plaint stem golden" The repetition of the 'gold' doesn't give the same effect of the 'et... et' at all

[Anonymous No.16977202]

>>16977170
OP btfo
lmaoing at this armchair translator who thinks he is better than a learnèd classicist.

[Anonymous No.16977213]

>>16977202
>>16977170
lol a samefagging because you realized you're wrong?

[Anonymous No.16977229]

>>16977198
>NO IT LITERALLY MEANS BOTH THE LEAVES AND STEMS ARE GOLD
>YOU CAN'T JUST SAY GOLD-LEAVED AND GOLD-STEMMED!
>>16977213
Have a (You). Keep Dunning-Krugering yourself by typing words into Google Translate you hair-brained armchair translator.

[Anonymous No.16977231]

>>16977213
cmon anon did i seem that hostile in giving my opinion?
i dont intend to BTFO anyone im literally just giving my thoughts

[Anonymous No.16977263]

>>16977231
alright fair enough, but your "literal" translation is not literal in the sense that it doesn't follow the grammar

[Anonymous No.16977315]

>>16977263
What grammar does it mess up though?
to steal the literal one i did again:
>'Golden and foliaged and pliant(ly?) twigged branch'
means something different than
>a brough golden in leaves and pliant stem
or
>pliant gold-leaved gold branch
but both work i think. Or do you mean the weird thing where 'Hides' and 'dedicated' are included in the second line?

[Anonymous No.16977338]

>>16977315
you changed foliis and vinime to adjectives, your translation and mine get across the same idea, they all do, but to claim yours is the literal translation is incorrect. Furthermore, I was just bitching about the repetition of "gold" which to me comes across as lazy solution on the part of the translator to conform to the meter they want

[Anonymous No.16977436]

>>16977338
yea fair enough, i guess its very hard to put into English in general.
i guess itd be something like 'golden and leaves and pliant twigged branch'
which leaves the 'golden' to be an adjective-but-not-really for both the leaves and the branches?
the double use of golden in the translation at least cashes in on that ambiguity
i can understand not liking the translation but i still think its not necessarily wrong

[Anonymous No.16977454]

>>16977436
Literally, it's
"brough both in leaves and pliant stem golden"
I don't understand why you keep wanting to translate "lento vimine" as an adjective.
"Foliis et lento vimine" are ablatives of respect. So the sense is "golden in respect to leaves and pliant stem"

[Anonymous No.16977504]

>>16977454
ye please excuse my sloppy translation but thats exactly what i meant, the golden is in respect to both leaves and stem so hence the use of the repetition

[Anonymous No.16977529]

>>16977504
Meh, still comes across like a lazy cope out, especially since they're applying the second "gold" to ramus and leave "vimine" out completely.

[Anonymous No.16977535]

>>16977454
Honestly it pisses me off that you keep typing "bough" as "brough".

[Anonymous No.16977537]

>>16977229
>>16977202

You're retarded and the translation is bad. Repeating a word like that is absolutely elementary school tier.

[Anonymous No.16977566]

>>16977535
Lmao sorry

[Anonymous No.16977571]

>>16977537
It's not a bad translation though. It is leagues better than OP's stiff and soulless literal translation. Furthermore, no meaning is lost in the translation. Seethe some more about how a woman is a better poet than you.

[Anonymous No.16977627]

>>16977571
Op really hurt you with that bait line didn't he