Translation or Interpretation?

short comment on Alex’ pretentious PDF

Alex trying to make sense of the world, p.160

Alex, a PDF creator calling himself born of Frya, has uploaded his version of the Oera Linda texts to the archive.org platform. This version is the subject of a new, seven and a half hour (!) long video by the previously discussed Kat the Fryan.

I won't torture myself by watching (parts of) the video, but in the description there was a link to the document in question. In its forword Alex writes (page 2):

The [existing Oera Linda] ‘translations’ are not word by word translations but interpretations of the ‘translators’ of what, according to them, is written in the book. (...) [These] ‘translations’ are unlogical and not accurate.

In other words: Alex suggests that his version is the first real translation, logical, accurate and free of interpretations.

The PDF (which I have skimmed through) is too cringe-worthy to waste many words on, but for those who have been tempted to take it (or the video about it) seriously, I will show by means of two examples (both from one key-sentence) that they have been taken for a ride.

Why should I spend my time on this? Well, amusement and education also have their worth.

Example 1. DRÁMA – dreams or womb?

Page 23: transcription and translation (bold, italic and underline formatting by me)

Ring as hja rip wéron kréjon hja früchda ànd nochta anda dráma.
As soon as they were ripe, they got fruits and nuts (Egg-cells and Sperm-cells) in the womb.

discussed ‘interpretation’ in Alex’ PDF

Where all earlier translators (except Jensma) translated dráma as dreams (German/Dutch: Träume/dromen; Sandbach had: visions), Alex ‘interpreted’ the word as womb.

However, elsewehere he has:

(p.27) til thju hja thérof dráme thes nachtis
until they dream about it at night
(p.152) ... wéron Fryas sjvgun wákfámkes hja anda dráme forskinnen
... Frya's seven Watch-Fámkes had appeared to her in a dream

Example 2. Egg- and Sperm-cells?!

From the same fragment on page 23 (different underlining):

Ring as hja rip wéron kréjon hja früchda ànd nochta anda dráma.
As soon as they were ripe, they got fruits and nuts (Egg-cells and Sperm-cells) in the womb.

In accordance with German: Freude und Vergnügen/Genuss and Dutch: vreugde en genoegen/genot/geneugte, Sandbach translated the underlined words as pleasure and delight (Ottema had: vermaak en genoegen).

Dante Meditating (1852) by J.N. Paton

The current version of my (more free) translation of the whole sentence is:

As they matured, their dreams became lush and pleasureful.

Considering that words in this context may have been deliberately chosen to be ambiguous, I clarified in a footnote:

their dreams became lush and pleasureful — could also be translated: became fruitful and found delight in their dreams or even: they began to dream of fruits and nuts.

Indeed, I have interpreted the text as best I could, tried to make it understandable and offer a poetic rendering (assisted by friend/volunteer/editor Bruce).

Other fragments in Alex’ PDF (listed below) show that the words früchda and nochta can indeed have metaphoric meanings, as well as the literal fruits and nuts.

(p.56) inna tha hirta théra mànniska was blydskip nach früchda
in the hearts of the people was neither happiness nor joy
(p.122) hwér frü is ànd nochta send
where there is happiness and satisfaction

Thus, translations cannot always be literal and objective, but often have to be interpretations.

Added March 23

Kat must be busy deleting comments on her video.

This one for example, along with her reply, disappeared a day after I made the screenshot (March 22).

However, it is so telling that it deserves a place here.

Sandbach, Raubenheimer and Pierce

Notes on the English Oera Linda ‘translations’ by William Sandbach, Alewyn Raubenheimer and Frank Pierce.

1. Sandbach 1876

As printed on the title page, this was an English version of Ottema's (1872) Dutch translation. However, the corrections listed in the back of Ottema 1872 were not taken into account.

Secondly, there is at least one case of Sandbach misinterpreting a crucial sentence.

Missed corrections

a) On page 55, Ottema had: door listen en drogredenen wisten zij alles te bewijzen en te verbreiden (corrected to verbruyen — spoil, corrupt, distort).

Sandbach: by craft and subtlety were able to explain and spread them around.

(Note: Ottema 1876: ... alles te wijzigen en te bederven — to change and spoil everything)

b) Ottema p. 173: Maar Friso, die trotsch en hartstochtig was, ... (corrected to hartvochtig — stern, hard-hearted).

Sandbach: But Friso was proud and passionate

c) Ottema p. 175: De bode liet hunne lijken in de zee werpen (corrected to Demetrius).

Sandbach: The messenger had their bodies thrown into the sea

d) Ottema p. 185: dat de goden toornig waren over de overheersching der boozen. (corrected to ongehoorzaamheid — disobedience).

Sandbach: that the gods were angry with the domineering of the wicked.

Misinterpretation

On page 13, Ottema had: Toen deze te voorschijn kwamen, spijsde Wralda haar met zijnen adem, opdat de menschen aan hem zouden gebonden wezen.

As the verb kwamen is an unmistakable plural, so must be deze and haar, words that can also be used for singular. Sandbach may not have been aware (as most Dutch people today will not be) that haar can archaically be used as plural (wiktionary).

Sandbach translated plural haar as singular her and to match the first part of the sentence, he changed deze (these) into the last: When the last came into existence..., thereby suggesting that only Frya received Wralda's breath of life.

2. Raubenheimer 2011 (I only have his first two editions)

Raubenheimer edited the Sandbach version modernizing the English, but in some cases he changed the meaning or added things, without sufficient understanding of the source language (Fryas) or even modern Dutch and Frisian.

The mistakes in fragments b) and d) above (as well as the misinterpretation about Wralda's breath) were reproduced by Raubenheimer. He changed fragment a) into by fallacies they wished to explain everything and expand thereon. This is a good example of someone trying to translate from a language he doesn't understand (even less its expressions) by using a word that seems similar, in this case wished for wisten (WISTON) — a complete mismatch. Zij wisten te ...  literally means They knew (how) to ..., but this is an expression, used for They succeeded in ...

Another example of a such a mistake (resulting in an anachronism) is:

Instead then, of disgracefully imitating the wicked Findas and practicing occultism by saying, ...

Sandbach (who left out some words) had:

Instead, then, of imitating Finda's wicked people,and saying, ...

Source text (Fryas):

INSTÉDE THAT WY THA ÀRGA FINDAS. ALTHUS VN-WÉRTHLIK AFTERNÉI SNAKKA ÀND KÀLTA. (...)

KÀLTA means chatter or babble and has nothing to do with occultism, even though it may have a similar sound.

I have not read the whole Raubenheimer version, but expect it will have more, comparable cases.

3. Pierce 1983

With his translation Pierce intended to “produce the greatest possible likeness of the original text”, resulting in terrible English and often actual mistakes of the category German Gift (poison) → English gift (present).

He also took over at least some mistakes by Ottema (copied by Sandbach), for example:

• fragment d) under Sandbach, above: that the gods were angry with the domineering of the wicked.
• the notorious “... pleasure in the dreams of Wralda. Hatred came among them ...” in the creation myth, discussed in detail earlier.

Because reading this apparent experiment is so tormenting, I have reviewed no more than a few passages only. I may add more examples here later.