Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiwendil
Things like the 'Old Forest', 'Mount Doom', and the 'River Running' certainly ought to be translated. But 'Hobbit', 'Baggins', 'Mirkwood', etc.?
|
I agree about
hobbit, but not about the others.
Baggins has the essential "bag" in it. The reader has to know that it's a bag, and not a random jumble of sounds.
Mirkwood makes me think of a murky wood, so why not translate it so that it would give off a similar effect?
The difference between translation names such as "Maria" and Tolkien's names is that in the Italian book the author portrays something that everyone knows exists, that everyone has some kind of idea about. Tolkien wrote a 'fiction novel'. To me, it would also sound weird if Robertos and Marias in Italy would be Roberts and Marys. However, (pretending that I don't know English), if I read "Meerkvud", or "Beggins", or a whole host of names, I'd think
What on Earth did the author write? If they are translated, I know what the author wants me to think about them (in a sense), because I understand what the name means.
Names like "Theoden" or "Frodo" definitely should not be translated, but the more obvious ones, IMO, should be.
I just thought of a line from TH, where Bilbo tells his name to Smaug, and says that he came from a bag, but forgot his bag. This pun wouldn't work in another language if "Baggins", "Bag-End", etc are transliterated.
Plus, they would not sound the same in another language, so if something just
sounds right, or gentle, or evil, etc in English, when transliterated it may give off a totaly different melody.
EDIT: just to clarify myself in the 2nd paragraph: I meant to say that we
know what Italy (or whatever from RL) is supposed to be like. We don't know about fiction stories. That's why the names should indicate that to the reader - in any language that the reader understands.