Galadriel's death - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Beleg · 12-02-2005, 01:20 PM

I've started to read again the LoTR, and found something in the prologue that puzzles me.

From "Note on the Shire records" - extract from the French version (sorry again):

"Là, bien qu'Elrond fût mort, ses fils demeurèrent longtemps, ainsi que certains des hauts Elfes. On dit que Celeborn alla y résider après la mort de Galadriel..."

It is said that Merry went a lot of times to Rivendell to collect information for his book. In this place, he was with Elrond's sons after his death + Celeborn himself who used to come there after Galadriel's death.

I haven't noticed that before. But are Elrond and Galadriel not supposed to leave Middle-Earth and not to die?

I'm reading the Grey Havens and the appendice. The chronology states:

3021 - 29th september: Frodo and Bilbo, from the Grey Haven leave Middle-earth by the sea with the three Guardians. End of the 3rd Age.

Is there something I missed. In that case, shame on me, I thought to know the book enough not to ask such a question.
Or is it an interpretation: when Cirdan, Gandalf, Galadriel and the hobbits leave Middle-Earth, this departure is considered as a "terrestrial" (arghh) death?

Or is it again, a bloo** mistake from Francis Ledoux in his translation of the Lord of the Rings... For that you cannot answer.

Aiwendil · 12-02-2005, 01:39 PM

The translation is faulty, apparently. The original is:

Quote:

It is probable that Meriadoc obtained assistance and information from Rivendell, which he visited more than once. There, though Elrond had departed, his sons long remained, together with some of the High-elven folk. It is said that Celeborn went to dwell there after the departure of Galadriel; but there is no record of the day when at last he sought the Grey Havens, and with him went the last living memory of the Elder Days in Middle-earth.

To translate "departure" as "mort" is very bizarre and would seem to indicate a critical lack of understanding of the story. Unless "mort" in French deviates significantly from the meaning of its cognates in other languages.

Beleg · 12-02-2005, 01:44 PM

Thanks for that. I think it's the worst I have read from Ledoux, in his already long list of mistakes. (no, "mort" is not a synonym of "departure")

Boromir88 · 12-02-2005, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Unless "mort" in French deviates significantly from the meaning of its cognates in other languages.

"mort" is from the verb mourir, which is of course....to die.

So, it must just be a faulty translation. Because, as above mourir is
French for to die. And as Aiwendil points out Galadriel didn't die. I would think the word partir, should be much better suited, as partir is french for to leave, or depart.

Farael · 12-02-2005, 05:34 PM

It happens sometimes with translations... aslo there are things that cannot be translated. For example, my LoTR books are in spanish and that funny quote of Sam telling Gandalf that there were no Eaves in his garden (I can't remember the exact quote but it appears on the top right of the page sometimes). In Spanish, there is no exact translation for "eavesdropping" and therefore the joke does not work.

HerenIstarion · 12-02-2005, 05:53 PM

Now I'm taking the thread 'far over misty mountains old' from where it began, but I just had to compare 'eavesdropping' passage with my Russian translation (Muraviev, Kistakovsky) and found that it is very finely handled:

Sam tells Gandalf that he was being trimming the grass. Gandalf inquires if Sam was eavesdropping, with the verb 'podslushivat' (literally - 'to listen under'), and Sam answers that the grass need not be specially dried, but will dry out by itself, with the verb 'podsushivat' (literally 'to make dry bit by bit').

Quote:

Так, так, клянусь бородой! - сказал Гэндальф. - Сэм Скромби, он самый! Под окном, значит?
- Да что вы, сударь, что вы, господин Гэндальф! - горячо возразил Сэм. - Под каким окном! Я тут просто полол и подстригал траву: видите? - Он показал в свое оправдание садовые ножницы.
- Вижу, - мрачно отозвался Гэндальф. - А вот щелкать твои ножницы давно что-то перестали. Подслушивал?
- Подсушивал, сударь? Да нет, зачем же, все и так подсохло.
- Ты дурака-то не валяй! Что ты слышал и зачем подслушивал? - глаза Гэндальфа сверкнули и брови ощетинились.

Now thread started with an example of erring translation, and I provided you with neatly done one. To retain the balance, let me tell you that same translation contains many other blunders which one day I may bother my and your selves with listing of

Aiwendil · 12-02-2005, 06:12 PM

Translation is a difficult art, to be sure. There is always a conflict between a literal rendering and an idiomatic rendering. HerenIstarion gives a great example of an idiomatic rendering. Beleg gives an example of a very poor one. I think that a lot of translators (not just of LotR, but in general) err on that side, feeling the need to 'interpret' when a literal translation would be preferable.

Angry Hill Troll · 12-03-2005, 01:39 PM

I think what may have led to the confusion is that in English terms such as "to depart", "to pass away", "to pass" are often used as euphemisms (polite synonyms) for "to die". Perhaps the translator was confused by Tolkien's tendency to use poetic language and assumed he really meant that Elrond and Galadriel had died...only in this case they did literally depart--on a ship!

This reminds me of a joke from a movie, in which a character mentions "my dear departed wife"

"Oh, is she dead?"

"No, just departed."

Did the translator do the translation of the book from beginning to end? If he had looked back at this passage after translating the end of the story it should have been obvious that the translation was not correct.

Legolas · 12-11-2005, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Or is it an interpretation: when Cirdan, Gandalf, Galadriel and the hobbits leave Middle-Earth, this departure is considered as a "terrestrial" (arghh) death?

Just a sidenote...Elrond goes with them, not Cirdan. Elrond has one of the three Elven rings. Cirdan no longer has his - he gave it to Gandalf upon Gandalf's arrival. Cirdan stayed there longer - he eventually takes the "last ship" to leave Middle-earth for Aman.

12-02-2005, 01:20 PM	#1
Beleg Animated Skeleton Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Between France and Doriath Posts: 42	Galadriel's death I've started to read again the LoTR, and found something in the prologue that puzzles me. From "Note on the Shire records" - extract from the French version (sorry again): "Là, bien qu'Elrond fût mort, ses fils demeurèrent longtemps, ainsi que certains des hauts Elfes. On dit que Celeborn alla y résider après la mort de Galadriel..." It is said that Merry went a lot of times to Rivendell to collect information for his book. In this place, he was with Elrond's sons after his death + Celeborn himself who used to come there after Galadriel's death. I haven't noticed that before. But are Elrond and Galadriel not supposed to leave Middle-Earth and not to die? I'm reading the Grey Havens and the appendice. The chronology states: 3021 - 29th september: Frodo and Bilbo, from the Grey Haven leave Middle-earth by the sea with the three Guardians. End of the 3rd Age. Is there something I missed. In that case, shame on me, I thought to know the book enough not to ask such a question. Or is it an interpretation: when Cirdan, Gandalf, Galadriel and the hobbits leave Middle-Earth, this departure is considered as a "terrestrial" (arghh) death? Or is it again, a bloo mistake from Francis Ledoux in his translation of the Lord of the Rings... For that you cannot answer. __________________ Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul**

12-02-2005, 01:44 PM	#3
Beleg Animated Skeleton Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Between France and Doriath Posts: 42	Thanks for that. I think it's the worst I have read from Ledoux, in his already long list of mistakes. (no, "mort" is not a synonym of "departure") __________________ Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul Last edited by Beleg; 12-02-2005 at 01:57 PM.

12-02-2005, 05:34 PM	#5
Farael Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: In hospitals, call rooms and (rarely) my apartment. Posts: 1,538	It happens sometimes with translations... aslo there are things that cannot be translated. For example, my LoTR books are in spanish and that funny quote of Sam telling Gandalf that there were no Eaves in his garden (I can't remember the exact quote but it appears on the top right of the page sometimes). In Spanish, there is no exact translation for "eavesdropping" and therefore the joke does not work.

12-02-2005, 06:12 PM	#7
Aiwendil Late Istar Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,224	Translation is a difficult art, to be sure. There is always a conflict between a literal rendering and an idiomatic rendering. HerenIstarion gives a great example of an idiomatic rendering. Beleg gives an example of a very poor one. I think that a lot of translators (not just of LotR, but in general) err on that side, feeling the need to 'interpret' when a literal translation would be preferable.

12-03-2005, 01:39 PM	#8
Angry Hill Troll Wight Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Ephel Duath Posts: 115	I think what may have led to the confusion is that in English terms such as "to depart", "to pass away", "to pass" are often used as euphemisms (polite synonyms) for "to die". Perhaps the translator was confused by Tolkien's tendency to use poetic language and assumed he really meant that Elrond and Galadriel had died...only in this case they did literally depart--on a ship! This reminds me of a joke from a movie, in which a character mentions "my dear departed wife" "Oh, is she dead?" "No, just departed." Did the translator do the translation of the book from beginning to end? If he had looked back at this passage after translating the end of the story it should have been obvious that the translation was not correct.