A strange aspect of our written culture is the extent to which documents are imbued with a sense of permanence from which they cannot easily escape. Beowulf was told and retold for at least decades - more likely centuries - before someone decided to write it down. Now, retellings[0] of the story are called translations, judged by many for their accuracy and historicity.

Sashimi's been around for a long time. "Gravlax" would've been less alliterative.

[0] It's telling that you put that word in quotes. Stories are things to be told, aren't they?

As the cousin thread points out, possible translations are a bit like Helen vs #nofilter Penelope: they may be either very beautiful or very faithful, but unless one has been blessed by the gods, that or is exclusive.

Hipsters who prefer early Beoƿulf will enjoy http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_vitel...

Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24293894

https://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bēowulf

Translations of ancient texts are anachronisms per definition. The English language did not exist at the time.

Ever watched some film about ancient Rome from around middle of 20th century? I am of course aware that the Romans didn't use shampoos and hairspray 2000 years ago, but that's the level of "incorrectness" that I'm used to accept in order to watch any such movie. Still, imagine that the protagonists in the same movie have Seiko watches -- that would be to me much more distracting.

I'm of course aware that in both cases for somebody from that time much more would seem "wrong."

Yeah, it is funny which kinds of anachronisms we accept and which we don't. In movies it is common to have people in authentic-looking historical costumes using modern language and having modern values and thinking. In theater it is often the other way around - historical texts acted in modern or anachronistic costumes.

> Then I feel cheated, knowing that the original form said something with the different meaning

ironically, "meaning" as a thing that belongs to a technical dissection of single words/phrases is a fairly modern notion.

> is a fairly modern notion

I believe it is ancient, the way I remember the texts, the false etymologies of words and names are present even in the Bible. People always loved the stories about how why something is named something, even when the story is false, if it's good, it will be repeated. We are all storytellers.

Exactly because I know "the story of sashimi" that word is for me jarring in Beowulf. It's not only anachronistic for the setting where the story takes place, it is also from the wrong part of the world, implying today's global trade of culinary fashion to that time and place:

   "skinny-dipping in a sleeping sea
   and made sashimi of some sea monsters."

That's exactly what I mean. Pre-modern etymology was different than it is now. For example, the ancient greeks weren't interested in tracing a word back to some geographic-historical commodity. They were interested in tracing a word back to the source of its own meaning (which they often traced back to the gods), whereas for you, the meaning of a word is just the geographic-historical roots of its signified or whatever.

Do you also consider "monsters" anachronistic?

> Do you also consider "monsters" anachronistic?

No, but I'll enjoy reading your argument why you are asking that.

Monster is from Latin and only entered English after the Norman conquest. Anachronistic and from the wrong part of the world!

> from the wrong part of the world

Can that be argued? It's not that the "contact" and influence didn't exist, it's just that these specific people wouldn't use that language at that moment of time. The Romans were already on English ground long before Beowulf was written so using Latin words there is still much more acceptable to me -- it doesn't imply some access or historical impossibility that didn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar%27s_invasions_of...

The same can't be said about sashimi. Again, like in the example of the movies (in other messages), I'm simply not expecting absolute purity, I just find Seiko watches too distracting there.

It is not a Latin word, it is a word from Old French which is a Romance language evolved from Vulgar Latin. A lot of words from Old French entered English after the Norman conquest. This is the major difference between Old English (the language of Beowulf) and Middle English.

You may not care about any of that, but my point is a translation into modern English is by definition anachronistic. Avoiding 20th century loanwords like sashimi will not make it authentic, at best it will make the text feel slightly old fashioned, but it would still be wholly anachronistic.

For the reference, the Latin word is monstrum, and like I've said, there were surely people using that word while living on the territory of today's England long before Beowulf was written.

I'm quite sure no Japanese were living there either before or at the time Beowulf was written. That's the difference that I consider jarring, not the fact that the newer language is the language of the translation. Even in English, not all words have the same "weight" -- some simply "sound" new and have certain "modern" connotations and some don't. Some imply origin from one place, some from another, etc. It's simply more complex than "the whole English is newer, who cares" approach.

My favorite example from 1490 is:

"In this book, Caxton tells the story of some merchants from the North of England trying to buy eggs from a woman in the South of England. The northerner uses the word egges, derived from Old Norse, but the Southern woman, who uses the word eyren from the Old English, does not understand. A humorous misunderstanding ensues."

https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item126611.html

Dats sick bro!