Best translation of pic related?

File: dadman bones 36b06d81.jpg (100KB, 525x374px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 525x374px

Sure. Why not.

Very interested to know as well. The Oxford World's Classics edition is prose so that's out, of course.

age

>>9544378
Yeah that's why I'm wanting to know. I usually like Oxford's editions, but this one in particular doesn't seem good at all.

>>9545678
Their edition of Medea is also prose unfortunately.

>>9545686
>>9545678
>>9544378
>Complaining about a dead language being translated into prose
If you want philological certainty you can always translate it yourself.

>>9544378
I don't understand this. You literally can't translate some non-English verse into English verse, because the language won't allow the meter, right? So if you tried you'd just end up with a new poem based on the original, not a translated poem.

>>9545727
The point is accuracy. A translation in prose is going to be less accurate than a verse translation.


>>9545686
Thankfully I have good collections of all of the greek plays in verse

>>9545732
>A translation in prose is going to be less accurate than a verse translation.

I don't see how.

>>9545732
>A translation in prose is going to be less accurate than a verse translation.
This is not actually necessarily true.

>>9545738
I've read some good prose translations, but it's generally the case. Only really untrue if the verse translation strives to keep meter and rhyme over accuracy.

>>9545732
>A translation in prose is going to be less accurate than a verse translation.

It's actually the other way around. As another Anon said, if you want philological certainty, learn the language.

File: peeps.png (26KB, 396x400px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 396x400px

>Poets resort to diverse devices to serve their intentions. They apply a variety of figures of speech; there is rhythm, rhyme, tone; there is deviation from the institutionalized linguistic code, and there is musicality expressed through meters and cadence.

>Poetry, possessing all the above components, aroused doubts and queries on the possibility of its translatability. Whereas some people look at it as a sacred entity, others dared to conquer its impregnable fortifications!

>The opponents of poetic translation such as W. B. Bateson and Turco propose their reasons: when poems, especially philosophical ones, satires, lyrics, etc, are translated into another language, they become not only flabby poems, but rather new ones in a new language. They stress that poetry in translation surely loses its basic elements. Such views go with the belief that poetry is wholly lost in translation.

>Should we, then, refrain from translating poetry, or should we attempt at translating it irrespective of all precautions? The second view is advocated here for if poetry is left inaccessible to translation, mankind would be deprived of a huge number of poetic works which are masterpieces themselves.

>One may wonder whether the translation be in verse or prose. A variety of views have been proposed in this regard. Theodore Savoy in his book The Art of Translation, 1968, mentions some of these views. He says that people such as Carlyle, Leigh Hunt and Professor Postates believe that poetry cannot be translated into a form other than poetry, for its aesthetic impact is expressed through meter.

>The difficulty of poetic translation leads many to think that the translator of poetry must himself be a poet otherwise he should not dare to square the circle!

>To conclude, poetry can be translated by those who have deep interest in poetry and who possess the poetic feel and sensation, in addition to their mastery of the other language. The poet, in this regard, is a leading translator. But, how many poets, who master a foreign language, can be found?

http://www.translationdirectory.com/articles/article1362.php

>>9543618
I was very satisfied with the Peter Green translation.

It's not nearly as good as some of the other classics, but it's not terrible either, probably worth reading but by no means mandatory.