Abstract
In this article we continue the diachronic analysis of the Romanian versions of the Homeric poems, cf. Bârlea (2015c). The triple perspective of the approach is being maintained: a) the evolution of international Homeric studies, which facilitates evermore detailed and exact editions of the Homeric texts; b) the evolution of the literary Romanian language in the period considered (1837–2012), with some references to older periods; c) the differences between translational choices. This time we are concerned with more distinct domains in the language structure of the translations—phonological-morphological and lexical-semantic aspects. Special attention is paid to linguistic localizations, closely linked to the mentalities and historical realities of the Romanian space of circulation of these successive translations from Homer. In the first case, we have concentrated on the problems of orthography and stress, while in the second we have considered not only the diachronic distributions of word forms and meanings, but also their diastratic and diatopic location.
Highlights
In this article we continue the diachronic analysis of the Romanian versions of the Homeric poems, cf. Bârlea (2015c)
Teoria mutației valorilor [The theory of the mutation of values]), and so, according to the Romanian classicist, even if the Homeric poems were comparable to children’s fairytales and legends, which would justify the use of the proper vocabulary, it seemed to him appropriate that this should be impregnated with terms from the modern world for which he undertook the translation of the Odyssey: adunare [assembly], bunuri [goods], cadă [tub], capac [lid], cupă [goblet], a lustrui [to lustre], judecător [judge], minge [ball], oraş [city], a pierde dreptul [to lose the right], planuri [plans], reţele
The founders of the tradition of the translation from Homer, made great efforts to detach themselves from the sphere of colloquial language, by introducing some neologisms, as a result of linguistic calque, of direct loans, as well as of internal creations, based on the rich derivative system existent in the national language, by means of bold compounding and conversions
Summary
The usual form înarmează [arms himself ] could by no means have been fitted into the verse Such segmental and supra-segmental licences occur everywhere in Romanian, including the balanced version of CP or the savant one of DS. The former case evinces the frequency of the adverb apoi [], used at the beginning of each verse as a multifunctional linker. They have to be discussed at length in a chapter devoted to pragmatic-stylistic elements Such suggestions are more difficult to detect in the original, and the clearly visible ones are palely rendered in the first Romanian versions (as well as in those in other languages, for that matter), since the equivalents means seemed to be lacking. The brethren of George Murnu drew his attention to some forms that were totally unacceptable according to the academic norms, and according to the norms of everyday speech, already unanimously accepted by the time Murnu launched his innovations: dupolaltă, întreolaltă, pesteolaltă, lîngăolaltă, laoparte; învremece, dasta, măcarcă, pînăce, de treiori, etc. (cf. Herescu, 2011, p. 373–375, 381)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
