Given that I am engaged in the first translation of the Bible into the Nawat language and there is no previous native tradition (the church never adopted Nawat as a language of Christian worship), we have a tabula rasa regarding how to render the proper names of the Hebrew bible into Nawat. Now one option would be to work not from the original Hebrew forms of names that occur in the (Hebrew) text we are translating from, but rather from the shapes that have been given to those names by twenty centuries of (primarily Christian) transmission through European languages. Given that one particular European language, Spanish, is the dominant language of El Salvador, and hence also that of all forms of Christian presence in El Salvador, in practice this would mean adopting the Spanish forms of biblical names in Nawat: calling asher "Aser", efráyim "Efraín", esaw "Esaú", xanókh "Enoc", yitzxaq "Isaac", xawa "Eva", m'nashe "Manasés", naxor "Nacor", nóax "Noé", panuel "Fanuel", par‛o "Faraón", péretz "Fares", raxel "Raquel", r'uven "Rubén", shem "Sem", shet "Set", shim‛on "Simeón", s'dom "Sodoma", térax "Taré", ya‛aqov "Jacob", yarden "Jordán", yosef "José", y'huda "Judá", etc.
While that is indeed one option (compare the numerous translations of the New Testament into native languages of Mexico by organisations such as SIL, for example), it is not the one chosen in the Nawat bible translation project and hence in my current translation of Genesis. Of course, one major difference between these projects is that ours is the only one undertaking translation out of the languages of the original biblical texts, rather than from a modern language such as English or Spanish and hence from versions in which the names have already been subjected to prior Hellenization, Latinization and finally Anglicization or Hispanicization. In the translated "source texts" used by those translators, the names have already been distorted and Europeanized, creating in effect a new "biblical tradition" independent of the Hebrew text, which is in a language many of those "translators" don't even understand. But since I am actually translating the Hebrew text into Nawat, the inverse question is certainly valid: in a translation from Hebrew to Nawat, why should the names of people and places follow Spanish custom?
My answer is that they shouldn't (any more than they should follow the English custom). Why not? Because Spanish is a foreign element to Nawat, obviously, but also because the Spanish names such as Eva, Noé, Isaac, Esaú, Jacob, Rubén, José etc. form part of a whole European and Spanish cultural tradition which has certainly, to some extent, branched off from the old Hebrew tradition but is no longer identical to it. Because it is precisely that kind of surplus, extraneous cultural baggage that I am trying to clear out of the way because it stands in the way of making it possible for new readers to make as direct a connection as possible with the actual text of Genesis which possesses a character of its own, one which is Semitic (not European). Thus there are linguistic, aesthetic and symbolic arguments against importing traditional Spanish reformulations of originally Hebrew names into a Nawat translation of the Hebrew Bible.
On the other hand, the names need to be transcribed. They have to be made pronounceable and "palatable" as part of a Nawat text, with consideration for the actual readership to whom the translation is addressed and their needs as readers. We cannot write (Gen. 2:10-14):
se apan puni tik עדן
pal kiajwilia ne yekmil
ka ne yaja kupewi
mukwepa nawi at
ne se itukay פישׁון
yaja ne kiyawalua חוילה
ne tal kan muajsi ne teukwit
wan ne teukwit pal uni tal yek
wan unkan nemi בדלח wan tet שׁהם
ukse at itukay גיחון
yaja ne kiyawalua muchi ne tal pal כושׁ
wan ne yey itukay חדקל
yaja ne panu tik Taneskan אשׁור
wan ne nawi yaja פרת
which would be like writing in English:
a river sprang forth in עדן
to water the garden
there it split up
becoming four streams
one called פישׁון
which goes round חוילה
the land where gold is found
and the gold of that land is good
and that’s where the בדלח is and the שׁהם stone
another stream is called גיחון
which goes all around כושׁ
and the third is called חדקל
that one passes east of אשׁור
and the fourth is the פרת
These words still need to be adapted or re-transcribed into "Nawat". While most of these examples are place names there are a couple of common nouns too for which we can find no native Nawat equivalent and have opted to retain the Hebrew words, but these too will need to be transcribed appropriately. Now in an English translation we might do this too (Everett Fox does). But we would not look too kindly on an English translation which randomly opted to use Spanish transcriptions of those names and common nouns. How would we feel about this, for example?
and that’s where the bdelio is and the cornerina stone
another stream is called Gihón
which goes all around Etiopía
and the third is called Hiddekel
that one passes east of Asiria
and the fourth is the Eufrates
If we don't look kindly on that as English speakers, why should Nawat speakers be given all these names in Spanish in a Nawat translation of the Bible? Thus we are faced with a decision on how to "Nawatize" such terms.
But it also won't do to just use a (relatively) "pure", direct linguistic transcription of the Hebrew words. This is not a Hebrew text, it is a translation of a Hebrew text. So, taking an English analogy, this isn't going to work as literature:
and that’s where the b'dólax is and the shóham stone
another stream is called gixon
which goes all around kush
and the third is called xiddéqel
that one passes east of asshur
and the fourth is the p'rat
So the forms of the names used in the Nawat text need to be naturalized, "Nawatized". This page is about how I have done that.
The first step in a coherent approach to this problem was to try to establish some general criteria:
General criteria:
- The Hebrew vowels a, e, i, o and u will be written as such (i.e. a, e, i, o, u); the schwa vowel will in principle be written as e unless it can be omitted by the rules of both Hebrew and Nawat phonotactics.
- Consonants will be written as follows (Hebrew is in italics, Nawat in bold): b/v = b, g = g, d = d, h = h, w = w, z = z, x = j, T = t, y = y, k/kh = k, l = l, m = m, n = n, s = s, p/f = p, tz = tz, q = k, r = r, sh = sh, t = t. Ayin (') is omitted in Nawat: 'eden = Eden, shim'on = Shimon.
- The Hebrew CVC maximal syllabic pattern is carried over into Nawat (which has the same constraint).
- Stress is not indicated in the spelling (as it usually isn't in Nawat).
Examples:
asher = Asher, edom = Edom, yarden = Yarden, yosef = Yosep, esaw = Esaw, péretz = Peretz, shem = Shem, m'nashe = Menashe, r'uven = Reuben, 'eden = Eden, shim'on = Shimon, xawa = Jawa, xanokh = Janok, naxor = Najor, raxel = Rajel
Specific conventions:
- Y is omitted when adjacent to i: yisrael = Israel, efráyim = Epraim.
- The word-initial sequence y'h- in proper names is transcribed as Y-: y'huda = Yuda.
- In line with the Nawat practice in names of other origin, a final j (corresponding to x) is omitted in spelling: Nóax = Noa (rather than "Noaj", for internal consistency).
- J is omitted following a consonant, since Nawat does not admit such clusters: yitzxaq = Itzak (rather than "Itzjak" which would be a "difficult" combination in Nawat).
Regarding the general criteria, let us note that the Hebrew mutations b/v, p/f and k/kh are not reflected in the Nawat spellings (e.g. Reuben), a decision which can be justified on two independent but convergent arguments: Nawat does not possess native [v], [f] and [x] phonemes, and the Hebrew distinctions between b and v etc. are in any case certainly post-biblical in date, so a pronunciation such as r'uben with an occlusive b cannot be thought of as unauthentic (merely archaic).
Admittedly, these criteria still yield quite a few sounds (e.g. r, h if this is thought of as distinct from j, and the voiced stops b, d, g) which are not native Nawat phonemes, as well as some remaining violations of native Nawat phonotactics (such as word-final m). The output of these criteria brings the overall range of forms closer to Nawat and more "approachable" starting out from Nawat phonology; they do not produce a set of possible forms which meet all constraints of native Nawat lexemes. The way in which these "Nawatized" names must be realized phonetically in practice and in detail (including what to do about stress placement) will have to be worked out by Nawat speakers and readers of the Nawat Bible.
I have not always adhered to these strictly. The forms of names adopted in the translated text are subjected to case-by-case consideration, weighing up both theoretical and practical pros and cons, particularly in the case of names that occur with some frequency and play a significant role in the book.
Consider, first of all, names that may be viewed as existing independently of the Biblical context. A good example is Egypt. This is one of the countries most frequently mentioned in Genesis, where it is invariable spoken of in Hebrew as mitzráyim. Should the Nawat form of this be "Mitzraim"? The trouble is that from one perspective it might be argued that Nawat speakers already have a name for that country which has broader relevance: Egipto (which is actually the Spanish word for Egypt). This case seems fairly cut-and-dried, but there are other, less well-known historical countries, cities, rivers and so on, so what about them? These questions have been resolved on a case-by-case basis and taking into consideration what seems most appropriate in the biblical context of our translation. Anyone wanting to find something to criticise will have an easy job of picking such instances out and saying that they would have done it differently; all well and good, but decisions had to be made on the basis of what seemed like the best criteria.
Jerusalem is in Hebrew y'rushaláyim, Damascus is in Hebrew damásheq (or damésheq, see below), the River Euphrates is in Hebrew p'rat, and so on. Should our translation contain a (naturalized) form of the name reflecting the fact that our text reflects a world as seen from the perspective of Israel prior to the rise of European civilization, hence Damashek, Perat...? (Jerusalem is not mentioned in Genesis, except once, in 14:18, by its earler name shalem = Shalem = English "Salem".) Or should the text be "updated" and "internationalized" (which in practice would almost certainly mean, in the context of Nawat, giving them their Spanish names of Damasco, Eufrates and so on)?
The standard criteria outlined above will sometimes yield a potential Nawat form which contains the repetition of a like vowel, as in k'náan = Kanaan (Eng. "Canaan"), ya'aqov = Yakob (Eng. "Jacob"). Both these Nawat names have been discretely tweaked: the mechanical output of my rules would give "Kenaan" and "Yaakob" respectively. I decided to retain the double a in Kanaan (even though such a sequence is not found natively in Nawat) because this is the widespread practice and represents better the Hebrew form), but in Yakob I decided arbirarily that in such a commonplace and oft-repeated name, "Yaakob" might not slip off the Nawat tongue easily (as indeed "Jaacob" might not in English!). I cannot produce a "rule" to justify this.
You may have noticed that I tweaked the e to an a in Kanaan, thereby bringing it in line with the forms found in Greek, Hebrew, English, Spanish and other languages. Here the theoretical argument that might be adduced is that in such cases the Hebrew doesn't really have an e or an a, it has shwa, and that historically (i.e. going back to what might be reconstructed for the Biblical period of Hebrew, the pronunciation of which is not directly attested) this no doubt was originally [a], which is perhaps what the Greek rendering reflects (of course, Greek didn't have a schwa vowel either...), and everybody else has just followed the Greek. Another instance of this kind of tweaking is Pharaoh: the Hebrew par'o would mechanically yield "Paro" (cf. Shimon), but the Greek pharaô may represents an original a; in any case "Paro" just didn't seem like a good idea, and neither did "Pareo".
To end this post, here is a list of the most frequently occurring (>9) proper names in Genesis in just their Nawat forms; can you guess what they are? The most difficult ones are solved in the key at the end!
Abimelek, Abraham, Abram, Adam, Beer-Sheba, Benyamin*, Bet-El*, Dina, Edom, Egipto*, Epraim*, Epron, Esaw*, Gerar, Gomora*, Goshen, Hagar, Ishmael, Israel, Itzak*, Jettekat*, Kain, Kanaan, Laban, Lamek, Lea, Lot, Mamre, Menashe*, Najor*, Noa*, Padan-Aram, Parao*, Rajel*, Rebeka*, Reuben*, Sara, Shekem*, Sodom*, Yakob*, Yosep*, Yuda*
*Nawat = Hebrew, English, Spanish
Benyamin = Bin-Yamin, Benjamin, Benjamín
Bet-El = Beyt El, Bethel, Bet(h)el
Egipto = Mitzráyim, Egypt, Egipto
Epraim = Epráyim, Ephraim, Efraín
Esaw = 'Esaw, Esau, Esaú
Gomora = 'Amora, Gomorrah, Gomorra
Itzak = Yitzxaq, Isaac, Isaac
Jettekat = xitti / b'ney xet, Hittite, hetita
Menashe = m'nasshe, Menasseh, Manasés
Najor = naxor, Nahor, Nacor
Noa = nóax, Noah, Noé
Parao = par'o, Pharaoh, Faraón
Rajel = raxel, Rachel, Raquel
Rebeka = rivqa, Rebecca, Rebeca
Reuben = r'uven, Reuben, Rubén
Shekem = sh'khem, Shechem, Siquem
Sodom = s'dom, Sodom, Sodoma
Yakob = ya'aqov, Jacob, Jacob
Yosep = yosef, Joseph, José
Yuda = y'huda, Judah, Judá
No comments:
Post a Comment