With good equirhythmic translation are selected not only rhyme, but also sounds. To make the sounds sound like the original. The frequency of occurrence of sounds is also important. And the repeatability of sounds is what rhymes are. That's why the text rhymes. It all depends on the music. The text that is sung is the music. This music is created by a singer. A singer is a musical instrument.
And you equirhythmic translation omitted here only to the meter. This is wrong.
Equirhythmic translation is a broader concept than what you put in it here.
Simply rename the E tag to "Equimetered" and solve all of these problems in one move :)
Who cares if a translation with E+R tags has a slightly different rhyming scheme? Literally...who cares...is the Russian Center for Certification of Linguistic Experts going to come here to critique each translation?
Simply rename the E tag to "Equimetered" and solve all of these problems in one move :)
It's essentially my suggestion also, but my name is “equally-metered” to not invent a new word again.
And usually these “Centers for Certification” can certificate whatever or whoever they want, but their certificates aren't worth a damn.
Simply rename the E tag to "Equimetered" and solve all of these problems in one move :)
It's essentially my suggestion also, but my name is “equally-metered” to not invent a new word again.
And usually these “Centers for Certification” can certificate whatever or whoever they want, but their certificates aren't worth a damn.
“equally-metered” is also a new word ;)
We would certainly need to explain that this means "having the same meter as the original" and not "having a homogeneous meter throughout the whole adaptation".
Waran4ik a écrit :
How do I delete this topic? I feel that it is useless to explain anything. Let it be as it is. Sing your translations in the bath and be happy.
I don't think you can delete a topic.
And I think it is a good idea to rename that tag.
Self-evident? Don't really see what the US declaration of independence has to do with the fact that one coined word with no official definition has no more innate validity than another coined word with no official definition...
It's not like language operates by some immutable and incorruptible rules. It evolves according to need, so why would "equi"+"rhythmic" be any more inherently valid than "equi"+"metered", especially if "meter" is a more appropriate word to use here? "It's just obviously true" isn't exactly justification.
Not the same, since 'equivocal' is already an established word with an established meaning) Neither of the mentioned words have one in English, though.
Ah, but some songs are so Equivocal that they should have Equivocal translations too. Plain songs are to be accompanied by Plain translations I think. And some songs are Rude, so they require Rude translations; and other songs are Sordid, thus the corresponding translations should be Sordid; and some songs could be called Motherf+++g, and then only Motherf+++g translations would fit them best.
Any other tag is also plausible, after thinking... ;)
Etymology
Rhyme from Greek ῥυθμός - rhythmos, rhythm.
Рифма (др.-греч. ῥυθμός - размеренность, ритм). Т.е. рифма, это разновидность ритма. Т.е. эквиритмичный значит - равный ритму. И не важно в чем ритм выражается, в чередовании ударений или в чередовании рифм. Раз в песне рифмы есть, то и рифмы должны чередоваться, задавая тем самым тоже ритм, метрическую структуру песни.
Function of rhyming words
Rhyme partly seems to be enjoyed simply as a repeating pattern that is pleasant to hear. It also serves as a powerful mnemonic device, facilitating memorization. The regular use of tail rhyme helps to mark off the ends of lines, thus clarifying the metrical structure for the listener.
Закругляемся, удаляйте топик. Ерундой уже занимаетесь, придумываете то, что уже придумано.
"A square is a rectangle, since rectangles have four sides at right angles, and so does a square. Thus, every rectangle must have 4 equal sides, because a square has 4 equal sides and a square is a rectangle. A rectangle without 4 equal sides is not a rectangle." :^)
Although E-related discussions pop up every month, this one is worth reading, so I've read every post of it.
I can't say better than kuycat did in the post #17.
Here, on LT, this Russian organization has no authority in defining tags that we are using.
So it is not a crime that meaning of "equirhythmic" tag differs from "эквиритмический" as it was suggested by OP.
And the big change of this suggestion? >> "E" instead of "E,R" ?!
Not worth it imho.
I would say there is a general consensus with E-tag use on LT, but practically everyone interprets it slightly differently.
For an example, Is it possible for equirhythmic translation to be partially equirhythmic?
Would one missing unstressed syllable in the end of the line make it non-equirhythmic? Some say yes, some say no. Others think it is E as long as it has a "feeling" of E and to heck with a rhythm pattern and a # of syllables.
I was scolded for using "R" tag as well. Clearly, there is no consensus on what is a Rhymed too. We could modify tags indefinitely: line-rhymed according to the original, rhymed with a new rhyming order, partially rhymed, rhymed with inner rhymes, rhymed without inner rhymes, rhymed with strong rhymes, rhymed with so-so rhymes, rhymed with assonance, rhymed with consonant to the original, etc, etc. And all possible combinations of above mentioned.
What's the point? You can't predict how future users would interpret those tags. We can discuss them, use them for indexing, for search and differentiation of certain translations from the rest. We should use our voting powers if we want to mark especially good translation among equally tagged versions. Or a bad one.
And finally, I don't think this thread should be anytime deleted, even if someone disagrees with OP.
It is an interesting read and a civilized discussion.
Thanks OP, thanks everyone.
3.14
One of the following tags can be assigned to each translation on adding or editing:
Один из следующих тегов может быть добавлен каждому переводу при публикации или редактировании:
If you read the rules literally, the rules say that you can put one of the tags. Not two, not three, but one. And putting a few tags, we only generate confusion. What is the translation? E? R? S? M? All together? It's a mess.
Clearly, you are misleading public with you last post. A metered translation could be rhymes as well. And poetic and commentary tags could be added on top of pretty much anything.
If you follow the logic, the rhyme may not necessarily match the original.
Rhyming - rhymes the lines, generally but not necessarily matching the rhyming pattern of the source.
So literally and understand. You can also rhyme not as in the original, somewhere and without rhyme. Means R. And it turns out that the tags E, R do not say that the translation is identical to the original.
If adding more than one tag was an issue, the functionality would simply not be there. People are capable of processing more than one word at a time, I think...whatever you are suggesting instead (10 different tags for every shade of translation under the sun? Redefining a tag people already have an understanding of just to please the definition of an uncited Russian wiki article?) is vastly more confusing.
We do not need a tag for a perfectly matching translation. Hardly anyone here is pedantic enough to care about such levels of precision, and it's not what the overwhelming majority of people come to the site for. E+R seems to be enough.
Don't get me wrong. I think you do have a point, something probably should be done about it if it upsets you so much. But what you're proposing in your original post - to change the entire meaning of the tag as it's defined here - is probably not the most feasible solution to the problem.
You don't need this. And people who want to sing the lyrics of a song the same way as the original, they will not find such a text, because the tag does not give them confidence in this. The site LT turns out to be useless for them.
Songs are written, yes, by pedants. Because they make sure that every note is in its place. They do not sing the text, but create music by singing. Together with the meaning of the song is obtained.
If no one wants to change anything. Let's delete the topic. And everything will be quiet and quiet. Tags will continue to mislead others.
Equirhythmic - the same number of syllables per line as in the original, preserving the original meter with mostly natural syllable stressing in the translation.
Metered - follows a (more or less) regular rhythmic structure.
What does "mostly" mean? Is it possible not to observe the stress when E translation?
In one place Tchaikovsky cheated, put the league between two notes, although there was no the league in the original. There were two different notes. They were sung separately. Elsewhere Tchaikovsky did the same. Combined two paired notes in two leagues and thus made two notes instead of four. I. e. removed two notes. That's how he cheated. If I hadn't watched the Mozart's original score, I wouldn't have noticed it, I would have thought it should be. So Tchaikovsky got rid of three notes.
If talk about Tchaikovsky as a translator, then he was poorly evaluated in this capacity. The rhymes were weak and primitive. This is not my opinion.
You can listen to Natsuki sing the song "Город золотой". You can hear, where the rhyme is not in the translation, Natsuki has to sing something between U and I or between O and E, so that it sounds harmonious, rhymically. This is because the translation is not quite equirhythmic. That is the singer has to correct the translator's mistakes.
Ah, that's a kinda stage name...
Well, there in the original some rhymes are poor, the chorus is mostly unrhymed.
I don't know Japanese but I hear that the song is translated in it likewise.
I'm not talking about the chorus, I'm talking about the verse. In the video there is the transliteration. I don't know Japanese either. I listened to the song several times to make sure it wasn't my imagination.
Well, according to what I hear, the first two lines of the first stanza and the last two lines of the second one aren't rhymed. And what? Do these lines sound strange to natives? Or is there any problem in singing them? I don't know, let's wait for someone whose mother tongue is Japanese to dot the i's and cross the t's. ;)
And that's what I'm saying, there's no rhyme there. I was talking, she sings as if there is a rhyme, pronouncing in the first case U as I, and in the second - E as O.
Варанчик, я вас за это укушу очень больно. Или укусил бы, если все зубы от этой "музыки" не вывалились. Где вы даже такую мерзость умудрились откопать...😩
Who wants arrhythmic music? If you have weak nerves, don't listen.
Ah thanks for sharing - usually I prefer my music to be a bit more coherent, but that was a nice listen (especially the second half that was a bit more put-together).
With good equirhythmic translation are selected not only rhyme, but also sounds. To make the sounds sound like the original. The frequency of occurrence of sounds is also important. And the repeatability of sounds is what rhymes are. That's why the text rhymes. It all depends on the music. The text that is sung is the music. This music is created by a singer. A singer is a musical instrument.
Of course such songs need to be translated without rhyming. The structure is set by the original.
And you equirhythmic translation omitted here only to the meter. This is wrong.
Equirhythmic translation is a broader concept than what you put in it here.
Simply rename the E tag to "Equimetered" and solve all of these problems in one move :)
Who cares if a translation with E+R tags has a slightly different rhyming scheme? Literally...who cares...is the Russian Center for Certification of Linguistic Experts going to come here to critique each translation?
It's essentially my suggestion also, but my name is “equally-metered” to not invent a new word again.
And usually these “Centers for Certification” can certificate whatever or whoever they want, but their certificates aren't worth a damn.
How do I delete this topic? I feel that it is useless to explain anything. Let it be as it is. Sing your translations in the bath and be happy.
It's essentially my suggestion also, but my name is “equally-metered” to not invent a new word again.
And usually these “Centers for Certification” can certificate whatever or whoever they want, but their certificates aren't worth a damn.
“equally-metered” is also a new word ;)
We would certainly need to explain that this means "having the same meter as the original" and not "having a homogeneous meter throughout the whole adaptation".
I don't think you can delete a topic.
And I think it is a good idea to rename that tag.
"Having the same meter as the original" is best expressed as, you guessed it: equirhythmic!
According to who?
"We hold certain truths to be self-obvious."
Such an argument about nothing...
Self-evident? Don't really see what the US declaration of independence has to do with the fact that one coined word with no official definition has no more innate validity than another coined word with no official definition...
It's not like language operates by some immutable and incorruptible rules. It evolves according to need, so why would "equi"+"rhythmic" be any more inherently valid than "equi"+"metered", especially if "meter" is a more appropriate word to use here? "It's just obviously true" isn't exactly justification.
Moderators, delete the topic.
And what about 'equi+vocal'? That's a valid word. ;)
Not the same, since 'equivocal' is already an established word with an established meaning) Neither of the mentioned words have one in English, though.
Ah, but some songs are so Equivocal that they should have Equivocal translations too. Plain songs are to be accompanied by Plain translations I think. And some songs are Rude, so they require Rude translations; and other songs are Sordid, thus the corresponding translations should be Sordid; and some songs could be called Motherf+++g, and then only Motherf+++g translations would fit them best.
Any other tag is also plausible, after thinking... ;)
You make a very strong case...this leaves out Corny songs and their corresponding Corny translations, though.
Etymology
Rhyme from Greek ῥυθμός - rhythmos, rhythm.
Рифма (др.-греч. ῥυθμός - размеренность, ритм). Т.е. рифма, это разновидность ритма. Т.е. эквиритмичный значит - равный ритму. И не важно в чем ритм выражается, в чередовании ударений или в чередовании рифм. Раз в песне рифмы есть, то и рифмы должны чередоваться, задавая тем самым тоже ритм, метрическую структуру песни.
Function of rhyming words
Rhyme partly seems to be enjoyed simply as a repeating pattern that is pleasant to hear. It also serves as a powerful mnemonic device, facilitating memorization. The regular use of tail rhyme helps to mark off the ends of lines, thus clarifying the metrical structure for the listener.
Закругляемся, удаляйте топик. Ерундой уже занимаетесь, придумываете то, что уже придумано.
"A square is a rectangle, since rectangles have four sides at right angles, and so does a square. Thus, every rectangle must have 4 equal sides, because a square has 4 equal sides and a square is a rectangle. A rectangle without 4 equal sides is not a rectangle." :^)
Although E-related discussions pop up every month, this one is worth reading, so I've read every post of it.
I can't say better than kuycat did in the post #17.
Here, on LT, this Russian organization has no authority in defining tags that we are using.
So it is not a crime that meaning of "equirhythmic" tag differs from "эквиритмический" as it was suggested by OP.
And the big change of this suggestion? >> "E" instead of "E,R" ?!
Not worth it imho.
I would say there is a general consensus with E-tag use on LT, but practically everyone interprets it slightly differently.
For an example, Is it possible for equirhythmic translation to be partially equirhythmic?
Would one missing unstressed syllable in the end of the line make it non-equirhythmic? Some say yes, some say no. Others think it is E as long as it has a "feeling" of E and to heck with a rhythm pattern and a # of syllables.
I was scolded for using "R" tag as well. Clearly, there is no consensus on what is a Rhymed too. We could modify tags indefinitely: line-rhymed according to the original, rhymed with a new rhyming order, partially rhymed, rhymed with inner rhymes, rhymed without inner rhymes, rhymed with strong rhymes, rhymed with so-so rhymes, rhymed with assonance, rhymed with consonant to the original, etc, etc. And all possible combinations of above mentioned.
What's the point? You can't predict how future users would interpret those tags. We can discuss them, use them for indexing, for search and differentiation of certain translations from the rest. We should use our voting powers if we want to mark especially good translation among equally tagged versions. Or a bad one.
And finally, I don't think this thread should be anytime deleted, even if someone disagrees with OP.
It is an interesting read and a civilized discussion.
Thanks OP, thanks everyone.
3.14
One of the following tags can be assigned to each translation on adding or editing:
Один из следующих тегов может быть добавлен каждому переводу при публикации или редактировании:
If you read the rules literally, the rules say that you can put one of the tags. Not two, not three, but one. And putting a few tags, we only generate confusion. What is the translation? E? R? S? M? All together? It's a mess.
Clearly, you are misleading public with you last post. A metered translation could be rhymes as well. And poetic and commentary tags could be added on top of pretty much anything.
If you follow the logic, the rhyme may not necessarily match the original.
Rhyming - rhymes the lines, generally but not necessarily matching the rhyming pattern of the source.
So literally and understand. You can also rhyme not as in the original, somewhere and without rhyme. Means R. And it turns out that the tags E, R do not say that the translation is identical to the original.
If adding more than one tag was an issue, the functionality would simply not be there. People are capable of processing more than one word at a time, I think...whatever you are suggesting instead (10 different tags for every shade of translation under the sun? Redefining a tag people already have an understanding of just to please the definition of an uncited Russian wiki article?) is vastly more confusing.
We do not need a tag for a perfectly matching translation. Hardly anyone here is pedantic enough to care about such levels of precision, and it's not what the overwhelming majority of people come to the site for. E+R seems to be enough.
Don't get me wrong. I think you do have a point, something probably should be done about it if it upsets you so much. But what you're proposing in your original post - to change the entire meaning of the tag as it's defined here - is probably not the most feasible solution to the problem.
You don't need this. And people who want to sing the lyrics of a song the same way as the original, they will not find such a text, because the tag does not give them confidence in this. The site LT turns out to be useless for them.
Songs are written, yes, by pedants. Because they make sure that every note is in its place. They do not sing the text, but create music by singing. Together with the meaning of the song is obtained.
If no one wants to change anything. Let's delete the topic. And everything will be quiet and quiet. Tags will continue to mislead others.
How does the Е tag differ from the M tag?
Equirhythmic - the same number of syllables per line as in the original, preserving the original meter with mostly natural syllable stressing in the translation.
Metered - follows a (more or less) regular rhythmic structure.
What does "mostly" mean? Is it possible not to observe the stress when E translation?
Tchaikovsky was a great pedant (yet we love him not only for this) but you managed to find a fault in one of his translations, as far as I remember...
In one place Tchaikovsky cheated, put the league between two notes, although there was no the league in the original. There were two different notes. They were sung separately. Elsewhere Tchaikovsky did the same. Combined two paired notes in two leagues and thus made two notes instead of four. I. e. removed two notes. That's how he cheated. If I hadn't watched the Mozart's original score, I wouldn't have noticed it, I would have thought it should be. So Tchaikovsky got rid of three notes.
If talk about Tchaikovsky as a translator, then he was poorly evaluated in this capacity. The rhymes were weak and primitive. This is not my opinion.
You can listen to Natsuki sing the song "Город золотой". You can hear, where the rhyme is not in the translation, Natsuki has to sing something between U and I or between O and E, so that it sounds harmonious, rhymically. This is because the translation is not quite equirhythmic. That is the singer has to correct the translator's mistakes.
Who's Natsuki? That's Ichigo Tanuki singing on the vid.
And the original song Город золотой is an unrhymed one, isn't it?
Нацуки - вокал, бэк-вокал. Maybe I misunderstood.
In the original the lines are rhymed, but in the translation there is no rhyme in two places.
Look, at the beginning, she says her name.
Ah, that's a kinda stage name...
Well, there in the original some rhymes are poor, the chorus is mostly unrhymed.
I don't know Japanese but I hear that the song is translated in it likewise.
I'm not talking about the chorus, I'm talking about the verse. In the video there is the transliteration. I don't know Japanese either. I listened to the song several times to make sure it wasn't my imagination.
Well, according to what I hear, the first two lines of the first stanza and the last two lines of the second one aren't rhymed. And what? Do these lines sound strange to natives? Or is there any problem in singing them? I don't know, let's wait for someone whose mother tongue is Japanese to dot the i's and cross the t's. ;)
Not really related to discussion, but Brat, you might find this interesting regarding rhyme in Japanese songs in general ^^
And that's what I'm saying, there's no rhyme there. I was talking, she sings as if there is a rhyme, pronouncing in the first case U as I, and in the second - E as O.
Who wants arrhythmic music? If you have weak nerves, don't listen.
Варанчик, я вас за это укушу очень больно. Или укусил бы, если все зубы от этой "музыки" не вывалились. Где вы даже такую мерзость умудрились откопать...😩
Ну эт хорошо, хоть один беззубый стал ) Рифма и ритм им не нужны... )) Месть значит удалась )
Это запись пилорамы?
Это прогрессивное направление артхауса ))
Ah thanks for sharing - usually I prefer my music to be a bit more coherent, but that was a nice listen (especially the second half that was a bit more put-together).
Pages