Help with Identification please

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for that additional input Kai.

In the interpretations of both Guwaya and Richardus/Rogers there is a clear separation between two groups of hilt forms:-

group 1 is the human + animal + corn + flower motifs, and all these motifs are known as the "gana" form

group 2 is the form from tree roots resembling the human form.

You have raised a doubt in respect of both these translations by identifying a deficiency in grammar. However, I believe that Guwaya is also a native speaker of German, and he seemed not to note this possibility of an alternate interpretation.

Earlier today I emailed Tim Rogers with several questions in respect of this translation, the answers to which, I believe will put the cap on this matter. When I receive a response I will advise.

As for corn-cob = gunungan, that might be another good question for investigation. When and where did this association first get aired?

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

In the interpretations of both Guwaya and Richardus/Rogers there is a clear separation between two groups of hilt forms:-

group 1 is the human + animal + corn + flower motifs, and all these motifs are known as the "gana" form

group 2 is the form from tree roots resembling the human form.

Actually Alan, from the translations i am reading here i would say that there a are three distinct groups being discussed. There is a comma to seperate each group, at least in everyones translations. First after the human/animal hits, then the corn or flower hilts also called gana, as well as some tree-roots resembling the human figure.
That seems like three groups to me and the natural root hilts seem to have been mistakenly lumped in with the corn/flower hilts known as gana.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes David, I agree with you, it could be read the way you are reading it.

Apparently in the original, it can also be read as Kai and Guwaya have suggested, in another way, which includes the root form hilts as gana.

I have not the smallest understanding of German, I can only look at the translations, so possibly this has now become a job for a professional translator.

The reason I say this is because on the two occasions in the past where I was involved in a legal matters which hinged on translations I discovered that a professional translator does not look at a single passage out of the context of an entire work written by the same person. In judging the intended meaning of a passage, or even a word, the professional will not necessarily stick strictly with a grammatically correct reading, but will take account of the manner in which the writer expresses himself.

I have had a response from Tim, who has advised me that Peter Richardus did the translation from the original German text, and that he (Tim) checked Peter's English and any passages about which he had doubts, back to the original German. It would seem that this translation has full integrity and perhaps may be able to accepted as correct. However, Tim has undertaken to do further checking, and he will get back to me when the matter is beyond doubt.

[kai]

Hello Alan,

on the two occasions in the past where I was involved in a legal matters which hinged on translations I discovered that a professional translator does not look at a single passage out of the context of an entire work written by the same person. In judging the intended meaning of a passage, or even a word, the professional will not necessarily stick strictly with a grammatically correct reading, but will take account of the manner in which the writer expresses himself.

Yes, but unless Groneman can be shown to always utilize the same stylistic "trick" this will only help to establish probabilities of what he meant to write rather than a clear case for any of the possibilities.

BTW, in this case, the sentences preceeding and following the one under discussion don't seem to bear any relevance to clear up his passing remark on the word gana, does it?

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Hello David,

from the translations i am reading here i would say that there a are three distinct groups being discussed. There is a comma to seperate each group, at least in everyones translations.

The use of a comma is different in German and English and in this case just doesn't help to solve the issue (it's necessary to seperate this part of the sentence: "die gana genannt werden").

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Hello Alan,

In the interpretations of both Guwaya and Richardus/Rogers there is a clear separation between two groups of hilt forms:-

group 1 is the human + animal + corn + flower motifs, and all these motifs are known as the "gana" form

This is definitely wrong (based on German grammar):
The human and animal forms cannot be associated with the name gana.

BTW, corn cob or flower are alternative descriptions for something perceived by Groneman as a single hilt type (he utilized "or" rather than "and"). I assume flowers refer to the more florally carved examples of this "corn cob" hilt type.

As for corn-cob = gunungan, that might be another good question for investigation. When and where did this association first get aired?

Ok, well after the 15th century, for sure.

I'll let someone else start a seperate thread on this topic though...

Regards,
Kai