D&D General Sandwiches should exist in your fantasy world!

[Staffan]

Call 'em sandwiches. Who cares if there's no Earl of Sandwich to name them?

The thing is, we're generally playing the game in English (well, Swedish with a sprinkling of English in my case, but the principle is the same), not Taladan or Galifarian or whatever passes for Common in the setting in question. So even if the food's name is "Bokippa" or whatever in Taladan, that gets translated to "Sandwich" at the table.

It reminds me of a Tolkien thing. Apparently, the names "Merry" and "Meriadoc" are not the hobbit's "actual" name. His name is actually Kalimac Brandagamba, which leads to the nickname "Kali", which translates to "handsome" or "happy". So when translated to non-English languages, it properly should be changed to something similar in that language (although looking at his name in different languages, most haven't – I wonder if that might be because translators didn't want to get him confused with the Disney dwarf).

While Tolkien didn't particularly care for culinary history, he did care about linguistics. One of the earliest translations of LOTR was the Swedish one, by Åke Ohlmarks. Ohlmarks came from a tradition of translators that were more interested in interpreting the original text, not necessarily translating it directly, and as such he took some liberties by embellishing the text, and also got some things wrong (for example, there's some confusion about Eowyn's and Merry's fight against the Witch-King, where a "she" is translated as "he" or vice versa, and there are some occasions where the same place name gets translated differently). Tolkien knew enough Swedish to be able to read the book, and did not approve, leading to him (and later Christopher) telling the Swedish publisher that Ohlmarks were not to be allowed to do any more translations of Tolkien's (either one's) work. He also wrote a translator's guide for future publishers so they'd be able to get it right.

 

[Umbran]

It reminds me of a Tolkien thing. Apparently, the names "Merry" and "Meriadoc" are not the hobbit's "actual" name. His name is actually Kalimac Brandagamba, which leads to the nickname "Kali", which translates to "handsome" or "happy". So when translated to non-English languages, it properly should be changed to something similar in that language (although looking at his name in different languages, most haven't – I wonder if that might be because translators didn't want to get him confused with the Disney dwarf).

If the name should be changed, there's a whole bunch of guys named "Peter" who we really should be calling "Rock", and a bunch of guys we call "Bill" who we should be calling "stubborn armored head". Which, obviously, is kind of nonsense.

By in large, we don't translate proper names. Mr. Tolkien knew this. He was just so enamored of his own linguistic play that he wanted to show it off.

 

[Charlaquin]

The thing is, we're generally playing the game in English (well, Swedish with a sprinkling of English in my case, but the principle is the same), not Taladan or Galifarian or whatever passes for Common in the setting in question. So even if the food's name is "Bokippa" or whatever in Taladan, that gets translated to "Sandwich" at the table.

It reminds me of a Tolkien thing. Apparently, the names "Merry" and "Meriadoc" are not the hobbit's "actual" name. His name is actually Kalimac Brandagamba, which leads to the nickname "Kali", which translates to "handsome" or "happy". So when translated to non-English languages, it properly should be changed to something similar in that language (although looking at his name in different languages, most haven't – I wonder if that might be because translators didn't want to get him confused with the Disney dwarf).

Tolkien had this whole meta-canon thing going on, where his books were allegedly translations of Bilbo and Frodo’s accounts, which were originally written in Westron (the “common tongue”). And, yeah, he went so far as to “translate” the characters’ names “from” Westron. Bilbo Baggins is Bilba Labingi; Frodo Baggins is Maura Labingi; Samwise Gamgee is Banazir Galbazi; Sméagol is Trahal; even the term Hobbit is Kuduk. Though, in reality the English names came first, and he came up with the “original” Westron versions later.

 

[Deset Gled]

If the name should be changed, there's a whole bunch of guys named "Peter" who we really should be calling "Rock", and a bunch of guys we call "Bill" who we should be calling "stubborn armored head". Which, obviously, is kind of nonsense.

By in large, we don't translate proper names. Mr. Tolkien knew this. He was just so enamored of his own linguistic play that he wanted to show it off.

But consider: When Dwayne Johnson still went by "The Rock", his name was generally translated to "La Roca" in Spanish markets. Larry the Cable Guy is also translated in other languages. And lots of names get translated across history; Christophorus Columbus is Christopher Columbus in English, Elizabeth I is Isabela I in many regions. And that's before we even start going down the giant rabbit hole if Asian names in English (and vice versa).

We translate proper names a lot. We're not particularly consistent about it.

 

[Umbran]

We translate proper names a lot. We're not particularly consistent about it.

Dwayne Johnson and Larry the Cable Guy get translated for marketing purposes, not for some linguistic or etiquette principle.

Christophorus -> Christopher is not "translation". It is an example of Anglicization* , in which a word or name is shifted in spelling or pronunciation to better fit the local language patterns.

And, folks who call Elizabeth I as "Isabella I" are making trouble, because Isabella I was Queen of Castile, León, and Aragon a century before Elizabeth Tudor. Royals take on different names specifically to avoid that kind of confusion.

John Ronald Reuel Tolkien didn't translate his own names, each of which has meaning in its original tongue. If Mr. Tolkien himself was not going to be consistent about it, there is no "should" involved.





* Note, English is hardly the only language to do this - most do it to some degree or other. Generally, it is an example of domestication of a foreign word.

 

[Staffan]

If the name should be changed, there's a whole bunch of guys named "Peter" who we really should be calling "Rock", and a bunch of guys we call "Bill" who we should be calling "stubborn armored head". Which, obviously, is kind of nonsense.

By in large, we don't translate proper names. Mr. Tolkien knew this. He was just so enamored of his own linguistic play that he wanted to show it off.

You often do it when the name has a specific meaning though, like Tȟatȟáŋka Íyotake (Sitting Bull in English). This seems like one of those cases.

Plus, in this case it was apparently important to Tolkien that (a) the character had a nickname that meant "happy", and (b) that the work was supposed to be a translation of The Red Book of Westmarch, which was written in Hobbitese (Kuduk). Since it wouldn't make any sense to have a Kuduk nickname that meant something in English, he invented the backward translation for it.

 

[Umbran]

Plus, in this case it was apparently important to Tolkien that (a) the character had a nickname that meant "happy", and (b) that the work was supposed to be a translation of The Red Book of Westmarch, which was written in Hobbitese (Kuduk). Since it wouldn't make any sense to have a Kuduk nickname that meant something in English, he invented the backward translation for it.

I am not sure how (2) differs significantly from my previous statement that Tolkien was enamored of his own linguistic play, given that we aren't even talking about a real person or real languages.

 

[Deset Gled]

I am not sure how (2) differs significantly from my previous statement that Tolkien was enamored of his own linguistic play, given that we aren't even talking about a real person or real languages.

For me, the thing is that you appear to be dismissing what Tolkien is doing as "linguistic play", while engaging in the same linguistic play. You have denied other examples of name changes as "marketing", "Anglicization/domestication", and "making trouble", as if those labels are meaningful.

Is @Staffan making things up when he declares how we "should" translate Tokien's names? Absolutely. Exactly the same as you are making things up when you try to declare rules that "we don't translate proper names". There is no "linguistic or etiquette principle" for either of you to fall back on.

 

[Bohandas]

Tolkien had this whole meta-canon thing going on, where his books were allegedly translations of Bilbo and Frodo’s accounts, which were originally written in Westron (the “common tongue”). And, yeah, he went so far as to “translate” the characters’ names “from” Westron. Bilbo Baggins is Bilba Labingi; Frodo Baggins is Maura Labingi; Samwise Gamgee is Banazir Galbazi; Sméagol is Trahal; even the term Hobbit is Kuduk. Though, in reality the English names came first, and he came up with the “original” Westron versions later.

Of course the plot hole there is that the "translated" names are ALSO not english but as much a bunch of made-up gibberish as the Westron names

(for example, there's some confusion about Eowyn's and Merry's fight against the Witch-King, where a "she" is translated as "he" or vice versa, and there are some occasions where the same place name gets translated differently). Tolkien knew enough Swedish to be able to read the book, and did not approve, leading to him (and later Christopher) telling the Swedish publisher that Ohlmarks were not to be allowed to do any more translations of Tolkien's (either one's) work. He also wrote a translator's guide for future publishers so they'd be able to get it right.

In that specific case I've got to agree with Tolkien since IIRC that whole scene comes down to a quibble over pronouns

Tolkien had this whole meta-canon thing going on, where his books were allegedly translations of Bilbo and Frodo’s accounts, which were originally written in Westron (the “common tongue”). And, yeah, he went so far as to “translate” the characters’ names “from” Westron. Bilbo Baggins is Bilba Labingi; Frodo Baggins is Maura Labingi; Samwise Gamgee is Banazir Galbazi; Sméagol is Trahal; even the term Hobbit is Kuduk. Though, in reality the English names came first, and he came up with the “original” Westron versions later.

I'm almost surprised that the the filmmakers didn't try to BS this blink-and-you'll-miss-it framing device into an entire fourth Hobbit movie

 

[Umbran]

For me, the thing is that you appear to be dismissing what Tolkien is doing as "linguistic play", while engaging in the same linguistic play. You have denied other examples of name changes as "marketing", "Anglicization/domestication", and "making trouble", as if those labels are meaningful.

"Choosing a different word that means a similar thing in the new language" (translation) and "changing the spelling of a word, without addressing its meaning" (domestication) are entirely different linguistic phenomena. Both events happen in language, and their effects on language differ.

Now, maybe you don't care. But Tolkien was a linguist. The work for which is is famous is largely based on his linguistic work. Unless you can show receipts, it seems safe to expect he would care, that the meanings would matter to him.

If we are talking about why Tolkien did a thing, it should be based in things he cared about, not what you care about.

Exactly the same as you are making things up when you try to declare rules that "we don't translate proper names".

Oh, for goodness sake.

I said, and I quote, "By in large, we don't translate proper names."
That initial phrase? That matters. When you drop it, you change a generalization that allows for some exceptions, into an absolute statement.

On the internet, there's a strong tendency to restate the positions of others, and do so with seemingly small inaccuracies, such that the conversation is driven to poles, losing nuance. I WILL NOT allow you to do this here. The irony of dong this in a discussion about linguistics would be too thick.

Get my meaning correct, or leave it alone.

There is no "linguistic or etiquette principle" for either of you to fall back on.

I did not cite any principle as defense of my position. I cited a general pattern of behavior in modern English.