| |
| Author | Message | | | Posted on Wed Oct 07, 2009 17:21:23 | |
| | This translation assumed that it was for his younger brother. Is it known for a fact?
L Chen [ruthdream@gmail.com] | |
| | | Posted at Wed Oct 07, 2009 18:36:15 | Quote |
| | No.
101 is just addressed to 'brother'. The brother's age relative to Catullus is unknown.
 | |
| | | Posted at Fri Oct 09, 2009 20:56:44 | Quote |
| | | Quote: | | | | | No.
101 is just addressed to 'brother'. The brother's age relative to Catullus is unknown.
|
That's what I thought. So this translation took too much liberty then. Granted, to a Chinese, the tone would be completely different if Catullus was addressing an older brother. This difficulty is hard to avoid for the Chinese will address either as younger or older brother. But, what's so funny about this version is that he also quoted Bai Juyi [772-846 AD] in the translation. Now, that is a terrible anachronism and I don't know what he was thinking.
L Chen | |
|
|
|
|
