Talk:Là ci darem la mano

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

a mistake?[edit]

what is that word "restablish"? I think they meant "reestablish" maybe? I don't know Italian so I can't know for sure though.

Translation[edit]

I took the liberty to revert a change by user Michael Bednarek (who, in turn, had reverted my proposed change) because i believe my proposed translation is less pedantic, while at the same time accurate (if, admittedly, not literal). Wrong? --Majorbolz (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing these changes, although following WP:BRD, you should not have reverted again.

1) Your original edit didn't explain it its edit summary why "There we'll be hand in hand" is better than "There we will give each other our hands". 2) You changed without reason the title of Berlioz' lost guitar variations from "Là ci darem la mano" to "Là ci dares la mano".

1) I believe, as I wrote in my edit summary, that the reflexive nature of the construct "ci darem" ought to be preserved by using "give each other". 2) I see no reason to use "dares" for the Berlioz work. So I reverted those two changes.

What I really would like to see is an English singable and idiomatic translation with similar status as the German "Reich mir die Hand, mein Leben" which is universally acknowledged as THE German translation. In its absence, I'd prefer a translation as literal as possible, and the correct title of Berlioz' work. I suggest to revert your edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not touch the Berlioz line, so no idea why this is being attributed to me. Concerning the translation: you say you'd prefer a translation as literal as possible... Well, I would prefer a translation that be leaner and metrically sound, like the one I proposed... However, I do not have a problem leaving it as you like: after all, Wikipedia is done to please you, isn't it? :)--Majorbolz (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, here's someone who translated the aria and thinks as I do. Awaiting for your external sources, if any. --Majorbolz (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i concur with user majorbolz that there we'll be hand in hand is better: it preserves the original metric while providing a correct translation --176.200.125.177 (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC) — 176.200.125.177 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have applied what currently appears to be the most appropriate translation, as per the discussion above.--Majorbolz (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to the literal translation. --Folantin (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Folantin, why has your Talk page been erased? --Majorbolz (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect the discussion. A referenced, superior translation that follows metrics and conveys the same meaning as abland literal one has been offered . and is being discussed here. You have not offered counterarguments or presented alternative sources.--Majorbolz (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) What Folantin does with his talk page is his business; Majorbolz should consult WP:User pages, in particular WP:BLANKING. 2) The discussion clearly shows no support for the translation Majorbolz offers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I blank talk page conversations once I've read them, hence the edit summary "Read". The discussion is centralised on this page here. --Folantin (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard to offer a literal translation, unless a well-known non-literal translation exists. Literal translations are much clearer than metrical ones.--Folantin (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets plague this article[edit]

A number of fake user identities are being employed in this discussion. Please notice that such behavior constitutes violation of basic Wikipedia rules. --Majorbolz (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That allegation constitutes a severe personal attack on several longstanding editors with good reputations. I suggest you strike your remark above and apologise for it. Consider yourself warned with {{Uw-npa3}}. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has only been one sock puppet in use on this page, the Italian IP with no other edits which appeared out of the blue to support Majorbolz's position. --Folantin (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aria translation[edit]

The aria 'translation' was apparently a copyvio (see note to my edit) and I have removed it. In any case, it is a 'singing version', not a translation, and it is misleading (encyclopaedically) to imply the latter. Maybe someone can give a prose rendering?--Krapyrubsnif (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing in the article describing the aria's English text in any way, not as "translation" nor as a "singing version", so I can't see how that can be construed as misleading. The English text is not a copyright violation but a widely available text by Natalie MacFarren (1826–1916) taken from an attributed source; it has been available since 1900 and is thus, like the Italian original, out of copyright protection. I have reverted your edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I have copyedited the article to make this clear.--Krapyrubsnif (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've added a literal translation of my own - feel free to adapt/improve.--Krapyrubsnif (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

error in audio file[edit]

$<< \new Voice = "DG" { \clef bass \time 2/4 \key a \major \set Staff.midiInstrument = #"trombone" \set Score.tempoHideNote = ##t \tempo 4 = 60 \relative a { fis8 b4. } } \new Lyrics \lyricsto DG { ma- no, } >>$

The audio file of the first phrase of the aria at the top of this article is incorrect - compare it to the score fragment just below it that correctly shows the first two phrases.

The audio file raises the penultimate note of the phrase ("ma" of "mano") by a whole tone and divides it into two shorter notes. If necessary I'll teach myself how to work with audio files in Wikipedia and replace this incorrect file if no one else has fixed it first. Billfalls (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both the displayed score and the audio are generated from the same LilyPond instructions, so any discrepancies on your end must be caused by inadequate rendering in your browser. Here, "ma-no" is sounded on an eighth F-sharp and a dotted quarter B, just as written. BTW, here the written score is shown above the player for the sound. Which operating system and browser do you use? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]