Talk:Ame ni mo makezu

Translation
The translation given on Thursday 22 September 2005 is my own, and I happily grant permission to Wikipedia to do with it what it will:

Cheers,

Eiríkr Útlendi 23:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think, "homerare mo sezu"(誉められもせず) "ku ni mo sarezu"(苦にもされず) are a pair. ("ku ni mo sarezu" shouldn't be read as　"kuni mo sarezu 国も去れず"(can't leave a country/land/nation).)

So, the translation of this part will be like; "without being praised" "without being blamed"

User:Nopira 0:14, 24 September 2005(JST)

And, using katakana was not odd thing in Japan before 1945. In post-war Japan, children are taught hiragana first, but before GHQ and the Ministry of Education started the reformation of language education, children was taught katakana first.

But I think this part is right;

"it might be viewed as a move to make his poem more accessible to the rural folk of northern Japan with whom he spent his life"

because a lot of people(farmers, workers, housewives and so on) in rural area  might be able to use only katakana (by the lack of education, education only at primary schools), and katakana was more common letter at not-official scene then. (to send short letters to friends or family, or urgent business letters and telegraphs, to take a note or memo, to keep a diary, ....)

User:Nopira 0:24, 24 September 2005(JST)


 * Great, Nopira, thanks! That's the trouble with kana-only for non-native speakers, we're not always sure how to parse the text.  My original reading did seem to end on a depressing note -- "unable to leave" sure doesn't sound happy -- and "not being blamed" makes more sense given the tone of the work.  :)  I'll make the fix.  Thanks again!


 * Eiríkr Útlendi 16:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Texts written in katakana or hiragana only are difficult for Japanese, too. And for me.:)


 * User:Nopira 0:56, 28 September 2005(JST)

Hello Gniw --

I just recently went through the page's history and ran across your edit summaries. Thanks for your input. I have some comments and questions in response.

About the title, since Kenji Miyazawa put it primarily in katakana, the use of lower case was intentional as it seemed more appropriate, c.f. e.e. cummings. To which I have a riddle about style in English :) -- if there's a proper noun that is deliberately spelled in lower case, and that noun starts a sentence, does one capitalize it?

Also, the first two lines in the translation had been intentionally swapped, as it is more idiomatic in English to say "the wind and the rain", i.e. the wind comes first, and not "the rain and the wind". This then cuts to the meat of a key question in translation, specifically keeping as close as possible to the source text on the one hand, and producing a target text that covers the meaning of the source but in a more natural style / format / idiom for the target language on the other. Here with these two lines, my thought is ultimately どうでもいい, but this is a question worth bringing up. Any thoughts or comments are welcome.

Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 16:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Style
Does anyone have any references to the original format of this poem? I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was originally done *entirely* in katakana, but I can't seem to find any specific mention of this, in either English or Japanese. Plus, the only versions of it I can find online include kanji.

Nopira, do you happen to know the answer to this? I thought that the use of katakana was more of a style issue due to the use of kanji. If Miyazawa used katakana purely for legibility among the under-educated rural people, would he still have used kanji? Or is the version here incorrect, and the original was, indeed, all in katakana? Any (constructive) input anyone can give is appreciated! :)

Cheers,

Eiríkr Útlendi 16:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Eirikr, I found the original Miyazawa's poem on the notebook. This notebook was found after death of Miyazawa, and this original version was written in both katakana and kanji. Just like in your article.
 * "Ame ni mo makezu" Notebook,dated November 3, 1931, in the bed of the hospital
 * An article of some blog on "Ame ni mo makezu"


 * In Aozora bunko, I searched Miyazawa's works, and he usually used hiragana and kanji when he wrote stories and poems, but this poem written in katakana. It have bit strange feeling. Maybe it was just a memo or diary, or prayer not for publish, or just a draft.


 * I think, Miyazawa usually used hiragana (for children?) because hiragana was soft than katakana. But sometimes he wrote a line by katakana and roman letters for express some odd feelings. He wrote his works for the all the people in his rural area from adult to child, but his writing style was based on hiragana. I can't find arguments or discussions about it on the net.


 * And, about the line "ku ni mo sarezu"(苦にもされず), "Ku ni suru" means worry about, worry over, cares, feel pain or suffering, be bothered. So, maybe this line will be "not bother someone" or something, but I couldn't find more suitable translation.


 * offtopic:


 * Before 1945, Formal texts was Bungotai"written Japanese", mainly by kanji, affected by ancient Chinese official texts(Classical Chinese). Katakana is an assistant letter of kanji(invented for assistance of reading Chinese text. hiragana is more independent from kanji, and was unofficial letter), so katakana was more official and important than hiragana. Children were taught katakana first.


 * "Kanji and katakana" texts are not common today ,but was very common both in the informal situation like memos or texts and writings by under-educated people, and in the formal situation. For example, The Criminal code(1907) and The Civil Code(1898) of Japan are still written in katakana and kanji.


 * This is the famous (or infamous) example of the official text of government in "written Japanese" - Imperial Rescript on Surrender,1945.


 * Nowadays, the official text is "Hiragana and kanji", and based on Kougotai,spoken japanese. Katakana is used only in assistance of hiragana, and is an informal letter. (Recently, a total reformation of the Criminal code and the Civil code is work in progress, new codes will be written by hiragana and kanji.)


 * nopira 7:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Nopira, that is most interesting (and even somewhat unnerving) to see Miyazawa's actual notebook. And thank you too for the reminder about katakana usage in days gone by.  :)  I'd seen some older katakana materials once long ago, but had completely forgotten about them until you mentioned the law codes and the Imperial Rescript.


 * Given the Buddhist prayers in the notebook, I suspect Miyazawa never intended the poem for publication. Might this poem have been a more private and personal piece of writing than his other works?  Could the use of katakana indicate this?


 * About 苦にもされず, might this mean "not being bothered (about not being praised)"? I find the use of the passive in this construction to be somewhat confusing.


 * Cheers,


 * Eiríkr Útlendi 17:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Eirikr, I'm glad you feel interesting about these websites. I'm not sure about relation between his usual writing style and his service for farmers. And the meaning of the style of this poem written in katakana.


 * the last page that Miyazawa wrote Lotus sutra again and again and again is very strange (and fearful) for me. :) ((('Д')))shaking don't stop... ...but his prayer was very important part of his life and serious thing.
 * I gradually think that this katakana text was a personal prayer. And other published works and manuscripts discovered after his death were written in hiragana.(at least, what i found on the net was all written in hiragana.) It's a Subject that more investigation needed, but it's too heavy for me.


 * ku ni mo sarezu苦にもされず is difficult, but i think it will mean "I will bother no one". I think It will be pair of "homerare mo sezu", and two line will be independent.
 * these line will mean that Miyazawa didn't want be a object of praise by other people (or community of village/school/circle and so on), and also didn't want be a troublemaker, a person who annoy someone, a object of worry by other people. ("trouble" will be about bad human relations with others, poverty, bad health, and so on...)
 * so, maybe he wanted to be an "invisible" person who just worked for people without attracting someone's attention, or being worried about him (human relations, health, earnings, and so on).
 * The use of the passive of these lines is difficult, but very interesting.


 * User:nopira 6:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource
In response to a complaint from Yiyu Shen about pages that contain the full text of poems, I'd like to suggest that Ame ni mo Makezu be transwikied to Wikisource along with the notes on its translation, and that this article be trimmed accordingly. Containing some of the poem, certainly. The whole poem... no. DS 12:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * While I understand the move to put this in Wikisource, I am puzzled as to what else should go in the article space here on Wikipedia. Or should the link to the poem title in the Kenji Miyazawa article instead point to Wikisource?


 * That might be best, yes.


 * As to complaints about posting whole poems, while I would certainly balk at any move to include the full text of the Aeneid or Beowulf or their ilk, I am a bit confused about what complaints may arise from such a piece as short as this?


 * Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 00:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a short piece, yes, but as Yiyu Shen pointed out in the deletion debate on "Snow", Wikipedia articles on poems shouldn't contain the full text of the poems that they discuss. I'm not an admin (...yet; would you, um, would you like to vote?), I'm just trying to propose a way to settle things to the satisfaction of all parties involved. DS 12:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for responding to my questions and filling me in on the background. This all makes sense.  :)  My question now becomes what, if anything, should go in Wikipedia under the poem title?  I'm really not familiar with Wikisource, and don't know if commentary goes there, or should instead go here (such as the musings about why this particular poem was written in katakana)?


 * Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi 19:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Transliteration
Hello Monsieurtode --

Thanks for your suggestions, I've taken some on board. Some I reverted though, and thought I'd explain here: I'm curious if you have any particular reason for changing "okorazu" to "ikarazu"? Both mean the same thing, and according to what I can find in dictionaries, 瞋ラズ can be read either way, so I'm happy to leave it as you've entered. If you have a source showing how Miyazawa Kenji would have pronounced this, please add it to the page. :-) Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 15:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 決して in kana is spelled けっして, hence "kesshite"
 * It's generally clearer in rōmaji to separate discrete elements with a space, hence "itsu mo", "waratte iru", and "shite yari".

Hello Eirikr: Well, I edited it according to the Koujien, which does not have a word "okorasu" but does have a word "ikarasu". Moreover, according to my kanji dictionary 瞋らす is read as いからす. This page which shows the original notebooks also transliterate it as いからす. It would be good to add this to the external links.

Also according to the Koujien, there are actually two readings for 決して, which are　けして and けっして. Since the original notebooks only read 決して, the actual transliteration is uncertain, so I think we can read it either way.

Finally, it would be good to note that he wrote the title of the Lotus Sutra (南無妙法蓮華経) multiple times over the page. Miyazawa was a very devout Nicheren Buddhist, and it is reflected in the poem.

Thanks! Monsieurtode 09:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey there Monsieurtode, thanks for replying! Interesting about the Kojien and 決して; I only have a Shogakukan to hand at the moment, and it only lists けっして as possible pronunciations, and Jim Breem's online dictionary also only gives this pronunciation, which jives with what I hear on the street in Tokyo and among 日本人 in California.  I'll have to dig into that one some.  Perhaps it's a dialect variation?


 * About okorazu / ikarazu, it's important to note that it's not す on the end, but rather ず, indicating "not doing [whatever the verb is]". Ikarasu would be the causative of ikaru, i.e. "to make someone mad", which would be out of character given the tone of the poem.  But thank you for drawing my attention back to it -- given the meaning of 瞋 as "anger", I just arbitrarily chose okoru as the base reading, but in looking back into it, sure enough, the page you and Nopira both linked to showing Miyazawa's notebook does give the kana reading as いからず.  I didn't notice before when Nopira had posted.  Doh!


 * The Kenji Miyazawa article itself talks about Buddhism and the Lotus Sutra as major influences in his life. Looking again at the pictures of his notebook, it appears that the Sutra comes after the poem rather than on the same pages, and as such I'm not sure if it's intended as part of the same piece of writing.  As you suggest, I'll go ahead and add the link to the bottom of the page though, as it's certainly interesting and of value to look at the poem in Miyazawa's own hand.  If you feel it's important and relevant enough to write something about it directly on the poem page here, by all means do so.  :-)  Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 17:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kitty1983 --

Thanks for swinging by. I noticed you'd taken the "d" out of "shidzuka", but I think the "d" belongs there, as the transliteration is just that -- a transliteration, and not an attempt at "proper" rōmaji spellings. Have a look at the note on the bottom about how the transliteration is meant to directly show what Miyazawa Kenji wrote. In this case, the spelling shizuka would indicate the kana シズカ, whereas what Miyazawa used was シヅカ, hence shidzuka to indicate a ツ with the 濁点. I hope this better explains the spellings. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 17:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hidori vs Hideri
Seven lines from the end of the poem is the line beginning 'hidori no toki...' I just looked up this poem because I'm reading it in a Japanese book, and in the book the line begins 'hideri no toki'. The English translation on the page also currently uses the word 'drought' which is 'hideri' rather than 'hidori'. I was going to change it, but with a little research things turned out to be more complicated. Looking this up briefly on the internet, it seems that the poem was originally published with 'hideri', and then Miyazawa's notebooks were discovered in the 80s with 'hidori' instead. There still seems to be some argument about which is correct, but I'd hope for a more definitive source before editing anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsm77 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cacophonic "collective" and "on-going" translation
As much as I like the idea of permitting others to comment, give feedback and make suggestions on a translation in order to help the translator make it better over time, I'm beginning to feel that this whole "free and open translation" matter has turned into quite a mess, with people of widely varying capabilities and qualifications dropping in and making significant alterations on what is, after all, a work of art. Now, I understand and respect the original translator's (Eiríkr Útlendi) intentions, but maybe there should be some sort of practical limitation as to how the translation can be changed, and by whom. Being myself an occasional literary translator, I believe that such a flagrant lack of resolution (for lack of a better word) can be extremely detrimental to a poem's -- its translation's -- quality.

For those who've dealt with translation more than a little, you know very well that there can never be a complete agreement on what the final result ought to be. (Recheck this discussion if you have any doubts about that.) Translations are -- and should be -- products of specific individuals with a specific background at a specific time. Open to critical discussion? Always, and even welcome. But open to gratuitous change? No way, José! The way I see it, because this translation here is effectively everyone's, it'll keep on morphing, thus never acquiring a stable form, unlike those others found through the external links. Furthermore, any work of art needs a staple, a seal, a proof to give it identity; otherwise, the work doesn't "blend in the community and become one with the world" like many wishful-thinkers out there want to believe, it remains but a monster -- a monster's primary characteristic being its lack of proper identity. See the Frankenstein-like Choka On It and other similarly monumental (and ridiculous) projects for example.

My comment -- and profound irritation -- is prompted by the fact that I read and loved the poem (its translation, to be exact) some three months ago and that today, wishing to read it again, I found myself encountering a totally different version! Going through the history out of curiosity, I discovered the insane amount of revisions perpetrated on the translation. I'm aware that Wikipedia is a free and open encyclopedia, but I had -- naively, I guess -- imagined that literary works of art such as translations would be treated with more dignity, even if the permission to alter them has been given. I'm also aware that some contributors have been respectful and dealing in a correct manner to improve the translation, that is, by submitting their critical opinions and suggesting changes that should be made. That, I think, is the proper way to go if we are to keep any resemblance of order and quality control. When it comes to art, I indeed become a purist, since I find revolting the unwarranted -- or worse: under the pretence of "democratic" intentions -- appropriation of somebody else's creative efforts. The point is that those occasional and/or persistent "vandals" who can't refrain or restrain their urge to get their hands on the translation and toy with it should be stopped.

For all these reasons, I move to propose that the licence be modified as to prevent unwelcome plundering. Either the licence is to allow no modification by someone else than the translation's author or let there be one (official or unofficial) "moderator" dealing with the suggestions and modifying as "required" after weighing the arguments and the soundness of the propositions. After that, if some are still unhappy about the translation being shown on the article, just produce and publish your own superbly brilliant and infinitely superior take in a forum or any web page, include the link in the appropriate section of this article, and leave the Wikipedia text alone once and for all! Howdoesitflee (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)