Exact/proper interpretation

[Designare]

Hello everybody;

My question is regarding to the exact translation of this sentece:

"For the reign of Sarduri I (c. 840–830 bc) there remain only the inscriptions at Van"

I interpreted it as "from the period in which Sarduri I was reigning there remain only inscriptions at Van" (id est maybe there were inscriptions in other places but what we currently remain for us are the inscriptions at Van [a city in modern Turkey]).

But our professor explicitly rejected my interpretation and affirmed the following instead:

"During the reign of Sarduri I [he] created only inscriptions at Van" (namely he was not interested in leaving too much inscriptions everywhere as opposed to his son).

So I wanted to know what is the exact or proper translation of this sentence?

Thanks in advance

 

[Raymott]

Re: Exact/proper translation

Hello everybody;

My question is regarding to the exact translation of this sentece:

"For the reign of Sarduri I (c. 840–830 bc) there remain only the inscriptions at Van"

I interpreted it as "from the period in which Sarduri I was reigning there remain only inscriptions at Van" (id est maybe there were inscriptions in other places but what we currently remain for us are the inscriptions at Van [a city in modern Turkey]).

But our professor explicitly rejected my interpretation and affirmed the following instead:

"During the reign of Sarduri I [he] created only inscriptions at Van" (namely he was not interested in leaving too much inscriptions everywhere as opposed to his son).

So I wanted to know what is the exact or proper translation of this sentence?

Thanks in advance

'Translation' is the wrong word. You could use 'interpretation'.
Your interpretation is correct, given the sentence. What your professor says might be factual, but you can't derive that meaning from that sentence. Perhaps there is more context surrounding that sentence that would support your professor's reading.

 

[Coolfootluke]

Re: Exact/proper translation

I am not a teacher.

I need more context. I can't tell from that single sentence.

 

[5jj]

Re: Exact/proper translation

By the way, we never write, or say, 'id est' in full. We use 'i.e.', 'ie' or 'that is'.

 

[SoothingDave]

Re: Exact/proper translation

"There remain..." implies, to me, that there were others. But these are all that still exist.

 

[Coolfootluke]

Re: Exact/proper translation

"There remain..." implies, to me, that there were others. But these are all that still exist.

I am not a teacher.

I thought of that, but what if the sentence (there is no stop at the end) continues: "For the reign of Sarduri I (c. 840–830 bc) there remain only the inscriptions at Van to be translated."

 

[SoothingDave]

Re: Exact/proper translation

I am not a teacher.

I thought of that, but what if the sentence (there is no stop at the end) continues: "For the reign of Sarduri I (c. 840–830 bc) there remain only the inscriptions at Van to be translated."

Same idea.

I would read your sentence as there were other inscriptions, but only these have yet to be translated.

I don't think "remains" are the totality of a set of something. The remains of a body are not the entire body. The remains of a civilization are not everything that civilization made.

 

[Designare]

Re: Exact/proper translation

'Translation' is the wrong word. You could use 'interpretation'.

Yes I you're right. Here I used "translation" spontaneously because at my class I was translating the passage into Persian.

Your interpretation is correct, given the sentence. What your professor says might be factual, but you can't derive that meaning from that sentence. Perhaps there is more context surrounding that sentence that would support your professor's reading.

Thanks for your reply. Here is the full passage (it is actually an article in Britannica on Urartu-an anicent Middle Eastern civilization):

"For the reign of Sarduri I (c. 840–830 bc) there remain only the inscriptions. But for the reigns of his son Ishpuini (c. 830-810) and especially of Ishpuini's son Meinua (c. 810-781), Urartian conquests can be measured indirectly from widespread inscriptions ranging from the lower Murat River basin (around Elâzig) in the west, to the Aras (Araks, Araxes) River (i.e., from Erzurum to Mount Ararat) in the north, and to the south shore of Lake Urmia in the southeast. Ardini, or Musasir, once conquered by Tiglath-pileser I of Assyria about 1100, now became part of the Urartian sphere of influence. The temple of Haldi at Ardini was richly endowed by the Urartian kings but was open to Assyrian worshipers."

 

[Designare]

Re: Exact/proper translation

I am not a teacher.

I thought of that, but what if the sentence (there is no stop at the end) continues: "For the reign of Sarduri I (c. 840–830 bc) there remain only the inscriptions at Van to be translated."

Thanks for your reply. Here is the full passage:

"For the reign of Sarduri I (c. 840–830 bc) there remain only the inscriptions. But for the reigns of his son Ishpuini (c. 830-810) and especially of Ishpuini's son Meinua (c. 810-781), Urartian conquests can be measured indirectly from widespread inscriptions ranging from the lower Murat River basin (around Elâzig) in the west, to the Aras (Araks, Araxes) River (i.e., from Erzurum to Mount Ararat) in the north, and to the south shore of Lake Urmia in the southeast. Ardini, or Musasir, once conquered by Tiglath-pileser I of Assyria about 1100, now became part of the Urartian sphere of influence. The temple of Haldi at Ardini was richly endowed by the Urartian kings but was open to Assyrian worshipers."

 

[Designare]

Re: Exact/proper translation

Same idea.

I would read your sentence as there were other inscriptions, but only these have yet to be translated.

I don't think "remains" are the totality of a set of something. The remains of a body are not the entire body. The remains of a civilization are not everything that civilization made.

Thanks for your reply. I just conceive the same of "remains".

I only posted the rest of the paragraph in previous posts in order to draw a firm conclusion.

 

[Designare]

Re: Exact/proper translation

By the way, we never write, or say, 'id est' in full. We use 'i.e.', 'ie' or 'that is'.

I know people only pronounce the letters "i.e." when they want to say it, let alone writting it. But I am not sure if it is wrong to write "id est" instead of "i.e."?

 

[Coolfootluke]

Re: Exact/proper translation

I am not a teacher.

Thank you, Designare. I was able to find the article online.

The writer makes reference to "the inscriptions at Van" as if we know what he's talking about. I, for one, do not. I think it is unknown whether there were other inscriptions, but no others "remain" from that era, whatever the case. It would be natural to speak of inscriptions remaining through the centuries even if they were not remnants, if you know what I mean, so we cannot tell from the article whether there were others or not. The article is not clear on that point, so you are both wrong.

 

[Designare]

Re: Exact/proper translation

I am not a teacher.

Thank you, Designare. I was able to find the article online.

The writer makes reference to "the inscriptions at Van" as if we know what he's talking about. I, for one, do not. I think it is unknown whether there were other inscriptions, but no others "remain" from that era, whatever the case. It would be natural to speak of inscriptions remaining through the centuries even if they were not remnants, if you know what I mean, so we cannot tell from the article whether there were others or not. The article is not clear on that point, so you are both wrong.

It is generally an article on Urartu, an ancient Middle Eastern civilization, by Van (a city in modern Turkey) as its most important city or (sort of) capital city.

I think cases the like just emphasize kind of ambiguity ingrained with English language, when even the native speakers might meet problems to interpret the passages properly.

But I, with an adequate command of English, still think the fellow writer could easily use the verb "leave" instead of "remain" if he actually meant what my professor took to be the most proper. Do I get it right?

 

[Coolfootluke]

Re: Exact/proper translation

It is generally an article on Urartu, an ancient Middle Eastern civilization, by Van (a city in modern Turkey) as its most important city or (sort of) capital city.

I think cases the like just emphasize kind of ambiguity ingrained with English language, when even the native speakers might meet problems to interpret the passages properly.

But I, with an adequate command of English, still think the fellow writer could easily use the verb "leave" instead of "remain" if he actually meant what my professor took to be the most proper. Do I get it right?

I am not a teacher.

A careful writer can eliminate ambiguity whatever language he uses, I think. This writer was not so careful.

I don't think "leave" would help. I guess you mean, "For the reign of Sarduri I (c. 840–830 bc) there are left only the inscriptions at Van."

If the writer meant your interpretation, he should have written something like, "Of the inscriptions from the reign of Sarduri I (c. 840–830 bc) there remain only those at Van." If he meant what your professor thinks, it might be, "The only inscriptions made during the reign of Sarduri I (c. 840–830 bc) were those at Van, which fortunately have been preserved."

 

[SanMar]

Hello everybody;

My question is regarding to the exact translation of this sentece:

"For the reign of Sarduri I (c. 840–830 bc) there remain only the inscriptions at Van"

I interpreted it as "from the period in which Sarduri I was reigning there remain only inscriptions at Van" (id est maybe there were inscriptions in other places but what we currently remain for us are the inscriptions at Van [a city in modern Turkey]).

But our professor explicitly rejected my interpretation and affirmed the following instead:

"During the reign of Sarduri I [he] created only inscriptions at Van" (namely he was not interested in leaving too much inscriptions everywhere as opposed to his son).

So I wanted to know what is the exact or proper translation of this sentence?

Thanks in advance

I could not draw a definitive conclusion from the sentence or the passage.

Perhaps there were other inscriptions but all that is left (remains) is the one mentioned above.

-Or possibly...

All that remains is this inscription; no other physical evidence or artifacts (maybe temples, armour, monuments, ect.) are present. It could very well be the only inscription ever made, and also the only thing that still exists.
From this passage I don't think you can say for sure.

I think your interpretation and conclusion would have to depend on more information. In my opinion, for what it's worth, the writing is really unclear.


not a teacher

 

[Designare]

Re: Exact/proper translation

I am not a teacher.

A careful writer can eliminate ambiguity whatever language he uses, I think. This writer was not so careful."

You're right.

I don't think "leave" would help. I guess you mean, "For the reign of Sarduri I (c. 840–830 bc) there are left only the inscriptions at Van."

Yes I meant p.p. for the verb "to leave".

If the writer meant your interpretation, he should have written something like, "Of the inscriptions from the reign of Sarduri I (c. 840–830 bc) there remain only those at Van." If he meant what your professor thinks, it might be, "The only inscriptions made during the reign of Sarduri I (c. 840–830 bc) were those at Van, which fortunately have been preserved."

Seemingly the verb "remain" holds all the ambiguity here. However my and my professor's different viewpoints are about "for the reign of" which I interpreted as "from the reign of" and my professor held it "during the reign of". Probably these two interpretations somehow depend on exact interpretation of "remain" too!

 

[Designare]

I could not draw a definitive conclusion from the sentence or the passage.

Perhaps there were other inscriptions but all that is left (remains) is the one mentioned above.

It's ok since no one has drew any definitive conclusions so far on this case ;-).

I hold the same idea.

-Or possibly...

All that remains is this inscription; no other physical evidence or artifacts (maybe temples, armour, monuments, ect.) are present. It could very well be the only inscription ever made, and also the only thing that still exists.
From this passage I don't think you can say for sure.

I think your interpretation and conclusion would have to depend on more information. In my opinion, for what it's worth, the writing is really unclear.


not a teacher

Yes unfortunately the writing crucially sounds uncertain.

By the way thanks for your reply.

 

[Jaskin]

hi
Please note I'm not a teacher nor a native speaker;

Yes unfortunately the writing crucially sounds uncertain.

I think the fact that the writing is so uncertain says everything.
What I understand is that the passage tries to indirectly measure the area of conquests for each of the reign mentioned based on the remaining inscription. So for the reign of Sarduri I (c. 840–830 bc) the only certain indication of his conquests are the remaining inscriptions in Van. It's irrelevant whether they were the only created.

cheers.

 

[5jj]

Re: Exact/proper translation

I know people only pronounce the letters "i.e." when they want to say it, let alone writing it. But I am not sure if it is wrong to write "id est" instead of "i.e."?

Well, native speakers don't do it.

 

[Coolfootluke]

Re: Exact/proper translation

I know people only pronounce the letters "i.e." when they want to say it, let alone writting it. But I am not sure if it is wrong to write "id est" instead of "i.e."?

I am not a teacher.

If you want the whole story on "i.e.", here it is:

Latin abbreviations other than "etc." (and even that kind of sucks) are best confined to scholarly or highly formal works. There is always an English equivalent that is better in prose. "I.e." always takes the two periods, no matter what punctuation is happening around it, and it is always set off with a comma or commas, it being parenthetical. It is pronounced, believe it or not, "that is", although people will say "aye ee". It is never written in full in ordinary use. Incidentally, the similar and often confused "e.g." is pronounced "for example", and again, people will say "ee gee". Nobody is even tempted to say "exempli gratia" or write it out.