TARTU UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
NARVA COLLEGE
STUDY PROGRAM “LANGUAGES AND MULTILINGUALISM IN SCHOOL”
Anna Varlamova
TRANSLATION INTO RUSSIAN OF PROPER NOUNS IN J. R. R. TOLKIEN’S CONSTRUCTED LANGUAGES IN THE LORD OF THE RINGS: TRANSLATORS’
APPROACHES AND READERS’ RESPONSES Bachelor’s thesis
Supervisor: Lect. N. Raud, PhD
NARVA 2021
2 Olen koostanud töö iseseisvalt. Kõik töö koostamisel kasutatud teiste autorite tööd, põhimõttelised seisukohad, kirjandusallikatest ja mujalt pärinevad andmed on viidatud.
Anna Varlamova 17.05.2021 Töö autori allkiri ja kuupäev
3 PREFACE
One of the most selling books of all time - J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings - has been translated to many languages. Its author constructed languages for his works and provided them with extensive nomenclatures, explaining some linguistic aspects in the Appendices added at the end of the volumes. Tolkien realized the difficulty translators might face while translating his constructed languages, so he wrote the Nomenclature or the Guide with instructions to assist them in the translation of proper nouns. Although he did that, there are several Russian translation variants, and an argument about the best translation is endless. Readers value different variants for various reasons: a style of translation, complexity of the text, connection to religion or the political situation of that time in Russia, and explicit comments. The present thesis focuses on the translation of proper nouns in The Lord of the Rings. The thesis aims are to collect the theoretical information about the translation of proper nouns and Tolkien’s invented languages, to research the strategies for translation of proper nouns in general and in constructed languages, to compare two Russian translations made by Kamenkovitsj & Carrick and by Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky based on the difference between the strategies translators applied and Tolkien’s instructions; additionally, to analyze readers’ opinions on proper nouns translation in Russian through a survey to reveal which variant of translation they prefer the most, and to suggest explanations of readers’ preferences in connection with the recommendations in the Nomenclature and the approaches of the translators.
The Introduction of the present Bachelor’s thesis presents the concept of constructed languages, Tolkien’s constructed languages, and their connection with the Nomenclature and its recommendations. Chapter Ⅰ “Translation of Proper Nouns in The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien” introduces the concept of proper nouns and translation strategies for them. Chapter Ⅱ “Russian Translation Variants of Proper Nouns in Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings by Kamenkovitsj & Carrick and by Muravyov &
Kirsyakovsky and Readers’ Response” provides a historical overview on two translation variants, their differences, and relation to the Nomenclature; also, it discusses readers’
response to these translation variants. The Conclusion presents the outcomes of this research.
4
PREFACE ... 3
Contents INTRODUCTION ... 5
The Concept of Artificial and Constructed Languages ... 5
Invented Languages of J. R. R. Tolkien and Their Nomenclature ... 6
Guide of the Names in The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien ... 10
CHAPTER Ⅰ ... 12
TRANSLATION OF PROPER NOUNS IN THE LORD OF THE RINGS BY J. R. R. TOLKIEN ... 13
1.1 Translation of Proper Nouns ... 13
1.1.1 Approaches to Translation ... 13
1.1.2 Translation of Proper Nouns ... 14
1.2 Translation of Proper Nouns in The Lord of the Rings ... 17
CHAPTER Ⅱ ... 18
RUSSIAN TRANSLATION VARIANTS OF PROPER NOUNS IN TOLKIEN’S THE LORD OF THE RINGS BY KAMENKOVITSJ & CARRICK AND BY MURAVYOV & KIRSYAKOVSKY AND READERS’ RESPONSE ... 19
2.1 Translation of The Lord of the Rings into Russian ... 19
2.1.1 Translation by Maria Kamenkovitsj and Valerii Carrick... 20
2.1.2 Translation by Andrei Kirsyakovsky and Vladimir Muravyov ... 20
2.2 Readers’ Response: The Survey and its Results ... 22
2.2.1 The Questionnaire: Aims and Structure ... 22
2.2.2 Readers’ Response Analysis: Nomenclature Translation ... 24
2.2.3 Readers’ Response Analysis: Additional Questions ... 31
2.2.4 The Summary of Results ... 33
CONCLUSION ... 36
SUMMARY IN ESTONIAN ... 38
REFERENCES ... 40
APPENDIX ... 44
5 INTRODUCTION
The Concept of Artificial and Constructed Languages
The concept of artificial and constructed languages and their place in linguistics remain unclear. There are several reasons for that. First, some linguists doubt the idea of those languages being languages at all. Second, one explicit definition for them is missing.
Besides, it is necessary to classify the names for them and specify the differences between constructed, invented, artificial, and planned languages officially.
Alan R. Libert (2018) discussed different points of view on taking artificial languages as languages. One famous statement belongs to Chomsky (Aronoff 2003) when he used the example of Esperanto in his interview for Stony Brook University and stated:
The interest of linguists as linguists in universal languages was based on an illusion, which linguists had but no longer have. That was the illusion that Esperanto is a language. And it is not.
Esperanto is a couple of hints that people who know language can use based on their own linguistic knowledge to make a language out of it. But nobody can tell you what the rules of Esperanto are.
If they could tell you that, they could tell you the rules of Spanish, and that turns out to be an extremely hard problem. (…) So now, it’s understood that Esperanto isn’t a language. It’s just parasitic on other languages (Aronoff 2003).
Versteegh also stated that many linguists tend to exclude artificial languages from “the domain of linguistics”. However, other researchers like Z. Harris explore and design those languages and see the potential in their use and development (Libert 2018).
The definition of artificial languages varies in dictionaries and works of researchers. Stria (2016) presents several examples of different definitions. Albani and Buonarotti prefer to use the term imaginary in their dictionary more than artificial or invented because it highlights the process of creating a language for fiction and represents any kind of that language. “[…] by the term ‘imaginary’ we mean simply a ‘non-natural language’, where the attribute ‘natural’ denotes a language which is learned through oral transmission from parents and the surrounding environment.” (Stria 2016: 41).
Columbia Encyclopedia defines an artificial language as:
an idiom that has not developed in a speech community like a natural tongue but has been constructed by human agents from various materials, such as devised signs, elements, or modified elements taken from existing natural languages, and invented forms (ibid: 42).
Bartlett defines it similarly as “a language that has been deliberately designed for a purpose by one person or a small group of people over a relatively short period of time”
(ibid: 43).
6 Blanke creates a list of systems that can be called ‘artificial’, which includes natural languages standardized and separated from dialects, maintained or modernized languages like Church Latin, Sanskrit, and Modern Hebrew, created or planned for international communication languages, scientific languages with symbols and formulas, the language of programming and automatic translation made by machines. Duličenko lists another three groups of planned, constructed, and ethnic languages. Constructed and ethnic languages differ based on their origin. Ethnic languages are a product of the time and history of one ethnic group, whereas constructed languages are human’s creation. One or several people can construct a language. Something in between those two languages is called a ‘planned’ or ‘international artificial’ language (ibid: 43-44). To conclude, the word artificial often opposes natural and artificial languages have a certain creator.
Adelman (2014) argues that the terms artificial and constructed are not synonyms because the first one may express some content and disapproval, and he abstains from relating them for this reason. Sometimes wordsinvented and planned replace the word constructed, and this happens due to the lack of general ‘core term’, as Blanke mentioned.
Still, in both cases of constructed and artificial languages, the best definition exists with the comparison to the natural or ethnic languages. Adelman explains that natural languages are those that have historical roots and centuries of evolution, such as English, Russian, and Hindi. Constructed languages, in contrast, can be made in one year, like a German priest made Volapük in 1879. There are several classes of constructed languages and the largest of them sees constructed languages as International Auxiliary Languages, for example, Esperanto. Adelman (2014: 547) uses Nicholas's definition for International Auxiliary Languages: “culturally neutral or simple languages for use between native speakers of different languages.” Within other classes of constructed languages, one includes those with a purpose to be a part of some imaginary space like fiction. For instance, languages that were constructed by John Ronald Reuel Tolkien like Sindarin and Quenya (Adelman 2014: 547-548). In Tolkien’s biography written by Carpenter (2000), those languages are frequently called “invented”, and Tolkien himself used this term many times to talk about his languages. Therefore, in his case, those artificial languages should be addressed as invented.
Invented Languages of J. R. R. Tolkien and Their Nomenclature
J. R. R. Tolkien’s academic works and fiction books like The Lord of The Rings, The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and others, are worldwide famous. In terms of invented
7 languages, geography, and the entire secondary world he created, the novel The Lord of the Rings is a combination of The Hobbit that he first wrote and The Silmarillion that he started to write before The Lord of the Rings and continued to work on throughout his entire life. He invented some languages in the novel and carefully constructed their grammar and vocabulary, which was highly appreciated by his audience (Tolkien 2004).
Tolkien spent more than 25 years inventing Elvish languages (Carpenter 2000). It is a long period, so what was his reason, purpose, and motivation to continue working?
First, it is necessary to understand why he liked inventing languages to this extent.
According to Humphrey Carpenter (2000), as a school student, Tolkien started to take interest in Old Norse and Old English. By that time, he had already learned Welsh and his mother had taught him Latin. Considering his age, it was just the beginning of his language exploration.
The fact that he was excited by the Welsh names on coal-trucks, by the ‘surface glitter’ of Greek, by the strange forms of the Gothic words in the book he acquired by accident, and by the Finnish of the Kalevala, shows that he had a most unusual sensitivity to the sound and appearance of words. They filled for him the place that music has in many people’s lives. Indeed the response that words awakened in him was almost entirely emotional (Carpenter 2000: 122).
His first invented languages were “Animalic” and “Nevbosh” that he created with his sisters. Since those two had a simple structure and served an entertaining purpose, he started to develop an idea of creating something more organized and realistic. Under the influence of Spanish, he invented “Naffarin” with its system of phonology and grammar.
After that, he discovered the Gothic language but looked at it from a different perspective.
He did not invent a new language based on Gothic. Instead, he filled the gaps in Gothic vocabulary with his own constructed words because little remained of this language to Tolkien’s days (ibid: 36-38).
During university time, young Tolkien read Kalevala and was interested in Finnish. Even though he had never learned it before, he invented a language with some Finnish elements. Many years later, this language would be known in his books as “Quenya” or High-elven. By 1915, he completed it to some extent, called it “my nonsense fairy language” and decided it to be a language of elves of Earen-del. This was the beginning of Tolkien’s mythology, Valinor, The Silmarillion, and Middle-earth (ibid: 59-74).
Carpenter (ibid: 86) mentioned, after the First World War, Tolkien decided to unite some of his invented languages into one legend with complete history. He started with poetry,
8 sketches of Earen-del, and exploration of English myths. The Book of Lost Tales he wrote afterward would become a part of the story about Middle-earth similar to Norse Midgard.
In the 1930s, he continued to work on The Silmarillion, the Elvish languages, and their alphabet. He invented two more languages – “Quenyatic” based on Quenya and
“Feanorian”. He also created simpler tales for his children, in which characters like Tom Bombadil, Gamgee, and hobbits would be present in his book later (ibid: 149-158).
Tolkien (1981) considered his languages different from other constructed languages. In one of his letters to readers, he noted that languages like Volapük, Esperanto, Ido, Novial, and others are “dead, far deader than ancient unused languages because their authors never invented any Esperanto legends” (Tolkien 1981: 250). In his opinion, legends, myths, tradition, and historical background is what influence the language throughout its existence. When there is no background, the language is just an empty facade (ibid). This is the main difference between Tolkien’s invented languages and others. He made those legends and stories for his languages to exist and be whole and competed.
In 1931, Tolkien gave a speech “Secret Vice” to a literary society “A Hobby for the Home”, during which he spoke about the construction of the languages for the first time in public. “Indeed nothing less embarrassing than the unveiling in public of the secret vice” (Tolkien 2016: 198). He talked about the relation of mythology to invented languages and phonaesthetics (the pleasantness associated with sounds). He mentioned that constructing new languages is “an art for which life is not long enough, indeed: the construction of imaginary languages in full of outline for amusement, for the pleasure of the constructor or even conceivably of any critic that might occur.” (ibid: 202).
This is what Tolkien wrote about his passion for creating languages in The Letters:
I mean, I do not remember a time when I was not building it. Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write. But I have never stopped, and of course, as a professional philologist (especially interested in linguistic aesthetics), I have changed in taste, improved in theory, and probably in craft (Tolkien 1981: 167).
He also stated that:
It is not a ‘hobby’, in the sense of something quite different from one’s work, taken up as a relief- outlet. The invention of languages is the foundation. The ‘stories’ were made rather provide a world for the languages than the reverse. To me, a name comes first and the story follows (ibid:
233).
When it comes to proper nouns, Carpenter (2000) wrote that many names in Tolkien’s books originated from his invented languages. The creation of nomenclature took as much
9 time and effort as writing the story itself. By 1917, Quenya had a vocabulary of many hundreds of words. Since it was an old spoken language, Tolkien created a modern version of it – Sindarin, which phonology was based on Welsh. Considering names, he first planned the meaning and then constructed two forms of the name: in Sindarin and Quenya. The most frequently used form was in Sindarin though. He could create a name spontaneously during the writing process but, after some thought, he changed most of them later (ibid).
For example, in the beginning, Frodo’s name was Bingo Baggins, but Tolkien could not take this name seriously with further writing. Thus, he changed it as editors had suggested (ibid: 175). He checked everything including geography, chronology, and nomenclature, so it would satisfy his perfectionism and fit the pattern. As Carpenter (ibid: 182) mentioned: “name-making also involved much of his attention, as was, inevitable, for the invented languages from which the names were constructed were both the mainspring of his mythology and in themselves a central activity of his intellect.” Two languages with the most extensive nomenclatures – Quenya and Sindarin - played the main role in the construction of names and were also used in several poems and songs like Namárië.
Writing The Lord of the Rings also required composing other languages, at least on the basic level (ibid: 183). Therefore, the variety of the invented languages is presented in the text. There are Elvish, Dwarvish, Mannish, the Black Speech, and their dialectical variants.
Behind my stories is now a nexus of languages (mostly only structurally sketched). But to those creatures which in English I call misleadingly Elves are assigned two related languages more nearly completed, whose history is written, and whose forms (representing two different sides of my own linguistic taste) are deduced scientifically from a common origin. Out of these languages are made nearly all the names that appear in my legends. This gives a certain character (a cohesion, a consistency of linguistic style, and an illusion of historicity) to the nomenclature, or so I believe, that is markedly lacking in other comparable things. Not all will feel this as important as I do, since I am cursed by acute sensibility in such matters (Tolkien 1981: 167).
In his letter to Naomi Mitchison, Tolkien (1981) mentioned the translation of The Lord of the Rings and the languages presented in it. As a philologist, he considered the language important because both dialogue and the story are told using it. Since the secondary world (Middle-Earth) of his book is not ours, people there could not talk in English. The equivalent for English was the Westron or, in other words, ‘Common Speech’ of the West-lands of Middle-earth. He ‘translated’ everything that was in Common Speech, including all names, into English with small evidence of dialectical variety. For dialects, Tolkien added some Old English and Old Norse to the English language standing for Common Speech. He explained that other languages, which are not the Westron, cannot
10 be written in English. Those are the Black Speech of Mordor, Dwarvish, and Elvish – its two variants: Sindarin (Grey-elven of the language of Western Elves) and Quenya or High-elven (ibid).
Besides imagining legends for his languages and writing main stories, it is well known that many additions support Tolkien’s books, starting from those he wrote himself and continuing with Tolkienian linguistics. The latter Hostetter (2007: 1) defined as “the study of the languages invented by J. R. R. Tolkien”. Almost right after the first publication of The Fellowship of the Ring in July 1954, first readers started to gain interest in Elvish, Common Speech, and other presented languages. Tolkien carefully selected information and wrote Appendices supporting his books (ibid). Together they consume about one hundred pages of the book. In Appendices, he explained some Middle-earth chronological events, dynasties, family trees, and languages. In Appendix E, there are some phonological aspects such as stress, pronunciation, and writing (letters). Appendix F is generally about languages and people of that world and a bit about translation (Tolkien 2004).
Guide of the Names in The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien
According to the editor, Tolkien (2005) foresaw translators’ struggles with the translation of invented languages in his books, so he wrote some translations in the text itself and the comments. In addition to that, he assisted translators with Guide of the Names in The Lord of the Rings or the Nomenclature of the Lord of the Rings. In 1956, before the Nomenclature's creation, Tolkien mentioned the issue of translation in one of his letters to Unwin & Allen – the first publishing company that published The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. Unwin & Allen signed an agreement for the edition of The Lord of the Rings in Dutch. Tolkien did not oppose it, however, he mentioned (ibid: 265) that since he is “a professional linguist, a pedantic don, who has wide personal connexions and friendships with the chief English scholars of the continent”, he is ready to assist the translation.
I wish to avoid a repetition of my experience with the Swedish translation of The Hobbit. I discovered that this had taken unwarranted liberties with the text and other details, without consultation or approval;… I regard the text (in all its details) of The Lord of the Rings far more jealously. No alterations, major or minor, re-arrangements or abridgments of this text will be approved by me – unless they proceed from myself or from direct consultation (ibid: 265).
Then he created the Nomenclature, which, according to Hammond and Scull (2005), was supposed to help translators with their work. The first publication was in 1975 (“A
11 Tolkien Compass” by J. Lobdell) and later, in 2005, Hammond and Scull published the entire edition.
Tolkien had an idea of creating the Nomenclature for a long time and he mentioned it even before the publication of the third book of The Lord of the Rings. It was published when only Dutch and Swedish translations existed before the Russian variants of it had appeared. The main statement of the Nomenclature is: “all names not in the following list should be left entirely unchanged in any language used in translation, except that inflexional -s, -es should be rendered according to the grammar of the language” (Tolkien 2005:1). Since the original English text stands for Common Speech, the language of the translation will represent it as well. Therefore, all names in English have to be translated as close to their original meaning as possible. Some cases of the translation will require the translator's knowledge of dialectal and archaic names of places and persons. Those names should be translated according to their meaning with remaining archaic and obsolete features since they are in Common Speech as well. Translators have the right to change some words or parts of them to make them suitable for the language of translation and its topography (ibid).
In The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien considered some names rather difficult and translated them on his own. For example, “Rivendell is a successful example, as a translation of Grey-elven Imladris 'Glen of the Cleft'” (ibid). Since Sindarin represents the old dialect of Grey-elven with a runic alphabet, the author translated some names, so they resemble English more. There are cases with some features from Scandinavian and German languages, where Tolkien helped translators to understand their meaning by translating them into English (ibid).
Tolkien (ibid) also suggested translators reading Appendix F and using the theory presented in it. He divided this Appendix into two parts devoted to explaining the relationship of peoples and languages and the translation. About the translation, Tolkien (2004) mentioned the same that was states in the Nomenclature - Common Speech is an equivalent to English and the language of translation. He discussed some differences between the manners of speech of different languages (Elves, Men, Dwarves, Hobbits, Orcs, and Trolls) and the reason behind the translation of names and titles to Common Speech. In Tolkien’s opinion, if he had written the text in English and had left the names in Westron unchanged, he would have interrupted the balance between the English and Common Speech relationships. When English names appeared in the text, it was also
12 evidence that they were modern, in contrast to those in alien languages. He explained the meaning of hobbits’ last and first names in connection with time, origin, and family history. It concerns both the hobbits and other peoples in the book. Their names were carefully selected, anglicized, and had an enormous background and meaning carried in them (ibid). Since most of the proper names had roots and were anglicized in spelling to suit the language of the text, they should be translated according to their meaning and sense in the language of the translation, devising and selecting the best variants.
Considering Tolkien’s efforts and time spent on creating the nomenclature, the Guide, Appendices, and other works to assist the translation process, did Russian translators manage to convey and transmit the author’s ideas in the proper nouns to readers?
According to Hooker (2003), since the 1960s, at least ten different Russian translation variants of The Lord of the Rings have been published – adapted, full or free. One of the most famous full variants of translation was made by Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky, another one was made by Kamenkovitsj & Carrick. Even though they differ from each other significantly, both of them are popular among readers. Those differences occur in style as well as in translation of the nomenclature. Therefore, this thesis focuses on the two above-mentioned Russian translation variants.
The research questions are:
1. What strategies did Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky and Kamenkovitsj & Carrick use for translating proper nouns in Tolkien’s invented languages?
2. Which translation variant of the two ones do readers prefer more, and how it might be connected with translation strategies presented in Tolkien’s Nomenclature?
13 CHAPTER Ⅰ TRANSLATION OF PROPER NOUNS IN THE LORD OF THE RINGS BY J. R. R. TOLKIEN
1.1 Translation of Proper Nouns 1.1.1 Approaches to Translation
What is translation? According to Catford (1965: 20), translation is “the replacement of textual material in one language (source language) by equivalent textual material in another language (target language)”. Bassnett (2002) added that aside from replacing and rendering a text’s meaning in the source language to the target one, in general, translation involves the preservation of the text’s structure as close to the original as the target language allows. Newmark (1988: 5) formulated the definition of translation similarly to the previous ones, except he added that rendering should be “in the way that the author intended the text”. It appears that throughout history, people defined this term slightly differently from linguistic, communicative, cultural, and social perspectives. To summarize, the definition could vary according to what is important to the translator.
First, translation depends on the objectives and purpose that translators pursue in their translation. Second, it depends on the methods translators prefer and their own opinion on this topic. As Bassnett notices in her “Translation Studies” (2002), the history of translation begins in the period of Cicero and extends to the present. During this period, many approaches to this study were introduced, and through the approach of trial and error, translators shaped with their experiences the Translation Study as it is now.
The German philosopher, essayist, and critic Benjamin Walter wrote an essay “The Task of the Translator” (1921), where he stated that translation is a form and “to comprehend it as a form, one must go back to the original, for the laws governing the translation lie within the original, contained in the issue of its translatability” (Walter 1921: 254). Thus, there is a bond between the original text and its translation variant. If it is appropriate to claim, the translation variant always depends on the original text, whereas the original is independent. However, this type of relationship may be different between the language of the original text and the target language, for instance, due to the uniqueness of some lexical items in the source or target language.
Broadly, objects for translation could be pictures, whole concepts, sentences, words, texts, etc. Many different lexical categories represent words, and one of the main parts of speech is a noun. Nouns can be proper and common. In the case of the latter, nowadays,
14 the number of dictionaries, books, and research studies can assist translators in their translation in many ways. However, proper nouns may possess a challenge for translators.
One reason for it is the fact that not all of them have equivalents in other languages.
1.1.2 Translation of Proper Nouns
In literary texts, translation of proper nouns can present a difficulty. One of the reasons is that some names can be imaginary and invented, they do not exist in the target language.
Some proper nouns might have an implicated meaning that is important for the text.
Translation and chosen strategies for it can depend on what a proper noun denotes.
First, what is a proper noun? Cambridge Dictionary (n. d.) provides the following definition of ‘proper noun’: “the name of a particular person, place, or object that is spelled with a capital letter”. Therefore, proper nouns are nouns that name unique entities, such as names of people, places, objects, and phenomena. In writing, their first letter is in most cases. The origin of a proper noun is important for translation – whether it is a real name or it is an invented one in a constructed (artificial) language.
Rouhollah (2014) notes that nowadays many translators prefer to preserve proper nouns in the text as they are and do not translate them. The reason for that may be their absence from dictionaries and a translator’s knowledge of the language. On the other hand, some translators still might translate proper nouns because there are several techniques to do it.
For example, some translators use transliteration as a way of word adaptation. Others transfer a word together with its semantic load, so they favor semantic translation- creativity instead. Some names can be translated (the Red Sea, for example) or can be replaced by synonyms.
There are many works on the topic of translation strategies for proper nouns, however, many repeat the same strategies such as transliteration, calque, and transcription.
Nevertheless, some researchers added their ideas and perspectives on this translation process.
The following strategies for translating proper nouns appear in Hervey and Higgins‘s book “Thinking Translation” (1992). They suggested that the exotic noun should remain unchanged as in the source language. There is no cultural transposition in this method.
Translators can also use transliteration and cultural transplantation. Transliteration stands for representing the spelling of the words in the source language. Cultural transplantation
15 occurs when the name from the original text is replaced by another name in the target language that has the same cultural connotation as the original one.
Newmark (1988) also advised to leave a first name and a surname of a person unchanged to preserve one’s nationality and avoid connotations. There can be exceptions in the names of saints and monarchs, which are known in the target language. When it concerns names that have connotations in imaginative literature, such as in fairy tales or comedies, translators usually translate them. If both nationality and connotation have a significant meaning, but the name is unknown to the readers of the target language, the most appropriate method is “first to translate the word that underlies the source language proper name into the target language and then to naturalize the translated word back into a new source language proper name” (Newmark 1988: 214-215). For example, this is how Holman translated Tolstoy's Nabatov, where ‘nabat’ is similar to the ‘alarm’, so he created Alarmov.
Hermans (1988) claims that translators could use copying for names’ translation as they are in the source language, using, for example, transcription, transliteration, and adaptation of some phonological features. Transcription is the replacement of words as they sound in the original language from the source text into the target text. However, transcription can suffer from many defects, such as the lack of the rules for transcription, the influence of different accents, dialects, and mistakes in the pronunciation of translators. If a name is absent from the target language, translators could use substitution.
When a name has an implicated meaning, it could be translated into the target language as well. A translator could combine all those strategies, or substitute a proper name with a common name in the target language, omit it from the text in the target language completely or insert a noun in the text in the target language when there was no name in the text of the source language.
Besides transcription, copy, substitution, omitting, and adaptation, Fernandes (2006) adds other strategies and details about proper nouns translation. A translator can render a proper noun when the noun in the source text has some specific connotation in the target language. To remove any misunderstanding and ambiguities in the target language, some extra information is added to the name in the source language. It is called addition: adding a gender-identifying item to the name in the target text, so readers will understand if the source language does not have a gender category, for example. A phonological replacement can be used to make a name imitate some phonological features of the
16 original name. It is different from the transcription because the name does not exist in the target language. A name that does not exist can be also recreated in the target language.
In the translation of the names of historical figures and geographical locations is widely used conventionality or traditional equivalents, in other words. This is the acceptance of translation names that have already existed in the target language.
Waliński (2015) mentioned that Vinay and Darbelnet suggested two methods of translation: a direct translation and an oblique translation. In the latter, translators interpret the contents of the original text, summarize it, and use transposition, modulation, equivalence, and adaptation translation procedures for translation. A direct translation includes borrowing, calque, and literal translation and generally resembles a word-by-word quotation of the original message in the target language. Direct translation methods can be used for proper nouns’ translation. Borrowing is adding or transferring the words from the source language to the target one (the word ‘chocolate’ is a good example in many languages). Calque or loan translation is a case of borrowing by translating words and phrases word-by-word or root-by-root. Literal translation or word- for-word translation is the direct transfer of grammar and meaning of the text into the target language. Adaptation occurs to cover cultural differences. A translator recreates a context, which is more or less equivalent to the one presented in the source language, to avoid ambiguity, negative connotations, and lack of understanding.
In Podgayskaya’s (2019) opinion, translation of proper nouns should be based on traditional equivalents that already exist in the language or on transcription. Such proper nouns as toponyms and famous names (biblical or historical royalty names with titles) often have traditional equivalents. Transcription is used for the translation of names of famous people or for frequently used names. For names of pets without implicated meaning in them, translators should use transliteration. Calque should be used rarely, in her opinion.
Although there are many strategies for translation of proper nouns, it is often a translator’s task to choose particular methods, which might be difficult due to variety and many possible options. It is a choice of whether to preserve proper nouns as they are or translate them using some of those techniques. The Nomenclature of The Lord of the Rings provided some techniques for translation of proper nouns, which might assist the translation of nomenclature, however, Russian translations still offer other ways to translate proper nouns.
17 1.2 Translation of Proper Nouns in The Lord of the Rings
In one of his letters to Stanley Unwin, where they discussed a criticism received from one of the readers on a new C. S. Lewis's book Out of the Silent Planet, Tolkien wrote, “the author [Lewis] holds to items of the linguistic invention that do not appeal to me … but this is a matter of taste. After all your reader found my invented names, made with cherished care, eye-splitting.” (Tolkien 1981: 41). In three volumes of The Lord of the Rings, with all Towers of the Moon, of the Rising Moon, of the Sun, of the Setting Sun, of Guard, of Sorcery or Great Water, Great Wood, Great Tower, and everything similar that occurs, there are about 1300-1400 proper names in total. There are many invented and unfamiliar names, however, not all of them are completely constructed and unclear, for example, Fellowship of the Ring is comprehensible and it is in English. Since invented nouns appear to be common for fantasy fiction, Tolkien just constructed them in his invented languages, such as Elven, Dwarvish and Black Speech.
On the first page of the Nomenclature, there are general suggestions for translation, such as personal names without obvious implicated meaning should be left unchanged (Tolkien 2005: 1). For example, Frodo, Bilbo, and Gandalf should be copied. As for other proper names, they have individual comments for their translation. There are about 300 cases discussed in the Nomenclature with suggestions for translation for the majority of them. For example, “Appledore” is an old word for 'apple-tree' (it survives in English place-names). It should be translated by the equivalent — that is, by a dialectal or archaic word of the same meaning.” (ibid: 3). He even suggested translating the title The Fellowship of the Ring in the target language according to its meaning, if it is possible.
The strategies that are mentioned in the Nomenclature are transcription, translation according to the meaning, copy or leaving unchanged, leaving one part retained, or making a compound noun. Sometimes in the recommendations, a translator can find the explanations of the meaning, so it will be easier to find something similar in the language of the translation.
About 865 proper names in three volumes of The Lord of the Rings can be translated since they are either fully or partially in Common Speech (Tower of Anor, where ‘tower’ is translatable). It is about 60% of all proper nouns. Therefore, about 40% should stay unchanged, according to Tolkien. Strategies for leaving names as they are can be transcription or transliteration.
18 One of the first translations of The Lord of the Rings was into Dutch, and its translator, Max Schuchart, decided to send to Tolkien a Dutch variant of nomenclature with some free renditions of place names and the title in general. In addition to the translation itself, he invented nomenclature of his own. Tolkien was strongly against this translation variant:
In principle I object as strongly as is possible to the 'translation' of the nomenclature at all (even by a competent person). I wonder why a translator should think himself called on or entitled to do any such thing. That this is an 'imaginary' world does not give him any right to remodel it according to his fancy, even if he could in a few months create a new coherent structure which it took me years to work out (Tolkien 1981: 267).
The Shire, for example, resembles the rural areas of England, so it reflects those associations. In Old English, the word scír replaced the ancient Germanic word for a 'district', so The Shire carries this meaning within (Tolkien 2005: 19). In this case, the change of the place-name would affect the whole book, which Tolkien understood as well, saying, “He [the translator] seems incidentally quite unaware of difficulties he is creating for himself later” (Tolkien 1981: 267).
May I say now at once that I will not tolerate any similar tinkering with the personal nomenclature.
Nor with the name/word Hobbit. I will not have any more Hompen (in which I was not consulted), nor any Hobbel or what not. Elves, Dwarfs/ves, Trolls, yes: they are mere modern equivalents of the correct terms. But hobbit (and orc) are of that world, and they must stay, whether they sound Dutch or not (…) I am no linguist, but I do know something about nomenclature, and have specially studied it, and I am actually very angry indeed (ibid).
Dutch variant of the translation with its inventions did not satisfy Tolkien, however, at that time, the Nomenclature was not published yet. Tolkien’s letter to publishers is dated 1956 (ibid: 249), and the Nomenclature was first published in 1975. In the case of Russian translations, both the Kamenkovitsj & Carrick’s variant and Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky’s one were published after the first edition of the Nomenclature appeared. Kamenkovitsj and Carrick’s variant was published even after the first publication of The Letters of J. R.
R. Tolkien in 1981. There is a possibility that they could have used many resources to support their translating process.
19 CHAPTER Ⅱ RUSSIAN TRANSLATION VARIANTS OF PROPER NOUNS IN TOLKIEN’S THE LORD OF THE RINGS BY KAMENKOVITSJ & CARRICK AND BY MURAVYOV & KIRSYAKOVSKY AND READERS’ RESPONSE 2.1 Translation of The Lord of the Rings into Russian
After the publication of all three parts of The Lord of the Rings in English in 1955, the novel was translated into Dutch in 1956, and then Swedish in 1959, after that the Polish, German and French translations appeared. However, translation into Russian did not exist up until Z. Bobyr made the first attempt to translate and adapt the book in the middle of 1960 (Hooker 2003).
Hooker (2003) added that since the 1960s, at least ten Russian translations, adaptations, free translations, and shortened versions of The Lord of the Rings appeared. However, only seven of them are full and widely known by readers. Those are translation variants made by A. Gruzberg (1976, however, the publishing was delayed until 2002), Muravyov
& Kirsyakovsky (1982), Kamenkovitsj & Carrick (1990’s), Grushetsky & Grigorjeva (1989), V. Matorina (1980’s), Volkovsky & Vosedoi & Afinogenov (2000’s) and A.
Nemirova (1985-1992). Furthermore, an infamous translation variant by N. Estel exists.
It remained as a handwritten copy until 2019 when it was published on the Internet, even though the whole translation itself was completed after the first publication of Muravyov
& Kirsyakovsky’s variant in 1982. The reason behind the overall long period before the first Russian variant of The Lord of the Rings appeared, a late publication of Gruzberg’s translation, and the abridged version of the first part of the book by Muravyov &
Kirsyakovsky was the deep influence of the Soviet Union politics and censorship (ibid:
24-27).
After the publication of Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky’s translation, more variants started to appear slowly. The previous variants of translation influenced some of the later ones at some point. For example, in the beginning, the translation of names in the Grushetsky &
Grigorjeva’s variant was partly based on Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky's translation (ibid:
197). The existence of earlier translation variants could have affected the success of other variants too because readers that have read one variant might be confused by some translator’s choices in the other variant. However, the existing variety also means the variety of choices to select from for readers.
20 2.1.1 Translation by Maria Kamenkovitsj and Valerii Carrick
According to Kamenkovitsj & Carrick (as cited by Vasiljev 1995), their translation is different from other translations because they tried to make the book more authentic in their opinion and avoided russification, in comparison to Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky's translation. They opposed the tendency of adapting foreign books and tales into Russian culture to suit readers more. Invented languages, the background and history of Tolkien’s secondary world, and nomenclatures made The Lord of the Rings a unique book that almost has no equivalents in the history of literature. In the opinion of western experts, this book also changed the world. Therefore, Carrick and Kamenkovitsj tried to preserve the “magic” of Tolkien’s books, his foreignness, and overall attitude.
Hooker (2001) noted that Kamenkovitsj & Carrick’s translation is academic and wordy but lacks big faults. According to Semyonova (n. d.), it is an academic variant of translation as well. The translation variant has many comments and references, which make it two times bigger than other variants. She mentioned that it is a titanic work, however, it is not perfect with its mistakes and incorrect translations. In her opinion, the translation variant stresses religion and Christianity in Tolkien’s creations, using words connected with the Bible and Gospels. This perspective of translators leads to adding a vocabulary with religious connotation to the translated text, which was not used in the original.
In the 1960s, Tolkien (Gueroult 1964) shared his opinion on the influence of religion in his works in the interview. In terms of belief and worship, he admitted that this story and other stories of this kind are built on some theocratic division and hierarchy. However, he also said, “God is supreme. The Creator. Outside transcendent. The place of the gods is taken and I think it makes no difference to the ordinary reader. It is taken by angelic spirits created by the God, the Creator…” (Gueroult 1964). In other words, Tolkien included The Creator in his story, but he did not look at his stories only from the Christian point of view.
2.1.2 Translation by Andrei Kirsyakovsky and Vladimir Muravyov
As it was mentioned before, Soviet Union censorship affected the quality and release dates of translation variants. If Carrick & Kamenkovitsj’s work was published in the post- Soviet period and less influenced by censorship, Andrei Kirsyakovsky and Vladimir Muravyov worked in the Soviet Union (1982-1992), so their translation was censored.
21 This variant was the first published one although other variants of full translation had already existed unapproved, like Gruzberg’s translation.
In one interview (Kalashnikova 2014), the son of Muravyov, Alexey, mentions that Kirsyakovsky and his father indeed had the Nomenclature. He remembers that sometimes they argued about some aspects of translation, including proper nouns. Besides, they translated parts of the text independently and then discussed them. They did the same with the translation of proper nouns – they divided them between each other, translated them separately, and after discussed them together. Alexey Muravyov also notes that many readers are unsatisfied with translations of some names but they should focus more on the bigger picture than on those little details, in his opinion. Alexey shares some examples of the process of translating proper nouns. In the first edition, the fortress of Isengard was translated as Skalgrad (‘Скальград’). In this case, Kirsyakovsky used a Slavic name, so the word could be recognized in Russian culture. With the surname of Baggins, he tried to find the close synonym in Russian. It was important to mirror the meaning of the surname, so the best variant was Torbins (‘Торбинс’, ‘торба’ is a synonym of ‘bag’ in Baggins). In the second edition, Muravyov worked alone because of the Kirsyakovsky death and he excluded some variants of translation in an attempt to save the text wholeness. For example, ‘Skalgrad’ was excluded even before they finished the first book.
According to Trauberg (2000), both Kirsyakovsky and Muravyov felt passionate about their masterpiece and it was imprinted in the unique style of translation. Although they wanted to make it a manifestation and proclamation of the prison riot using jargon, they desired to show that little creatures save the world with patience, warmth, kindness towards animals, and sympathy for such creatures like Gollum. The same comments about the use of jargon appear in the article by Semyonova (n. d.) on five translations of The Lord of the Rings. In her opinion, Muravyov and Kirsyakovsky used russification as a translation strategy to bring the text closer to the Russian culture and reader’s understanding. The archaic expressions’ and names’ usage expressed the high morality and style of the original. Jargon created a connection between readers’ understanding of orcs and prisoners, who riot at that time in the Soviet Union. Still, every detail made this translation complete in terms of language use and style. Mark T. Hooker (2001) noted the greatness of Muravyov’s and Kirsyakovsky’s translation even though it does not resemble Tolkien for him. It radiates the same prison riot, which was mentioned earlier.
22 Tolkien (1981) once shared his opinion on connecting his books to some political situations or events in the world. He received the Swedish variant of translation with Åke Ohlmarks' introductory commentary. Ohlmarks wrote, “Here [in Mordor] rules the personification of satanic might Sauron (read perhaps in the same partial fashion [as other identifications Ohlmarks has made] Stalin).” (Tolkien 1981: 325). On what Tolkien commented:
There is no 'perhaps' about it. I utterly repudiate any such 'reading', which angers me. The situation was conceived long before the Russian revolution. Such allegory is entirely foreign to my thought.
The placing of Mordor in the east was due to simple narrative and geographical necessity, within my 'mythology' […] (ibid).
In the case of two Russian translation variants, they are different from each other: one is artistic and literary, and another is academic and wordy. If the style and the wholeness of the text are put aside, and the focus is on the proper nouns, how different are those translations from each other and the instructions in the Nomenclature?
2.2 Readers’ Response: The Survey and its Results 2.2.1 The Questionnaire: Aims and Structure
The present research was conducted to understand the attitude of readers toward two different Russian variants of translation. Therefore, this part introduces the comparative analysis of the chosen examples of proper nouns from the Nomenclature with readers’
response to their translation. For this purpose, a questionnaire of 37 questions was created.
The questionnaire consists of two parts: 31 questions in the first part and 6 questions in the second part. The first part asks respondents to choose a translation variant that they like more for the presented proper nouns. The second part requires answering four questions, with the two of them having the voluntary explanation. The first part has a format of multiple-choice questions with two options to choose from. The format of the second part is mixed: three yes/no questions, two open questions for the reader to explain their point of view, and one question with multiple options. The questionnaire is respondent-friendly, which means even those, who have never read Tolkien’s books, could answer it because, in the first part, each proper noun comes with an explanation, translation or definition. Then two Russian variants follow the explanation.
The respondents are the users of Vkontakte and Instagram networks who are proficient enough in Russian to be able to compare translation variants offered in the questionnaire.
The access to respondents was made through two social media groups dedicated to
23 Tolkien’s oeuvre in the Vkontakte network and through the personal social media profiles of the author of this thesis. The questionnaire was open and available for two weeks, and the total number of responses is 230. It was determined that respondents should spend approximately 15 - 20 minutes to answer. Considering this amount of time, they may lose interest in answering and an automatic response may happen. It may lead to the inaccuracy of some answers, but it is not going to be counted in the analysis.
The questionnaire has three main purposes. First, to research from which Russian variant readers choose translations of proper nouns more frequently to determine this variant as more successful in terms of translating proper nouns. Second, to connect the results to the Nomenclature and see if the more successful variant was the one that followed Tolkien’s suggestions or not. Third, to see how successful were translations of proper nouns that do not follow the Nomenclature.
The translation variants of proper nouns were used from the two translations of The Lord of the Rings. The first one was made by Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky, and AST Publishers published it in 2011. The second one was made by Kamenkovitsj & Carrick, and AST Publishers published it in 2016. For the content of the questionnaire, proper nouns were selected according to Tolkien’s suggestions for their translation. The following groups of words were chosen:
1) eight words that should stay unchanged because they are neither in Common Speech nor included in the Nomenclature;
2) four words that are present in the Nomenclature but should be translated according to their meaning;
3) 15 words that are present in the Nomenclature and have details about their translation: eight of them have the implicated meaning and should be translated according to it, one word that has a definition but no suggestions for the translation, and six words that should be retained, sometimes partly;
4) four words in Common Speech that should be translated according to their meaning as closely as possible.
The distribution of chosen words between two main groups is almost even – 16 words that should be translated and 14 that should stay unchanged with one more to see if readers want it to be retained or translated. There are several criteria for choosing proper nouns,
24 which will be presented in the questionnaire. First, there should be proper nouns that are present in both variants of translation because translators omitted some names. Second, some proper nouns should be well known, important for the story, and frequently used in the book. For example, such names as Baggins or Samwise are the names of the protagonists. If the last name Baggins appeared in the books 88 times, Samwise Gamgee and his name's short forms appeared more than a thousand times, while ceorl appeared only once (LOTR Project 2012). Third, the questionnaire should have a variety of proper nouns: places, food, plants, and people. Forth, there should be nouns that are semantically connected. For example, those words can have the same root as Baggins and Bag End. It is to give readers a hint that they are related and to see what type of translation for those names they prefer.
2.2.2 Readers’ Response Analysis: Nomenclature Translation
The first group for the analysis based on the guidelines in the Nomenclature consists of words that should stay unchanged because they are neither in Common Speech nor included the Nomenclature. Those are lembas (a special type of bread for traveling made by elves = ‘waybread’), Rhosgobel (a name of one wizard’s house), Eregion (a name of the kingdom of elves), Rohan (a name of the kingdom of human riders), Orthanc (a name of the tower), ceorl (Rohan’s rider), Balrog (a race of fire demons) and Gollum (a name of one antagonist). Lembas, Rhosgobel, Rohan, and Eregion were translated using different strategies. Kamenkovitsj & Carrick tended to leave words unchanged in comparison to Muravyov and Kirsyakovsky, who most likely tried to semantize those proper nouns. Orthanc, ceorl, Balrog, and Gollum translations also differ but, in those cases, translators used similar strategies. For example, one group of translators used transliteration, and the other used transcription.
Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky used equivalence or reformulation and translated lembas as
‘путлиб’, which might be a combination of a way as ‘путь’ and an alteration of ‘bread’
– ‘хлеб’ as ‘либ’. Kamenkovitsj & Carrick used transliteration or transcription and translated it as ‘лембас’. 222 respondents, which is 96.5%, preferred Kamenkovitsj &
Carrick’s and 8 respondents (3.5%) liked Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky’s translation more.
Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky translated Rhosgobel as ‘Розакрайн’ that is supposedly made from ‘Rhos-’ as ‘Роз-’ and ‘крайн’ that can be from a word ‘край’ meaning ‘end, edge’.
This variant can be explained by the location of the house – it was near the boundary of
25 the woods. Kamenkovitsj & Carrick used transcription and translated it as ‘Росгобел’.
186 respondents (80.9%) preferred Kamenkovitsj & Carrick’s variant and 44 (19.1%) chose the one by Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky.
Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky translated Eregion as ‘Остранна’ that might have a word
‘country’ in it ‘страна’. Kamenkovitsj & Carrick used transliteration and translated it as
‘Эрегион’. 217 (94.3%) respondents preferred Kamenkovitsj & Carrick’s variant and 13 (5.7%) respondents chose the one translated by Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky.
Rohan was translated as ‘Ристания’ by Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky, which is likely originated from the word ‘tiltyard’ – ‘ристалище’ because it was a kingdom of famous horse riders. Kamenkovitsj & Carrick translated it as ‘Рохан’ using either transliteration or transcription. 214 respondents (93%) chose Kamenkovitsj & Carrick’s translation variant and 16 respondents (7%) voted for Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky’s one.
Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky translated Orthanc as ‘Ортханк’, ceorl as ‘сеорл’, Balrog as
‘Балрог’ and Gollum as ‘Горлум’. Orthanc was translated using transliteration and other proper nouns were translated using an adapted transliteration. Kamenkovitsj & Carrick translated Orthanc as ‘Орфанк’ using transcription, ceorl as ‘кеорл’, Balrog as ‘Барлог’
and Gollum as ‘Голлум’ using transliteration. The translation of Orthanc by Muravyov
& Kirsyakovsky preferred 182 (79.1%) respondents. In other cases, most of the respondents chose the variant made by Kamenkovitsj & Carrick: ceorl – 163 (70.9%), Balrog – 206 (89.6%), and Gollum – 196 (85.2%).
In this group, the majority of respondents chose seven out of eight translation variants made by Kamenkovitsj & Carrick, who tended to leave words unchanged as Tolkien suggested.
The second group consists of proper nouns that are present in the Nomenclature but should be translated according to their meaning as closely as possible. Those are Battle Pit (the grave of many people), Robin Smallburrow (name of the sheriff), Halflings (nickname of hobbits because of their height), and lake Evendim. Translation variants were different because translators used different synonyms and techniques.
In both translation variants for Battle Pit, translators used close Russian equivalents that convey the same meaning as the original. Kamenkovitsj & Carrick translated it as
‘Разбойничья Яма’ and Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky as ‘Битвенная Свалка’. However,
26 in the latter translation variant, the word ‘pit’ was translated more as ‘dump’. It seems like readers caught this little change in the meaning and the attitude towards the mass grave of the deceased because the majority of respondents, 163 (70.9%) precisely, preferred the Kamenkovitsj & Carrick variant of translation.
Halfling is a frequent nickname of hobbits because it was used in the books 56 times (LOTR Project 2012). In both translation variants translators tried to create inventions of similar meaning using ‘not’ – prefix ‘не-’ and words ‘tall’ – ‘высокий’ or ‘big’ –
‘великий’. Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky translated it as ‘невысоклик’ and Kamenkovitsj
& Carrick as ‘невеличек’. 150 (65.2%) respondents chose Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky.
This choice may be explained due to the word’s original meaning as someone, who is short and half of the height of others, not small in size of their bodies.
For Robin Smallburrow Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky used a complete substitution and translated it as ‘Пит Норочкинс’. Kamenkovitsj & Carrick tried to retain the original meaning and translated it as ‘Робин Мелкая-Сошка’, which chose 175 (76.1%) respondents.
In the case of lake Evendim, was interesting whether readers prefer a one-word name for it or a two-word one. Evendim originally means ‘water of twilight’. Muravyov &
Kirsyakovsky translated it according to its meaning as ‘Морок’ using word ‘lake’ –
‘озеро’ as a common noun and Kamenkovitsj & Carrick used it as a proper noun and translated the toponyms as ‘Сумеречное Озеро’. 204 respondents (88.7%) preferred the two-word translation variant by Kamenkovitsj & Carrick.
In this group, respondents preferred three out of four translations made by Kamenkovitsj
& Carrick. In the cases of Battle Pit and Robin Smallburrow, they tried to translate them as close to the original as possible.
The third group consists of proper nouns that are present in the Nomenclature and have details about their translation. Names with implicated meaning that should be translated according to it are Appledore (last name), Chubb (last name), Baggins (last name), Bag End (the name of Frodo and Bilbo’s house), Buckland (small land east of the Brandywine River), Brandywine (the river), Crack of Doom (a name of the volcanic fissure) and Butterbur Barliman (name of the owner of the hotel).
27 Appledore is associated with an apple tree and should have that meaning in the translation variant. Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky translated it as ‘Яблочко’, which means an apple.
Kamenkovitsj & Carrick translated it as ‘Бодяк’, which means a plant named Cirsium or commonly known as thistle. 164 (71.3%) respondents chose Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky that corresponds to Tolkien’s suggestions.
Chubb is from ‘chubby’ and it should represent something similar in the translation variant. Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky translated it as ‘Ейл’ that is of unknown origin and Kamenkovitsj & Carrick as ‘Кубб’, which is probably from a cube share – ‘куб’. 177 (77%) respondents chose Kamenkovitsj & Carrick’s translation, which has a slight correspondence to the implicated meaning of this proper noun.
Baggins and Bad End have the same root ‘bag’ because the owner of the Bag End is Baggins, and they should be translated in relation to each other according to the Nomenclature. Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky translated them accordingly as ‘Торбинс’ and
‘Торба-на-Круче’. In Russian, ‘торба’ is a synonym for a bag. However, Kamenkovitsj
& Carrick chose to translate Baggins using transcription as ‘Бэггинс’ and Bad End using Russian synonym for a ‘bag’ – ‘Котомка’. 209 (90.9%) respondents preferred ‘Baggins’
as ‘Бэггинс’ and 161 (70%) preferred ‘Bag End’ as ‘Торба-на-Круче’. The result may be explained as readers prefer to see the names of the characters unchanged.
In Buckland, ‘buck’ originally meant a male deer of a he-goat. Kamenkovitsj & Carrick decided to use sort of transcription and translated it as ‘Бэкланд’. While Muravyov &
Kirsyakovsky substituted the name and translated it as ‘Забрендия’ probably from the word ‘wander’ – ‘забрести, бродить’. None of them followed the suggestions in the Nomenclature and 199 (86.5%) respondents preferred Kamenkovitsj & Carrick’s translation variant.
Tolkien explained the origin of Brandywine as a corrupted form of Baránduin from the invented language Sindarin, in which ‘baran’ means 'brown, yellow-brown' and ‘duin’
means 'river'. Thus, he suggested translating the name according to this explanation.
Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky translated it as ‘Брендидуим’, where ‘Бренди-’ is a transcription of the original beginning of the proper noun and ‘-дуим’ is a transliteration of ‘duin’ in Sindarin, except for the last letter that can be considered an adaptation.
Kamenkovitsj & Carrick used an adapted transcription and translated it as ‘Брендивин’.
176 respondents (76.5%) preferred Kamenkovitsj & Carrick’s variant.
28 The Crack of Doom has a connection with Macbeth and ‘crack’ refers to the volcanic fissure and 'doom' refers to the end of the Third Age in the story of Middle-Earth.
Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky and Kamenkovitsj & Carrick translated it according to its meaning as ‘Роковая Расселина’ and ‘Трещины Судьбы’ accordingly. ‘Crack’
translates as ‘расселина’ or ‘расщелина’ and ‘трещина’; ‘doom’ defines as ‘рок’ and
‘судьба’. 204 respondents (88.7%) chose Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky’s variant ‘Роковая Расселина’. It may be explained by the awkward place of words in ‘Трещины Судьбы’
because it can give a picture of the bad fate or doom having a crack, which is ambiguous and might be confusing.
In the proper name of Butterbur Barliman (Barley), ‘butterbur' means a plant Petasites vulgaris, and ‘barley’ is for barley plant. Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky and Kamenkovitsj
& Carrick left the floral origin of the name but substituted both name and surname by other plants. Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky translated it as ‘Лавр Наркисс’, where ‘Лавр’
is a laurels plant and ‘Наркисс’ is a narcissus flower. Kamenkovitsj & Carrick translated it as ‘Пивовар Подсолнух’, where ‘Пивовар’ means a brewer and ‘Подсолнух’ means a sunflower. 148 respondents (64.3%) chose Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky ‘s ‘Лавр Наркисс’.
The proper noun Coomb or sometimes Combe has a definition but no suggestions for the translation. The proper name means a deep not very large alley that leads to somewhere.
Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky translated the word ‘comb’ literally as ‘Гребешок’.
Kamenkovitsj & Carrick chose transcription and translated it as ‘Комб’. 159 respondents (69.1%) preferred the transcribed variant by Kamenkovitsj & Carrick.
In this group, preferred translation variants were distributed evenly – four for Kamenkovitsj & Carrick’s translation and four for Muravyov & Kirsyakovsky’s one. In three cases (Baggins, Buckland, and Brandywine), respondents preferred unchanged versions of proper names rather than translated ones, despite Tolkien’s suggestions. In three other cases (Chubb, Appledore, and Crack of Doom), respondents preferred those variants closely related to the original by meaning, which corresponds to Tolkien’s guidelines.
There are proper names that should be retained as Bree, Took, Tookland, where ‘-land’
can be translated and ‘Took-’ retained, Samwise Gamgee or Sam, in short, Crickhollow and Pukel-man.
