no mention of this bieng an actual translation from the original sumerian in any of the reviews, and the truely epic and laudable journey that is bieng replaced by the sleezy term 'verse translation', ie : hollywood sceen play ready, as that is what could be the most that can be expected from a former probation officer turned the official british royal panegrist.
edit: the songs of innana and other older actual translations of gilgamesh are there for some little peeks into the sumerian world that continues to define ours in so many subtle ways.
> no mention of this bieng an actual translation from the original sumerian in any of the reviews
He states very clearly in his introduction what the scope is, how it's being translated and the problems with both translating ancient text from unfamiliar cultures and translating a work that's only partially complete and how he's approached both issues
Loads of "translators" not competent in the original language have written Introductions where they state such things. That doesn't mean their defense of their enterprise holds water.
I have been wanting to read it. Is this the translation/interpretation I should start with?
The Sophus Helle version is very good, I don't know if this new one will be better or just different.
https://sophushelle.com/gilgamesh/?amp=1
no mention of this bieng an actual translation from the original sumerian in any of the reviews, and the truely epic and laudable journey that is bieng replaced by the sleezy term 'verse translation', ie : hollywood sceen play ready, as that is what could be the most that can be expected from a former probation officer turned the official british royal panegrist.
edit: the songs of innana and other older actual translations of gilgamesh are there for some little peeks into the sumerian world that continues to define ours in so many subtle ways.
> no mention of this bieng an actual translation from the original sumerian in any of the reviews
He states very clearly in his introduction what the scope is, how it's being translated and the problems with both translating ancient text from unfamiliar cultures and translating a work that's only partially complete and how he's approached both issues
Loads of "translators" not competent in the original language have written Introductions where they state such things. That doesn't mean their defense of their enterprise holds water.
Armitage is pretty good at this. I've read his Green Knight and King Arthur stuff. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until after I've read it.