Green or Fitzgerald?

people who say Fagles think Pevear and Volokhonsky are great translators

Lattimore all the way

P&V are trash.

But get Fagles.

Prose

Fitzgerald

Bought Fitzgerald.
Thanks for the input I guess.

Lattimore

Just finished reading Lattimore's, shit was so cash. Which version should I read next?

Not knowing how to greentext.

lombardo for the laffs lad
bad choice, it you and one shill with no taste
shills with no clue how their school ripped them off

I thought Fitzgerald was the one most commonly taught in schools? Still, if only intending to read one, Lattimore is the correct answer, not Fagles. But the truly correct answer is Rouse, then Fitzgerald, then Fagles, then Lattimore, then Pope (or switch around Fitzgerald and Fagles).

Fagles is most common in schools that wanted a more "modern" but simplified translation
Lattimore's the standard anywhere they try to teach people the other elements of Greek poetry.
Fitzgerald is modern, but it takes a shill for the period who cares nothing about the original to recommend it above Fagles or Lattimore. (That's not praise for Fagles, but he is more common and less likely to be chosen for emulating modernism alone compared to Fitzgerald)

Pope is only taught as an homage rather than a translation, and it's really not common at all to see it taught, even on classes about Pope specifically, because you have to deal with the differences from the original.

Ftizgerald is for people who think spelling Achilles with a k means maintaining the Greek. The MacCrorie translation maintains more of the original names than Fitzgerald, and the original meaning, but usually you only find Fitzgerald shills praising that as a key point of Greek poetry it's not, as a translation it won't even teach you what theos means

>But the truly correct answer is Rouse, then Fitzgerald, then Fagles, then Lattimore, then Pope
why?

>Ftizgerald is for people who think spelling Achilles with a k means maintaining the Greek.
Fitzgerald renders it "Akhilleus". Lattimore renders it "Achilleus". Both are equally awful since both refuse to actually translate the name.

Lattimore's doing it for sound though, because you need to pronounce it that way a lot of the time to keep the beat in his as close to the original sound as possible. Fitzgerald obviously doesn't have that excuse, especially since he made strange translation choices at the same time. (eg: most people translate thea as "o muse" "o goddess", but Fitzgerald goes for "immortal one". That's some Lombardo tier choice)

>because you need to pronounce it that way
Which way is that? If we're going by the Greek, it's pronounced "a-chil-LEUS" with the accent at the ending "eu" which is a diphthong (ipa:eu) that doesn't exist in English.

Rouse is the best prose translation I've seen, so I would recommend it as an intro to Homer for younger people. Fagles and Fitzgerald or Fitzgerald and Fagles next because they are the best examples of verse translations that are more modern to use another user's description (i.e. still very easy to read). Lattimore's remains truer to the original in terms of any number of poetic devices. It is also not as easy to read, particularly for younger or more inexperienced readers. Pope's is, as the same other user points out, more of an homage to Homer. Pope takes great liberties in his translation, resulting in what is essentially a different work of poetry altogether based on the original rather than a translation. Think of a movie being "inspired by" true events vs. "based on" true events. The analogy is admittedly not perfect, but the distinction is just as vast.

If you're wondering why bother reading so many different translations, I think it is a good idea, especially for someone unable to read the work in its original language (although not a bad idea even for someone who can), as it allows you to get a greater sense, a wider perspective of what Homer (or all the rhapsodes that contributed to the epic attributed to Homer) intended to convey. I don't mean they all ought to be read consecutively (although they could be). I read all those I referenced, although not in that order, over the course of more than a decade with as many as four or five years between versions.

>Achilleus
>Klytaimnestra
>Olympos
make it stop...

It's Ach-ill-e-us, short syllable, short syllable, long syllable, anceps.

By the way, I'm using the first lines of Homer, so if you're spelling it Ἀχιλλεύς, go try looking at the text/a grammar book.

>Rouse is the best prose translation I've seen, so I would recommend it as an intro to Homer for younger people
Most people use Butler for that.

I have Fagles edition... haven't gotten aorunds to it yet thouh

>read Fitzgerald
>best translation
>finally learn homeric years later
>based Lattimore blows every other translation out of the fucking water
once I learnt Koine his New Testament brought me to fucking tears

In the first line Achilles is in the genitive case. How the word will be pronounced in Greek is dependent upon its declension. In translation to English a name does not decline as in Greek. Surely you are not telling me that "Achilleus" is a mimicry of the genitive? I'm trying to even figure out how to respond to what you're saying since it is so absurd. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

I'm saying that if you want to fit the dactylic, you can't pronounce it either of the ways you proposed, in Greek or English. I don't think you can read Greek, or are even familiar with the opening of Homer, and I'm not even sure you know what a spondee is.
Hint: It's almost like the genitive there might have been chosen for metre, like Homer was a poet or some shit.

The irony of this post is that Lattimore is the closest thing to a P&V translation of Homer you can get.

the closest thing to sex you can get is when your finger breaks through wet toilet paper and touches your butthole

I am asking you how I am expected to pronounce the word "Achilleus" in the English translation by Lattimore. This is the only form of the word that is used in the translation. He is not attempting to mimic the Greek declensions; English does not function in this manner. Referring me to the first line of the Iliad is inconsequential to this issue. If you still can't understand what I am saying here there's no point continuing, as you are truly clueless.

I told you how it mimics the beat, I even explained it beat by beat in a way that you could pronounce where that you don't know how to aspirate won't matter so much. If I had any faith you were smarter, I would have moved the L to the first beat of the spondee, but I really don't, so you get to say ill.

Lol. There's nothing more to say.

well, besides that you thought there was an il-leus, which is beyond hilarious. imagine writing that down when the Greek is i-le-os. hence why you get to keep saying ill. because you would have anyway, but you might get the ending less wrong now. baby steps

I will try one more time. The Greek changes depending upon the declension which is determined by the grammatical use of the word. In line 1 we have Ἀχιλῆος, which is genitive. In line 7 we have Ἀχιλλεύς. In line 74 we have Ἀχιλεῦ. In line 283 we have Ἀχιλλῆϊ. All of these are rendered "Achilleus" in Lattimore's translation, as that is his transliteration of the nominative form Ἀχιλλεύς. Do you understand this much or should I once again abandon my efforts?

And that would affect how Achilleus fits into an English dactylic how? Achilles still will not fit, which is why most early translations which used it lumped it at the start of the line and found it awkward to place in any line. Achilleus however does keep the beat of the dactyl and has the handy ability to be used outside the anceps too. You seem to think that he should have translated the declension rather than the metrical form, but since his focus was on keeping the rise and fall of the beat and assonance of the original, what Lattimore is using it for, unsurprisingly, is the metre.

You're actually retarded enough that you're arguing because he doesn't transliterate, he doesn't attempt dactylic. I'm not sure when that's ever been considered a cogent argument, but good luck to you with it and the rest of missing the point of both works.

>Achilleus however does keep the beat of the dactyl
You know, I understand what you're attempting to say but the manner in which you've chosen to articulate it, basing it upon the genitive form of the word is the most absurd thing I've ever read. The fact that you can't understand why is telling.
>You seem to think that he should have translated the declension
Why would anyone think that?
>You're actually retarded enough that you're arguing because he doesn't transliterate, he doesn't attempt dactylic.
We're having different conversations. I'm out.

he's saying that Homer needs to use the genitive to fit the end of the line in Greek; but that Lattimore uses his form of the name to fit the beat in any line in English.
in the Greek version Homer also uses other forms of the name, but they're to fit different parts of the beat; in the English version, Lattimore chose a form which fits the beat in many places.

it's pretty clear. you seem to have trouble with the fact that Lattimore is writing English (near) dactylic with one form of the name, while Homer is writing Greek dactylic hexameter with many forms of the name.

>Why would anyone think that
Because you're the only one bringing up the absence of an English genitive as an argument for not using a word that fits the beat in English.
>I'm out
You should have got out when I explained how the pronunciation was different to yours to fit the beat in both languages. and how you got both languages pronunciation and metre wrong.

Pope and Lattimore. Read both at the same time.