David Peterson wrote: >In a message dated 6/12/01 1:05:37 PM, [log in to unmask] writes: > ><< But Raymond has a good point. Whoever translated "Hell" may have lost the >original meaning that made sense to the writer & his audience, unless the> >writer used an idiom that meant 'fiery place of torment.' When I cast it in my own conlang, I made that cultural mistake: instead of Hell I used >Grave/place of the dead (ile mordai) which would be a no-no if it changed> >the original meaning of the words, IMHO. >> > > Well, I'm not reading it in Latin. In fact, I have a cheap Dover edition >(cost me two bucks! How about that?), so I make no apology for the >translation I used (from the Latin). I just liked the lines, whether true to >the text or not. And of course, I think everyone should've known this had >nothing to do with judeo-christianity since I said it was from the Aeneid. >Just the book before he goes down to the Elysian Fields to talk to his father >who fortells the (now) history of Rome. We should take the translator (not you) to task for introducing the word, and so the concept of, "Hell", which was, clearly, not in the original. Even if the original had had "infernus" 'the nether regions???' (is that idea Roman, or a later Xn invention?) or some such-- those of us who "had trouble with Hell" were, after all, in the right. Ah well: traduttore, tradittore.