Glossary entry (derived from question below)
French term or phrase:
Le métal est très net et très poli
English translation:
the metal is very clean and highly polished
French term
Le métal est très net et très poli
DOC: 1907 Museum catalog of ancient Egyptian mirrors. Catalog entry.
CONTEXT: 44048. Mirror. -- Bois et argent massif. (Pl. XV). CONSERVATION. Intact dans l'ensemble. La face qui avait conservé son bitume est intacte comme au premier jour; l'autre, qui ne l'a conservé qu'en partie, s'est jaunie ou oxydée de vert dans les endroits découverts et a perdu son pouvoir réfléchissant. ***Le métal est très net et très poli sur la tranche.*** La potence joue dans son assemblage. Un des yeux est à demi effacé. Débris de toiles de momies sur les deux faces.
https://archive.org/details/miroirs00bene PLATE XV is almost at the back
If you can't access the latter it's basically shaped like these two: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/470204017323583278/
http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/mirror-and-handle-1448...
ATTEMPT: The metal is very visible/clear/distinct/neat/clean and very shiny?/polished on the edge. The bracket is loosely held in place.
ISSUES: So many possibilities, please help me choose one!
Last time it was si nettement polie et si clairement réfléchissante = so neatly polished (plenty of hits for it) and so highly reflective. [Am I confused or does net, nettement, etc. usually translate well as nice, nicely, etc? Which in art history speak it can mean almost anything positive. Nicely drawn, carved, designed, articulated, painted.... A very nice metal could mean of good quality or appearance or both!]
Does the clean and shiny only apply to the metal on the edge OR is the metal very clean and the edge very shiny?
Thanks in advance!
| 4 +4 | the metal is very clean and highly polished |
Tony M
|
| 3 +1 | the metal is very neat and higly polished |
Raoul COLIN (X)
|
May 11, 2017 21:13: writeaway changed "Level" from "PRO" to "Non-PRO"
PRO (1): Christopher Crockett
Non-PRO (3): Tony M, Jennifer White, writeaway
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Proposed translations
the metal is very clean and highly polished
Generally, 'nettement' means things like 'clearly', even 'markedly'.
Such weaker epithets as 'nice' are used in everyday colloquial language, but would not normally figure in more formal, technical language. Not least, because they imply some kind of qualitative judgement that is usually out of place in a scientific / technical context.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 22 minutes (2017-05-11 19:35:03 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
The rest of this and other texts seems to be talking a lot about the metal being oxidized and matt, so this seems a perfectly logical observation to be making here.
| agree |
Charles Davis
11 hrs
|
|
Thanks a lot, Charles!
|
|
| agree |
B D Finch
13 hrs
|
|
Thanks, B!
|
|
| agree |
Michele Fauble
23 hrs
|
|
Merci, Michele !
|
|
| agree |
Christopher Crockett
: "Clean" doesn't make much sense here, but it might be in the sense of not having any of that incrustation of (green) corrosion --which I don't think appears on pure silver but might turn up in patches on impure silver alloys.
3 days 20 hrs
|
|
Thanks, Christopher! Prhaps also free from any of this 'gunk' that seems to have got everywhere else.
|
the metal is very neat and higly polished
| neutral |
Tony M
: I can't really see how the metal edge of something can really be described as 'neat'
2 mins
|
| agree |
mchd
: c'est l'idée, à savoir qu'on distingue nettement le métal
10 hrs
|
| neutral |
B D Finch
: Inappropriate use of "neat".
13 hrs
|
| neutral |
Christopher Crockett
: In addition to its inappropriateness, "neat" has some distracting connotations in ordinary English.
21 hrs
|
Discussion
I have belonged to several specialized lists of that type in the past (and have "owned" a few of them myself), and have found them to have been very, very useful; and I'm sure that this egyptologyforum one is as well.
But my field is the art history of the High Middle Ages --specifically, mid-12th c. northern French sculpture (so called "Early Gothic"); and nearly all things Egyptian happened on a planet in a galaxy far, far away.
But Egypt --all 3,000 years of it-- has always been a minor interest to me, so I've enjoyed the opportunity here to learn much, much more about a subject I knew nothing whatever about.
And, equally rewarding I believe, is trying to ferret out the proper interface between doing a literal translation of a French text and actually *understanding* what that author is trying to say.
That seems like it should be a rather simple and clear-cut task, but I believe that we have all demonstrated --multiple times-- that it is not quite as simple or easy to do as it appears.
Even though Tony's "net=very clean" is the perhaps the best we all can come up with, is anyone here actually satisfied (or really confident) with it as an answer?
Virtually this whole series of kudoz questions which Angela has posed have been plagued by both technical difficulties related to the subject matter and Bénéditi's maddeningly flowery and (deliberately?) imprecise French.
We may presume that this question of what the hell he means by "net" doesn't involve technical expertise; but it still remains: What *does* he mean by using that word here.
rcolin's [Eng.] "neat" might have worked, *if* B. had used, say, "propre" --but he didn't.
It seems to me that B. has Stumped the Pros (and some of the Non-Pros as well).
And bitumen just isn't something that one would deliberately apply to a danged mirror --on either side, much less on *both* sides, as we surely seem to have here.
Certainly Mr. Trump would never apply it to any mirror in his ambiance, whether he were mummified or not.
Again, I say that the primary function of these artifacts was liturgical/devotional and not narcissistic --*that's* why they were included amongst the tomb goods.
And that purpose would not be enhanced by having a thick layer of non-reflective gunk applied to their surface(s).
The gunk layer must have been icing on the cake, the "accidental/incidental" product of being part of the mummification process.
But Bénéditi's "son" implies otherwise.
But perhaps it was deliberately applied — either as some kind of attempt to preserve the artefacts so the dead person would be able to use them later in life??? Or to cover up the reflectve surface (but then why the back?) for some superstitious reason... I must admit, if I woke up looking like most of those mummies, I'm not sure I'd want to see myself in a mirror right away... at least, not until I
'd had a nice cup of tea...
Isn't this what that construction means: "La face qui avait conservé son bitume est intacte...; l'autre, qui ne l'a conservé qu'en partie..."
What does the "l[e]" in that last clause refer to, if not the bitumen (a.k.a., in your eloquent characterization, "gunk")?
And "son bitume" seems to imply that it was deliberately applied.
Yes?
Non?
Au secours!
"La face qui avait conservé son bitume est intacte comme au premier jour;..."
"The side which has preserved its bitumen is 'as new' [while]..."
"l'autre, qui ne l'a conservé qu'en partie, s'est jaunie ou oxydée de vert dans les endroits découverts et a perdu son pouvoir réfléchissant."
"...[while] the other, which has only partly preserved it [i.e., its bitumen?], is oxidized to yellow or green in the exposed areas and has lost its reflective ability [/power]."
One side is "as new" --covered with bitumen?
While the other side only preserved part of its bitumen and its exposed areas are oxidized.
Again, what the hell is bitumen (whatever it might be) doing being placed deliberately on a mirror?
Is this just another case of translating --literally-- whatever Bénéditi has written, no matter whether that makes sense or not?
I believe that something like "bitumen" was used in the mummification process and would be found on the endless cloth wrappings around the body.
A clue might be in that "débris de toiles de momies sur les deux faces" statement.
Scores of objects were enclosed in the wrappings --amulets mostly.
Perhaps this (particular) mirror was inserted in amongst these and the "débris de toiles" was not a wrapping for the mirror itself, but part of the mummy wrapping.
I persist in the belief (unencumbered by any actual knowledge of the subject) that these mirrors were not merely (or even primarily) "objets de toillet" but were important pieces of liturgical "furniture" and of private devotional practice, "capturing" the sacred light of the sun (god); so a fellow might like to have one close to hand, in the wrappings around his body.
Think: rosaries, which were (are) frequently placed in the hand of Catholic deceased.
Question then arises: why aren't more of these mirrors found with "bitumen" on them?
I don't think 'bitumen' here should be extrapolated to 'asphalt' — in fact, I think it is more like 'tar' in this usage. Wasn't some kind of tar used as part of the mummification process? Or was this 'tar' a euphemism for disgusting fluids that over time have leached out of the mummy — you know, a sort of black gooey mess?
??
A "mirror" coated with asphalt on both sides of it?
What am I missing?