Help with Identification please

Henk · 11th October 2010, 10:32 PM

Gentlemen,

A very interesting discussion developed after the translation made by Detlef. A rather good translation that matched very well with the translation Alan made with the online translator. But i understand the confusion and misunderstanding that appeared.

I'm Dutch and that makes me a native speaker. I will try to translate literally this part.

"Dr. Groneman vermeldt in zijn studie over de kris, dat in den Kraton van Djokja grepen worden gedragen in mensch- of diergestalte, in den vorm van een djagoengkolf (d.i. mais). of van bloemen, die gana genoemd worden, of ook wel boomwortels zooals bijv. op No. 25, die de menschelijke gestalte weergeven."

Dr. Groneman reports in his study about the keris, that in the Kraton of Djokja ukirans are carried in human- or animalshape, in the shape of a djagoengcob (this is maize). or flowers, wich are called gana, or also from treeroots like for instance on number 25, that reproduce the human shape.

As i read and interpret the Dutch part David made the right conclusion.
1 human- or animalshape
2 djagoengcob (this is maize). or flowers, gana
3 treeroots that reproduce the human shape

A. G. Maisey · 11th October 2010, 10:55 PM

Thank you Henk.

I have no problem with accepting three divisions, or two divisions, or in fact any number of divisions, I do have a problem with accepting universal inclusion.

The crux of the matter is whether the word "gana" can refer to the naturally occurring tree root hilts. From what I've seen so far, I don't think it can, but Kai has raised a valid possibility, and this has been endorsed by Guwaya.

I have referred the text back to one of the original translators, and he has undertaken to carry out further checking.

Hopefully we will be able to resolve this area of doubt.

kai · 12th October 2010, 08:30 AM

Hello Henk,

Quote:

"Dr. Groneman vermeldt in zijn studie over de kris, dat in den Kraton van Djokja grepen worden gedragen in mensch- of diergestalte, in den vorm van een djagoengkolf (d.i. mais). of van bloemen, die gana genoemd worden, of ook wel boomwortels zooals bijv. op No. 25, die de menschelijke gestalte weergeven."

Dr. Groneman reports in his study about the keris, that in the Kraton of Djokja ukirans are carried in human- or animalshape, in the shape of a djagoengcob (this is maize). or flowers, wich are called gana, or also from treeroots like for instance on number 25, that reproduce the human shape.

Thanks! However, since this is a secondary source (and a loose translation of Groneman's account), this won't help to decide on the original meaning.

Just to see a keris again with this thread: Could you possibly post a pic of Figure 25, please?

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey · 12th October 2010, 08:55 AM

Kai, I'm not prepared to discuss, nor to debate the professional skills of accredited or sworn translators.

This is not my area of expertise. My skills are concerned with identifying a deficiency and seeking the right advice from the right person to correct that deficiency. In this case there would appear to be a deficiency in the original text produced by Gronemann. This text was probably produced in the late 19th century, or early 20th century, so what we need is a translator, or perhaps as you suggest, a linguist who is skilled in understanding the idiosyncrasies of the German language during that period of time. We need a professional who can swear that his translation does reflect the intent of the writer.

Now, I have no idea at all how a translator is able to do this, but I have seen them get up in a court of law and so swear, and I have seen that sworn evidence accepted by all concerned.

In this matter there is only one thing to be clarified, I believe, and that is this:-

did Groneman intend the word "gana" to be applied to root-form hilts ?

Yes?

No?

or

Maybe?

That's all we need to know to put this matter to sleep.

I have already made enquiries that I hope will give us a definite result, but I am sure that we would welcome any contribution to the resolution of this question that you may be able to bring to the table.

guwaya · 12th October 2010, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Kai, I'm not prepared to discuss, nor to debate the professional skills of accredited or sworn translators.

This is not my area of expertise. My skills are concerned with identifying a deficiency and seeking the right advice from the right person to correct that deficiency. In this case there would appear to be a deficiency in the original text produced by Gronemann. This text was probably produced in the late 19th century, or early 20th century, so what we need is a translator, or perhaps as you suggest, a linguist who is skilled in understanding the idiosyncrasies of the German language during that period of time. We need a professional who can swear that his translation does reflect the intent of the writer.

Now, I have no idea at all how a translator is able to do this, but I have seen them get up in a court of law and so swear, and I have seen that sworn evidence accepted by all concerned.

In this matter there is only one thing to be clarified, I believe, and that is this:-

did Groneman intend the word "gana" to be applied to root-form hilts ?

Yes?

No?

or

Maybe?

That's all we need to know to put this matter to sleep.

I have already made enquiries that I hope will give us a definite result, but I am sure that we would welcome any contribution to the resolution of this question that you may be able to bring to the table.

I support A. G. Maisey's proposal to put the matter to sleep, otherwise this theme will be "discussed" in best German (and Dutch?) tradition for the next weeks without a result and with loosing the red wire. A "Maybe" should be enough for the moment and I like to stop here with a hint to my formerly made statement:

"It seems that the use of gana is only to read at Groneman (the others took it from Groneman) and" - independently from the exact translation of Gronemn's statement - the use of gana "is not confirmed by other researchers upon own researches. If this is the fact, the use of the term gana will always have to be used with a questionmark or with the hint to Groneman's reference."

Thanks

A. G. Maisey · 12th October 2010, 10:56 AM

I agree Guwaya, that currently we have a "maybe" situation, but all avenues of enquiry have not yet been exhausted. I have contacted one of the original translators for the English edition of Groneman, and he has undertaken to pursue this matter. Kai has suggested that he may be able to obtain an opinion from one or more linguists. Then there are the other avenues of enquiry that have not yet been mentioned. I feel that eventually we will obtain a definite answer to this question.

But for the time being, yes, its a "maybe".

Sajen · 12th October 2010, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kai

Just to see a keris again with this thread: Could you possibly post a pic of Figure 25, please?

Hello Kai,
go to # 146, there you'll find the picture!

Regards,

Detlef

Henk · 12th October 2010, 07:31 PM

I read the German part wich is the original statement of dr. Groneman.
The German part is identical to the translated part in Dutch. I speak, write and understand the German language very well.

In my opinion we have not a maybe but a definitive no. Dr. Groneman did not intend the word "gana" to be applied to root-form hilts in this part of his statement.

But....... the citate of J.G. Huyse is refering to something that has the look of leloehoer-statues called gana-gana where gana is refering to the representing of the human shape. But the citate doesn't mention a hilt from treeroot.

A. G. Maisey · 21st October 2010, 10:18 PM

I previously advised that I had requested assistance in the gaining of clarification of Groneman's text, from one of the original translators into English.

This translator is Timothy Rogers of Oxford. He has conducted a thorough investigation of this troublesome passage, in both the German and Dutch versions, including consultation with a professional translator in German and Dutch, and he has provided me with the following findings:-

1)--- the original German is grammatically flawed and is ambiguous

2)--- it is possible for the word "gana" to refer to all the hilt types mentioned, or to only one hilt type, possibly only to the type mentioned as flowers.

3)--- an interpretation is often a matter of taking a decision in respect of the most likely probability.

4)--- the most likely probability in this case is that the word "gana" in this passage refers to both corn cobs and flowers, and does not refer to humans, animals, nor hilts made from tree roots resembling humans.

5)--- both the Huyser version of this text, and the English version of the text favour the interpretation that "gana" refers only to the corn cob/flower type of hilt.

6)--- it is likely that because of the grammatically flawed German this passage has previously been misunderstood and the name "gana" has been erroneously applied to the hilts made from tree roots resembling the human form.

I believe the findings as reported by Tim Rogers endorse the opinions of Kai and Guwaya, in respect of the ambiguity of the original German text, but they have provided the perspective of a professional point of view in respect of intended meaning.

Based upon this, I am of the opinion that the name "gana" has been used in error for a very long time. Dr. Groneman's misunderstood text has seen this name applied to hilts of various materials that have been formed by nature, rather than by man. In fact, Dr. Groneman's initial reference was only to hilts coming from tree roots, and which resembled the human form. He did not intend the name "gana" to be applied to this type of hilt.

Dr. Groneman's text can no longer be employed as legitimisation for the erroneous use of this term"gana".

11th October 2010, 10:32 PM	#1
Henk Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,209	Gentlemen, A very interesting discussion developed after the translation made by Detlef. A rather good translation that matched very well with the translation Alan made with the online translator. But i understand the confusion and misunderstanding that appeared. I'm Dutch and that makes me a native speaker. I will try to translate literally this part. "Dr. Groneman vermeldt in zijn studie over de kris, dat in den Kraton van Djokja grepen worden gedragen in mensch- of diergestalte, in den vorm van een djagoengkolf (d.i. mais). of van bloemen, die gana genoemd worden, of ook wel boomwortels zooals bijv. op No. 25, die de menschelijke gestalte weergeven." Dr. Groneman reports in his study about the keris, that in the Kraton of Djokja ukirans are carried in human- or animalshape, in the shape of a djagoengcob (this is maize). or flowers, wich are called gana, or also from treeroots like for instance on number 25, that reproduce the human shape. As i read and interpret the Dutch part David made the right conclusion. 1 human- or animalshape 2 djagoengcob (this is maize). or flowers, gana 3 treeroots that reproduce the human shape

11th October 2010, 10:55 PM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Thank you Henk. I have no problem with accepting three divisions, or two divisions, or in fact any number of divisions, I do have a problem with accepting universal inclusion. The crux of the matter is whether the word "gana" can refer to the naturally occurring tree root hilts. From what I've seen so far, I don't think it can, but Kai has raised a valid possibility, and this has been endorsed by Guwaya. I have referred the text back to one of the original translators, and he has undertaken to carry out further checking. Hopefully we will be able to resolve this area of doubt.

12th October 2010, 08:55 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Kai, I'm not prepared to discuss, nor to debate the professional skills of accredited or sworn translators. This is not my area of expertise. My skills are concerned with identifying a deficiency and seeking the right advice from the right person to correct that deficiency. In this case there would appear to be a deficiency in the original text produced by Gronemann. This text was probably produced in the late 19th century, or early 20th century, so what we need is a translator, or perhaps as you suggest, a linguist who is skilled in understanding the idiosyncrasies of the German language during that period of time. We need a professional who can swear that his translation does reflect the intent of the writer. Now, I have no idea at all how a translator is able to do this, but I have seen them get up in a court of law and so swear, and I have seen that sworn evidence accepted by all concerned. In this matter there is only one thing to be clarified, I believe, and that is this:- did Groneman intend the word "gana" to be applied to root-form hilts ? Yes? No? or Maybe? That's all we need to know to put this matter to sleep. I have already made enquiries that I hope will give us a definite result, but I am sure that we would welcome any contribution to the resolution of this question that you may be able to bring to the table.

12th October 2010, 10:56 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	I agree Guwaya, that currently we have a "maybe" situation, but all avenues of enquiry have not yet been exhausted. I have contacted one of the original translators for the English edition of Groneman, and he has undertaken to pursue this matter. Kai has suggested that he may be able to obtain an opinion from one or more linguists. Then there are the other avenues of enquiry that have not yet been mentioned. I feel that eventually we will obtain a definite answer to this question. But for the time being, yes, its a "maybe".

12th October 2010, 07:31 PM	#8
Henk Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,209	I read the German part wich is the original statement of dr. Groneman. The German part is identical to the translated part in Dutch. I speak, write and understand the German language very well. In my opinion we have not a maybe but a definitive no. Dr. Groneman did not intend the word "gana" to be applied to root-form hilts in this part of his statement. But....... the citate of J.G. Huyse is refering to something that has the look of leloehoer-statues called gana-gana where gana is refering to the representing of the human shape. But the citate doesn't mention a hilt from treeroot.

21st October 2010, 10:18 PM	#9
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	I previously advised that I had requested assistance in the gaining of clarification of Groneman's text, from one of the original translators into English. This translator is Timothy Rogers of Oxford. He has conducted a thorough investigation of this troublesome passage, in both the German and Dutch versions, including consultation with a professional translator in German and Dutch, and he has provided me with the following findings:- 1)--- the original German is grammatically flawed and is ambiguous 2)--- it is possible for the word "gana" to refer to all the hilt types mentioned, or to only one hilt type, possibly only to the type mentioned as flowers. 3)--- an interpretation is often a matter of taking a decision in respect of the most likely probability. 4)--- the most likely probability in this case is that the word "gana" in this passage refers to both corn cobs and flowers, and does not refer to humans, animals, nor hilts made from tree roots resembling humans. 5)--- both the Huyser version of this text, and the English version of the text favour the interpretation that "gana" refers only to the corn cob/flower type of hilt. 6)--- it is likely that because of the grammatically flawed German this passage has previously been misunderstood and the name "gana" has been erroneously applied to the hilts made from tree roots resembling the human form. I believe the findings as reported by Tim Rogers endorse the opinions of Kai and Guwaya, in respect of the ambiguity of the original German text, but they have provided the perspective of a professional point of view in respect of intended meaning. Based upon this, I am of the opinion that the name "gana" has been used in error for a very long time. Dr. Groneman's misunderstood text has seen this name applied to hilts of various materials that have been formed by nature, rather than by man. In fact, Dr. Groneman's initial reference was only to hilts coming from tree roots, and which resembled the human form. He did not intend the name "gana" to be applied to this type of hilt. Dr. Groneman's text can no longer be employed as legitimisation for the erroneous use of this term"gana".