Help with Identification please

[guwaya]

[/QUOTE]
Here now the closest translation I am able to do:

In the keraton of Yogyakarta, the panakawan (serving peers, pages), if they appear with bare upper part of the body and feather performed hair-decoration without headscarf (semut gatut), are wearing ukiran of the form of human and animistic gestalt, in the design of jagung (maize-) Kolben or flowers which are called gana, as well as some tree-roots resembling the human figure.

The translation is a bit bumpy but I prefered to leave it as litterally as possible.

Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you very much Guwaya.

You have illustrated beautifully what I had begun to suspect, that is, that the source of the name "gana" being applied to these tree root natural forms has been the incorrect quotation in Huyser.

Your translation agrees in the crucial part with the Richardus/ Rogers translation, so I now believe that there can be no doubt that the application of the name "gana" to the natural tree root hilt form is incorrect. We do not know if there ever has been a specific name for this form.

Apart from clarifying an error that has been ongoing for a very long time, this little exercise has demonstrated that the use of sources other than an original to provide a quotation is fraught with danger. I can think of any number of such cases in books that deal with the keris, and I am certain that the same problem would occur in other fields.

We must always go to the original.

[kai]

Just to add a comment regarding the correct translation of Groneman's original:

... ukiran in Form menschlicher und tierischer Gestalten, in Form von djagung (Mais-)Kolben oder Blumen, die gana genannt werden, wie auch einige dem menschlichen Bilde gleichende Baumwurzen.

In German, two different meanings seem to be possible and I have a really tough time to decide which may be the intended one.

Interpretation 1:
ukiran of human and animal form,
(ukiran) of jagung form (corn cobs or flowers called gana), and
also some tree roots resembling a human figure.

This may be the intended meaning but it would be only unequivocal if Groneman had completed the enumeration:
(ukiran) of human form (made from tree roots naturally resembling a human figure).
I feel Groneman avoided this more tedious writing for stylistic reasons but grammatically this is not correct (neither with nor without repeating the word ukiran).

Interpretation 2:
ukiran of the form of human and animal, and
ukiran of the form of jagung (corn) cobs or flowers which are called gana (as is also true for some tree-roots resembling a human figure).

For this interpretation there is the crucial "and" missing: In German, one would have expected a "sowie" for stylistic reasons. A word can go missing in print but in this case it doesn't appear to be a printer's error since there's no punctuation mark (i. e. comma) in front of an "und" or "sowie" in German. Still, it could be an enumeration of just 2 alternatives separated only with an ideosyncratic comma...

What are the Dutch grammar rules for enumerations since this was Groneman's language?


BTW, is the tree of life interpretation for the corn cob hilt type undisputed?

Regards,
Kai

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for that additional input Kai.

In the interpretations of both Guwaya and Richardus/Rogers there is a clear separation between two groups of hilt forms:-

group 1 is the human + animal + corn + flower motifs, and all these motifs are known as the "gana" form

group 2 is the form from tree roots resembling the human form.

You have raised a doubt in respect of both these translations by identifying a deficiency in grammar. However, I believe that Guwaya is also a native speaker of German, and he seemed not to note this possibility of an alternate interpretation.

Earlier today I emailed Tim Rogers with several questions in respect of this translation, the answers to which, I believe will put the cap on this matter. When I receive a response I will advise.

As for corn-cob = gunungan, that might be another good question for investigation. When and where did this association first get aired?

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

In the interpretations of both Guwaya and Richardus/Rogers there is a clear separation between two groups of hilt forms:-

group 1 is the human + animal + corn + flower motifs, and all these motifs are known as the "gana" form

group 2 is the form from tree roots resembling the human form.

Actually Alan, from the translations i am reading here i would say that there a are three distinct groups being discussed. There is a comma to seperate each group, at least in everyones translations. First after the human/animal hits, then the corn or flower hilts also called gana, as well as some tree-roots resembling the human figure.
That seems like three groups to me and the natural root hilts seem to have been mistakenly lumped in with the corn/flower hilts known as gana.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes David, I agree with you, it could be read the way you are reading it.

Apparently in the original, it can also be read as Kai and Guwaya have suggested, in another way, which includes the root form hilts as gana.

I have not the smallest understanding of German, I can only look at the translations, so possibly this has now become a job for a professional translator.

The reason I say this is because on the two occasions in the past where I was involved in a legal matters which hinged on translations I discovered that a professional translator does not look at a single passage out of the context of an entire work written by the same person. In judging the intended meaning of a passage, or even a word, the professional will not necessarily stick strictly with a grammatically correct reading, but will take account of the manner in which the writer expresses himself.

I have had a response from Tim, who has advised me that Peter Richardus did the translation from the original German text, and that he (Tim) checked Peter's English and any passages about which he had doubts, back to the original German. It would seem that this translation has full integrity and perhaps may be able to accepted as correct. However, Tim has undertaken to do further checking, and he will get back to me when the matter is beyond doubt.

[kai]

Hello Alan,

on the two occasions in the past where I was involved in a legal matters which hinged on translations I discovered that a professional translator does not look at a single passage out of the context of an entire work written by the same person. In judging the intended meaning of a passage, or even a word, the professional will not necessarily stick strictly with a grammatically correct reading, but will take account of the manner in which the writer expresses himself.

Yes, but unless Groneman can be shown to always utilize the same stylistic "trick" this will only help to establish probabilities of what he meant to write rather than a clear case for any of the possibilities.

BTW, in this case, the sentences preceeding and following the one under discussion don't seem to bear any relevance to clear up his passing remark on the word gana, does it?

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Hello David,

from the translations i am reading here i would say that there a are three distinct groups being discussed. There is a comma to seperate each group, at least in everyones translations.

The use of a comma is different in German and English and in this case just doesn't help to solve the issue (it's necessary to seperate this part of the sentence: "die gana genannt werden").

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Hello Alan,

In the interpretations of both Guwaya and Richardus/Rogers there is a clear separation between two groups of hilt forms:-

group 1 is the human + animal + corn + flower motifs, and all these motifs are known as the "gana" form

This is definitely wrong (based on German grammar):
The human and animal forms cannot be associated with the name gana.

BTW, corn cob or flower are alternative descriptions for something perceived by Groneman as a single hilt type (he utilized "or" rather than "and"). I assume flowers refer to the more florally carved examples of this "corn cob" hilt type.

As for corn-cob = gunungan, that might be another good question for investigation. When and where did this association first get aired?

Ok, well after the 15th century, for sure.

I'll let someone else start a seperate thread on this topic though...

Regards,
Kai

[guwaya]

Originally Posted by kai

Just to add a comment regarding the correct translation of Groneman's original:

In German, two different meanings seem to be possible and I have a really tough time to decide which may be the intended one.

Interpretation 1:
ukiran of human and animal form,
(ukiran) of jagung form (corn cobs or flowers called gana), and
also some tree roots resembling a human figure.

This may be the intended meaning but it would be only unequivocal if Groneman had completed the enumeration:
(ukiran) of human form (made from tree roots naturally resembling a human figure).
I feel Groneman avoided this more tedious writing for stylistic reasons but grammatically this is not correct (neither with nor without repeating the word ukiran).

Interpretation 2:
ukiran of the form of human and animal, and
ukiran of the form of jagung (corn) cobs or flowers which are called gana (as is also true for some tree-roots resembling a human figure).

For this interpretation there is the crucial "and" missing: In German, one would have expected a "sowie" for stylistic reasons. A word can go missing in print but in this case it doesn't appear to be a printer's error since there's no punctuation mark (i. e. comma) in front of an "und" or "sowie" in German. Still, it could be an enumeration of just 2 alternatives separated only with an ideosyncratic comma...

What are the Dutch grammar rules for enumerations since this was Groneman's language?


BTW, is the tree of life interpretation for the corn cob hilt type undisputed?

Regards,
Kai

Hello,

I think you are correct - even if reading just fluently in German there could be two interpretation:

There are ukiran in form of jagung or flowers which are called gana

1. and additional there are ukiran made from tree-roots resembling the human figure (seperately from gana).

2. as well as ukiran made from tree-roots resembling the human figure (also called gana)


Anyway, I think, just because Gronemans motherlanguage seemed to have been Dutch it makes no sense to study the dutch grammer for clearing the general question here. It will not be possible to come to a 100% verified conclusion and only an assumption based on the different languages could be made which possibly could have leed to a misunderstanding. I am myself a Groneman fan but nobody is perfect and grammer mistakes are easily done - if they were done - who knows?! And who wants to decide this - after which criteria?

It seems that the use of gana is only to read at Groneman (the others took it from Groneman) and that it 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.

Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Guwaya.

It seems we can have an alternate interpretation.

Let's see what sort of answer I get back to my questions.

And here is the online translation:-

"In the Kraton of Jogjakarta who have panakawan (serving young noblemen, pages) if they Bared chest and feathered hair ornaments, without a headscarf appear (Gatete semut) ukiran in the form of human and animal figures, in the form of djagung (corn) ear or flowers. the gana be called, as well as some of the human image resembling tree Wurzen."

which seems to come down on the side of Richardus/Rogers, and Guwaya's original tranalation.

[kai]

And here is the online translation:-

"In the Kraton of Jogjakarta who have panakawan (serving young noblemen, pages) if they Bared chest and feathered hair ornaments, without a headscarf appear (Gatete semut) ukiran in the form of human and animal figures, in the form of djagung (corn) ear or flowers. the gana be called, as well as some of the human image resembling tree Wurzen."

which seems to come down on the side of Richardus/Rogers, and Guwaya's original tranalation.

Nah, garbled and missing words, etc.

I guess we can agree that automatic translations will only help to muddle waters in cases where native speakers are struggling to dissect a complicated text.

Not wanting to be too pedantic - just to avoid misconceptions.

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Hello Guwaya,

There are ukiran in form of jagung or flowers which are called gana

Just to add a bit of confusion for all of us: It is possible that gana only refers to flowers. As stated above, Groneman treats them together with corn cobs as a single hilt type though.

Anyway, I think, just because Gronemans motherlanguage seemed to have been Dutch it makes no sense to study the dutch grammer for clearing the general question here. It will not be possible to come to a 100% verified conclusion and only an assumption based on the different languages could be made which possibly could have leed to a misunderstanding

Yes, there definitely is some ambiguity in the cited text and we won't be able to resolve the intended meaning with certainty. By analyzing Groneman's publications for writing style, etc. as well as taking contemporary Dutch and German grammar into account, we may be able to define probabilities for the intended meaning but IMHO we won't be able to resolve the question for sure.

It seems that the use of gana is only to read at Groneman (the others took it from Groneman) and that it 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.

Yes, I agree: Unless we find an additional early field report, it seems best to just stop utilizing the word gana since it's meaning at the early 20th c. Yogya keraton is ambiguous and hasn't been independently verified, anyway.

I am myself a Groneman fan but nobody is perfect and grammer mistakes are easily done - if they were done - who knows?! And who wants to decide this - after which criteria?

There is something at odds here, grammatically. Just for fun, I'll check back with linguists to verify.

Regards,
Kai