My solution to the Ring Verse syllable discrepancy

[arustleund]

Hi everyone, longtime listener, first time poster... I'm still a little over a year behind, but catching up quickly!

I've just listened to the episode containing the debate over the rhythm and stress of the Black Speech vs. English versions of the Ring Verse. Here's my transcription of what I think the correct rhythms and stresses should be. I put the two versions on top of each other to ease in direct comparisons:



Here are some sound clips of the two versions so you can hear them:
English Rhythm
Black Speech Rhythm

Both versions have their stresses on the first, second, and especially the third beats of each measure. The first and third measures are exact mappings. The number of syllables and rhythms line up perfectly.

What I'm proposing is that the second measure, even though they have the same number of syllables, in fact have different rhythms in the two languages. You will see, however, that the stresses remain on the first, second, and third beats in both versions. In English, the "to" is a kind of a grace, or pick up note. This also makes the "find them" = "gimbatul" and "bind them" = "krimpatul" work well; their rhythms and stresses are the same in both the second and fourth measures, the rhyme and rhythm work in both English and the Black Speech.

So, to put it another way, the English has an "extra" syllable in the second measure: "to". The Black Speech has two "extra" syllables: the "-tul" at the end of both the second and fourth measures. None of these syllables are stressed in either language, so it doesn't affect the matching stress pattern that they're there (you could also consider these syllables "missing" from the other language).

What I like about this version is that it feels more "natural" in both languages, that is, you are able to put the stresses where they feel right, and are consistent with the drum beat style incantation rhythm in both.

Happy to hear your thoughts!

 

[arustleund]

Why would Tolkien be OK with such a close, but not exact, mapping?

I believe his first priority was the stresses: both English and Black Speech maintain the strong stresses on beats 1, 2, and especially 3. This was meant to be an incantation, the drum-beat style rhythm was most important in this style of poem.

I'm proposing that after the most important aspect, the stresses, were met, as a philologist it was more important to him to maintain a more grammatically correct translation than to keep the rhythms and number of syllables exactly the same. It was more of a happy accident, I think, than completely deliberate that the first and third measures map perfectly in syllables and rhythm. Once you let go of the idea that the second measure should match in rhythm just because it has the same number of syllables, you can find a reading that fits the actual words better. The rhythms and stresses remain internally consistent within each language as well, which is more important than them matching exactly.

 

[arustleund]

Sorry, everyone, still having more thoughts as I start to obsess a bit... what I don't like about this version is that there seems to be an inconsistency about which syllable gets the stress in what I assume are the verbs (durbatulûk, gimbatul, thrakatulûk, and krimpatul). I think this was discusses somewhat in class. For some reason, it seems more natural to me to put the stress on the second syllable in durBAtulûk and thraKAtulûk, but the first syllable in GIMbatul, and KRIMpatul. But shouldn't they all be the same? If so, I think we have to go back to what was arrived at during the discussion. In that case, I like turning ishi into a single syllable by not pronouncing the -i. You could also sloppily turn ishi into two sixteenth notes. That being said, the verbs are different (-tulûk vs. tul). Why couldn't they be stressed differently?

This got me thinking about the differences. What really started to blow my mind was, if "-tulûk" means "them all" and "-tul" means "them", is there a difference between these objects? Are there different actors being acted upon? I always equated "them all" and "them" as the same things. Could Sauron (or Tolkien) have meant that there are different things or people being ruled and brought vs. found and bound??? I now feel that the choice to use "them" and "them all" differently was deliberate beyond just style. Are the owners of the other rings being ruled and brought, and the rings themselves being found and bound, or vice versa? Send help, please, before I go farther down this rabbit hole.

 

[Flammifer]

Hi arustleund,

I don't know if you have read previous posts on this forum about the Ring verse? If you have not, you might be interested.

The burzum-ishi krimpatul problem

• Thread starterAsh Nazg
• Start dateAug 28, 2020

The Rhythms of Black Speech

• Thread starterFlammifer
• Start dateAug 12, 2020

 

[Rachel Port]

I know the issue is the Black Speech version - and this may seem frivolous - but in the English, why not two quarter notes for "find them" and "bind them?"

 

[Jim Deutch]

I know the issue is the Black Speech version - and this may seem frivolous - but in the English, why not two quarter notes for "find them" and "bind them?"

'cause it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing, that's why! He's written it all out in dotted eighths and sixteenths, but it's clearly all in threes: this is the way they write out jazz tunes, only adding the note "swing" to indicate that it's really all triplets.

Oh, and by the way, now we can have a new merch item: The Ring, with the inscription "swingless things are meaningless".

 

[arustleund]

I know the issue is the Black Speech version - and this may seem frivolous - but in the English, why not two quarter notes for "find them" and "bind them?"

Thanks for your responses, Rachel amd Jim! I agree with Jim that it may be more useful to think of each quarter note as a group of three triplet eighth-notes. It still leaves your question, Rachel. Even with the triplets instead of dotted-eighth -> sixteenth, the last "them" could have come on the actual fourth beat instead of the last sixteenth (or triplet eighth) of the third beat of each measure. When I tried it out that way, it just didn't sound "right", to my ear. I think it's because the "them" in the first measure also comes at the end of the third beat. It's almost as if there's an implied "all" on the fourth beat in the second and fourth measures. Why was the "all" left out? Stylistically? To match the Black Speech grammar (if so, what does that mean, see my above comment about the direct objects in each measure perhaps being different)? For me, it sounds a little sing-songy if you keep the "all" in "them all" for every measure.

 

[arustleund]

'cause it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing, that's why!

It does really swing, doesn't it? Further evidence that jazz is evil.

 

[Rachel Port]

Yeah, that's always a switch when playing swing. Especially the ties to the next beat. I've never seen swing actually written in triplets, have you?