Talk:Beowulf

Single-authorship claim is problematic

My edit that added a clause to single-authorship claim was reverted because "this is not the place to publicise a primary research article". I am new to the whole editing thing, but I think nothing is being "publicised". The Guardian piece (which is cited in the article now) reports on the paper in NHB. The response that I cited was peer reviewed and published by the editors of the same NHB. The question is as valid as the original claim and readers have a right to evaluate them together. Also, the article is full of primary research citations (?). Perechenpchel (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

We certainly don't want to continue adding primary reports; it's far better to work from reliable secondary sources. The Guardian article makes clear that scholars have differing views - what a surprise - so let's just say that, it's quite enough for that purpose. Maybe in five or ten years' time there'll be a review article analysing the question using all the modern research. I don't know if you are associated with the research article but editors will immediately wonder about that matter also; the citing of one's own work is deprecated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It is clearer now; thank you for keeping at least some uncertainty in the text. The reason I thought adding the reference was because the problem with the original study does not only imply a "disagreement", but very specific methodological and analysis issues. Perechenpchel (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

British English

Chiswick Chap, I changed four inconsistent -ize spellings to -ise yesterday, one of them had just been added by a new editor. I believe this was correct as the article largely uses -ise rather than -ize spellings and has been tagged with Template:Use British English rather than Template:Use Oxford spelling since 2014. In 2020 you tagged this talk page with Template:British English rather than Template:British English Oxford spelling. TSventon (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. That seems best to me, as it minimises confusion with AE. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Star Trek: Voyager takeoff

Adding the Star Trek: Voyager takeoff episode might be fun. Misty MH (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Doubtful whether it'd justify a mention, unless a scholar has singled it out for discussion in this context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Interpretations based on Heaney's translation

Edits have recently been made based on Seamus Heaney's translation. However, Heaney's version is a modern poet's personal rendering; Heaney was not a medievalist or a scholar of Old English, and his version cannot be relied upon for any particular word or interpretation of any specific passage (crux or not). He might choose to write "knife" instead of "sword" to fit the sound or metre of a particular line, whether it was correct (if he indeed knew) or not. This is in my view obviously unsafe as an approach, and certainly not encyclopedic; his version says little or nothing about the original poem. I've given an example in Translating Beowulf of how his approach compares with that of other translators: that is a neutral matter, with no assertion of Heaney's correctness or otherwise. Uncritically adopting Heaney's diction as if it were the definitive text is, on the other hand, quite unjustifiable, and we shouldn't go there. Accordingly I've reverted the most recent edits. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Elided metaphors

I haven't been able to find a definition for elided metaphor. It would be good to add an explanation where the term is used, or else to link to a new section in the article on metaphors and provide a definition there. B.Bryant (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)