Talk:O zittre nicht, mein lieber Sohn

Title

This article [with 'Zittre'] should indeed be deleted. I only became aware its existence and the attempt to delete it now.

The title is misspelled; zittre has to be in lower case. Is moving the article the only way to achieve that? Then again, given the banal nature of the article, it's probably not worth it. Michael Bednarek 12:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are perfectly right in every respect. I just contacted the admin in charge User:Bucketsofg. The reason for closing the AFD was a tie, but it is possible to resubmit the AFD. if you want to do it, you got my vote. (Use {{subst:afdx|2nd}}, cf. WP:DP#Renominations and recurring candidates.) --FordPrefect42 22:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Omitting repeated material in lyrics

An anon wants to put in every syllable as Mozart set them, claiming this is more scholarly. I can see Anon's point but on the other hand inspection of the lyrics makes it crystal clear that they are poetry; i.e. they are written in standard meters and stanzaic forms. This is obscured by writing out Mozart's repeated syllables. I think if someone really wanted to know which syllables Mozart repeated they could easily get this by clicking their way to the NMA version. It's more civilized, and shows more respect to Schikaneder's work, to acknowledge the material as poetry. Opus33 (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I’m not against acknowledging the material as poetry. If a source could be found for Schikaneder’s version, it could be included in the article. The problem is that we can’t attempt to reconstruct Schikaneder’s version ourselves because it’s not obvious what it looked like. The current version omits several repetitions but includes the repetition of ‘ein Bösewicht’. Is that what Schikaneder wrote? Maybe, maybe not. We have no way of knowing. The article may include Schikaneder’s actual version, but it may not include our own best guess as to what that version might have been. We’re an encyclopaedia; we don’t get to guess.

An entirely separate problem is that Mozart probably included words that Schikaneder didn’t write. In ‘O zittre nicht, mein lieber Sohn’, Schikaneder probably didn’t write the ‘ja’ in the third line from the bottom. But there is indisputably a ‘ja’ in the lyrics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.180.219 (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The repetition of "ein Bösewicht" is indeed inconsistent with the overall treatment of the lyrics and ought to be removed. Reproducing the lyrics exactly from Mozart's score is unhelpful to the reader; insisting on it is nit picking, wiki lawyering, and against common sense. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I’m not insisting on reproducing the lyrics exactly from Mozart’s score, I’m insisting on reproducing them exactly from somewhere. Rather than being against common sense, this is actually the established scientific standard, and there is absolutely no conceivable reason why Wikipedia shouldn’t live up to that standard. What is unhelpful to the reader is presenting her or him with a version of the lyrics that is neither Schikaneder’s, nor Mozart’s, nor that of the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe, but that of one Michael Bednarek.

In short, basic standards demand that lyrics be quoted from a source, not according to one or more Wikipedians’ idea of what the lyrics should be like. Your guesswork is highly unlikely to happen to reproduce Schikaneder’s version.

Both here and at Dies Bildnis ist bezaubernd schön, Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen and The Marriage of Figaro, you show a disturbing lack of respect for the sources. It doesn’t matter to you that the NMA refers to one of Cherubino’s arias as ‘Non so più cosa son, cosa faccio’ throughout; you think a better title would be ‘Non so più cosa son’, so that’s what you’re going with. You think Schikaneder uses too many dashes, so you decide to leave them out. What you fail to grasp is that readers aren’t interested in what you think. We want to know what the sources say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.123.206 (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• On a formal level, adding those repeated lines broke the alignment between the German and the English text, which is confusing for the reader. Also, the use of typographic apostrophes is discouraged on the English Wikipedia. On a content level, the version without repetitions follows common practice for liner notes and online databases, whether specifically for arias or for lyrics in general.
• These considerations, for format and content, apply also to the disputed edits at "Dies Bildnis ist bezaubernd schön" and "Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen". Additionally, the idiosyncratic use of dashes was raised: Wikipedia has its own comprehensive style guides and regularly changes the original spelling and typography. I did keep the thrice repeated use of "hört" in the last line of the latter aricle because it's so striking in the music; in fact, I added it to the English version as well.
• My choice of incipits for arias at The Marriage of Figaro is based on a reputable source, the 1985 edition of Ricordi's piano reduction. It is admittedly not as authoritative as the NMA, but those incipits can also be found on many liner and program notes. I properly removed 85.164.123.206's use of typographical apostrophes; the same applies to the use of graphical ellipses. When the aria "Deh vieni" is mentioned in the context of replacement arias, there is no need for the longer title; this is similar to using Figaro as a shorthand for the full title. Another reason for using shorter Italian titles is to keep them consistent with the provided English translations; "Non so più cosa son" – "I don't know anymore what I am" is less confusing than "Non so più cosa son, cosa faccio" – "I don't know anymore what I am". Then there is a dispute about the use of commas in some titles. Again, those titles are taken with their commas from Ricordi, and from my rudimentary understanding of Italian, they seem necessary. Lastly, there is dispute about some contractions: is it "quegli anni" or "quegl'anni"? Clearly, the latter is an approximation of what's being sung, but I doubt whether that's how a spoken version would be written and it certainly is more difficult to understand for most readers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

To your first paragraph: You're putting the cart before the horse. The way this sort of thing is done is first to arrive at the correct German text, then change the English accordingly. Your point on typographic apostrophes is well taken. Again, I'm not against shorter versions, I'm against shorter versions made up by Wikipedians. At Dies Bildnis ist bezaubernd schön, both you and Opus33 prove you don't have what it takes to make a shorter version yourselves, both failing to realise which repetitions were likely always there because the metre calls for them. Let me state this as clearly as possible: I have nothing against shorter versions. But they need to come from a reliable source, not be made up by Wikipedians who have no idea what they're doing. If the practice is so common, surely such a source could be found?

To your second paragraph: It's a universal standard when quoting poems to keep all dashes. There is no Wikipedia rule that says to leave out dashes when quoting poems, and you won't find a single philologist who thinks such a rule would make any sense. You don't seem to understand that lyrics are to be quoted, not to be edited. You don't get to edit the lyrics because of something you think is ‘striking in the music’. What you think is irrelevant.

To your third paragraph: I'm glad you think the NMA is the most authoritative source. It then follows that that's the source that should be used, because no argument can be made to use a less authoritative source when a more authoritative source is readily available.

Your point on graphical ellipses is well taken. Your point on shorter titles is not. The NMA shortens Le nozze di Figaro to Figaro, but never shortens any of the aria titles, using the full titles throughout (including ‘Deh vieni non tardar’).

As to your next point, again, you're putting the cart before the horse. It should go without saying that English translations must be based on the Italian titles, not Italian titles on the English translations, meaning that in the case of a mismatch, only the English translation may be changed.

As you say, your understanding of Italian is rudimentary, which can’t be said for the editors of the NMA, who don't find the commas necessary. As you admit, the NMA is more authoritative than Ricordi. As I point out above, that means that the NMA should be used.

No, ‘quegl'anni’ is not an approximation of what's being sung; that's how a spoken version would have been written back in the day. Again, you make an error of judgment, and again, you show why such judgments can't be left to Wikipedians. I find it hard to believe that there are people who understand ‘quegli anni’ but not ‘quegl'anni’, and even if there were, that's no argument to change the title from that used in the most authoritative source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.123.206 (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Anon seems to be taking comfort -- a lot of it -- from holding the more principled and rigorous scholarly position. But there's another value at stake, namely serving the reader. I think many readers would resent the extreme level of literalism Anon wants to put into representing the text, and indeed perhaps regard it as outright juvenile. (Just how far should Anon's strategy be taken? Should our article on Exsultate, jubilate include a text with 34 consecutive tokens of the word "Alleluia"?)

I believe Michael is right in citing program and liner notes as a suitable precedent for leaving out musically-driven repetition in reporting texts. This naturally will involve some judgment calls, but it will serve readers better. Moreover, at least in the case of Mozart a high-quality rendering of the literal text is always linked to and available for consultation. Opus33 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, I have nothing against shorter versions. However, they must be quoted from reliable sources, not made up by Wikipedians who have no idea what they're doing. You and Michael Bednarek have both shown that you don't have the skills to make the necessary judgment calls. As a reader, I'm best served by an actual version, not one badly crafted by Opus33 or Michael Bednarek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.123.206 (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2014‎ (UTC)

"vermag am besten"

Right now in our translation we have "vermag am besten" as meaning "must do his best", but doesn't this actually mean "is best able"? I.e. the K. d. N. is telling Tamino why she has picked him for the task at hand. Advice from a knowledgeable German speaker would be welcome. Opus33 (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right; "Ein Jüngling so wie du, vermag am besten …" means ideed "a youth like you is best suited …" or, as you suggest, shorter, "is best able". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll change it. Opus33 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

More on translation

For the last line:

so sei sie dann auf ewig dein.

we currently have

Then she will be yours forever.

But this translates the German subjunctive merely as a future tense. It seems rather, perhaps, that the translation should indicate that it is the Queen's wish to award Pamina to Tamino as the fruits of victory. A web translation ([1]) reflects this:

Und werd' ich dich als Sieger sehen,
So sei sie dann auf ewig dein.			

And should I see you as victor,
May she be then forever yours.

and I would even be tempted to translate it as

Let her then be yours forever.

as a wording more suitable to conveying a royal mandate. Does this seem ok?

Opus33 (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The current phrase "Then she will be yours forever" is not outrageously wrong, but I agree that both "May she be then forever yours" and "Let her then be yours forever" are better. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I've implemented. Opus33 (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)