No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
After the publication of the translations and accompanying notes of the last two letters of Emperor Tewodros in JRAS1987/1, the authors were made aware of a number of unfortunate errors in the translations and of differences between their versions and the “official” translations produced not long after the originals. As several of these errors of translation have direct repercussion on the annotation of the letters, it has seemed expedient to publish the corrections as soon as possible. Accordingly, we are grateful to the Publications Committee of the JRAS for allowing these revised translations to appear so soon after the original article. We are also deeply grateful to Prof. E. Ullendorff for drawing our attention to the corrections and improvements that have needed to be made.
In order to facilitate the presentation of the corrections, it seems preferable to reproduce here in full the revised translations of the letters, though these should of course be read in conjunction with the original article.
1 The verb wärrädä does of course literally mean “descend”, but in conjunction with wäff often has the connotation of “toil, exert oneself”. Though the latter is here missing, Ullendorff suggests that perhaps “toil” is the real meaning here. This would be supported by the “official” translation, which has “when I myself … go not forth with you to encourage you”.
2 The noun kretiyan (sic)is better taken as object of the verb agbәәәäw rathen than the “object” of gw albät allāñ, leaving hullu as quantifier of gw albät, preceding rather than following its noun.
3 yänäbbärat is of course affirmative, and not negative as mistranslated in JRAS 1987/1.
4 təlantənna is of course “yesterday” and not as mistranslated in JRAS 1987/1.
5 The phrase bäsərat bätägäzza säw is thus better rendered than in JRAS1987/1.
6 Despite the punctuation separating təlantənna “yesterday” from the preceding sentence, it makes more sense to take it with that sentence, as is also suggested by the “official” translation.
7 It is obvious now that it makes more sense, being in accord not only with the “official” translation, but also with the actual circumstances, to take the noun wädaj as the head noun of the phrase indicating the intended recipient of the letter, with kälolewo “to her servant” as an appositional noun phrase to this. The break between sentences then follows this last item and the new sentence begins with ləkkebbəwo allähu “I have sent to you”. Thus, the awkward note accompanying the translation in JRAS 1987/1 and the now incorrect footnote 52 are obviated.
8 Thus better than the clumsy rendering in JRAS 1987/1.
9 This is of course the implication of the less satisfactory version in JRAS 1987/1.
10 This penultimate sentence of the letter needs to be thus reworked. The subject of the verbs aluəññeəm and käwäddäduis rather the same, i.e. the addressee, Sir Robert Napier.
11 This is a happier rendition of andalqärəbbəwo, and accords better with the “official” translation, which has “you must not leave me without artisans”, though of course the implied object is səra, i.e. “artifacts, mechanical things”.