# What's in a name? (Shakespeare)



## greygoose

Does anyone know how 'what's in a name' is translated in Spanish?

It's a in line in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, but unfortunately I just don't have my Spanish copy to hand! Thanks.


----------



## Fernita

Hi!

It's impossible to translate it without more context. 
Could you provide the whole sentence/question or describe the situation?
Thanks.


----------



## Fernita

greygoose said:


> Hi Fernita
> 
> I don't have the whole sentence cos it's the title of an essay. I have just found the official translation tho. 'Qu*é* es un nombre'
> 
> Thanks
> GG


 
Ok, anyway *qué *should take an accent and it should be written between questions marks.
How did you find the official translation?
Saludos.


----------



## Fernita

greygoose said:


> True, although I can never be bothered to add the accents on here, takes too much time!!! I shouldn't be so lazy tho.
> 
> I found it on a Wikiquote. Seems to be quite a good resource for such things.
> 
> Thanks again
> 
> GG


Welcome though you found it yourself!


----------



## lapachis8

greygoose said:


> True, although I can never be bothered to add the accents on here, takes too much time!!! I shouldn't be so lazy tho.
> 
> I found it on a Wikiquote. Seems to be quite a good resource for such things.
> 
> Thanks again
> 
> GG


 
Hi:
Spanish is not Spanish without the accents. Inglés and ingles are not the same thing. Your excuse is complete bollocks.
Cheers


----------



## greygoose

lapachis8 said:


> Hi:
> Spanish is not Spanish without the accents. Inglés and ingles are not the same thing. Your excuse is complete bollocks.
> Cheers



I was happy to admit that my excuse is, as you say, 'bollocks', I know what difference accents make, but why be so rude about it?


----------



## Idiomático

"A rose by any other name is just a rose."  Is that what you mean?


----------



## Fernita

Idiomático said:


> "A rose by any other name is just a rose." Is that what you mean?


 
Hi Idiomático! Although GG says he's found the official translation, I don't agree. Maybe you're right. Who knows!
Send you a huge hug!


----------



## greygoose

It comes just after the famous 'Romeo, romeo, wherefore art thou romeo' scene (act II)

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy; —
Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
*What's in a name? That which we call a rose,*
By any other word would smell as sweet;

This is what I've found:

"¿Qué es un nombre? La rosa no dejaría de esparcir su dulce aroma aunque se llamase de otro modo."

Not entirely sure if this is it, but it does seem so.


----------



## 0scar

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=213216


----------



## Idiomático

Fernita said:


> Hi Idiomático! Although GG says he's found the official translation, I don't agree. Maybe you're right. Who knows!
> Send you a huge hug!


 
I love your hugs, Fernita.  GG may be right, though, I just don't know.  I remember the _rose _phrase in Romeo and Juliet, but there may be another line that says _What's in a name?  _Unfortunately, I haven't read a Spanish version of Romeo and Juliet in the past 50 years.


----------



## greygoose

Hi Oscar

Thanks for the great link.  It is different from what I'd found, although the discussion on the other board suggests that it's not actually good Spanish:

¿Qué hay en un nombre? Lo que llamamos rosa exhalaría el mismo grato perfume con cualquier otra denominación.

I've got something to work with now,

Thanks again


----------



## alexacohen

There is not such a thing as an official translation into Spanish of Romeo and Juliet, or any other Shakespeare play.

La versión del profesor Luis Astrana Marín, publicada en 1933, da esta traducción:

"¿Qué hay en un nombre?
¡Lo que llamamos rosa 
exhalaría el mismo grato perfume 
con cualquiera otra denominación!".

Que es la traducción que cita Greygoose. 
No es un español muy moderno, en eso estoy de acuerdo. Pero de ahí a decir que es mal español va un abismo.


----------



## Fernita

greygoose said:


> It is different from what I'd found, although the discussion on the other board suggests that it's not actually good Spanish:
> 
> ¿Qué hay en un nombre? Lo que llamamos rosa exhalaría el mismo grato perfume con cualquier otra denominación.
> 
> I've got something to work with now,
> 
> Thanks again


 
I agree: *¿Qué hay en un nombre? *is an accurate translation, but *not *what you found at first (posted in #3): "¿Qué es un nombre?". 

Saludos.


----------



## greygoose

Thanks Fernita, if you hadn't have pointed that out I probably would have used what I'd found first.


----------



## alacant

Have been reading this thread with interest and was wondering when someone was going to mention the fact that that there is no official translation. 

I, for one, sincerely hope that no-one has the idea of making a really modern translation. This was done to the Bible in English, and now instead of having the St. James version, there are awful versions in modern English.

Greygoose, I know the accents give us trouble, but that is part of the Spanish language, and our friends here will correct us if we need it.

Welcome, Alacant


----------



## Mr_Antares

I have to agree with Alacant.  There is no "official" Shakespeare in Spanish, just as there is no "official" Cervantes in English.  That doesn't stop English speakers from making references to "tilting at windmills". 

Certainly, we as modern speakers wouldn't use Shakespeare's phrasing and language in everyday speech, (these are, after all, plays written for the stage) and a "proper" translation of Shakespeare ought to capture that "less than modern" feel. Obviously, this is a high standard, and one not commonly associated with Internet forums.


----------



## daydreamer

That there are no "official" translations of Shakespeare is a very good point.
On the other hand, I don't think "¿Qué es un nombre?" is a bad translation at all, though it would be stronger if you said "¿*Y *qué es un nombre?" as when you say "¿Y qué más da?" (So what?). In fact, "¿Qué más da un nombre?" (=¿Qué importancia tiene un nombre?), or "¿Qué tiene un nombre?" would be other possibilities. But I, for one, like "¿Y qué es un nombre?" best.


----------



## alacant

"Qué es un nombre?" is What is a name.

The point here is "What is in a name" which has a completely different meaning. Subtleties are what languages are all about, and the difference is immense.

Thank you Mr Antares, a pleasure to meet you. Alacant


----------



## daydreamer

alacant said:


> "Qué es un nombre?" is What is a name.
> 
> The point here is "What is in a name" which has a completely different meaning. Subtleties are what languages are all about, and the difference is immense.
> 
> Thank you Mr Antares, a pleasure to meet you. Alacant




About subtleties being what language is about, I completely agree with you. That's precisely the reason why literal translations often don't work. And "¿Y qué es un nombre?", though literally meaning "And what is a name?", implies, or might imply in a certain context, "What's so important about a name?", mind you. I'm a native spanish speaker, mind you. I should know. No offense taken...


----------



## daydreamer

Incidentally, ANtares, though there is no such thing as a canonic translation of any classic, you might be interested in knowing that Jorge Luis Borges considered the first translation to english of _Don Quijote _(which was as well  its first translation ever, published just a few years after the original) better than Cervantes' text. _Boutade_ or not, it must be really good.


----------



## alacant

daydreamer,

A translation and an original text are 2 different things. Is a donkey better than an orange?

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

With regards, Alacant


----------



## Idiomático

daydreamer said:


> Incidentally, ANtares, though there is no such thing as a canonic translation of any classic, you might be interested in knowing that Jorge Luis Borges considered the first translation to english of _Don Quijote _(which was as well its first translation ever, published just a few years after the original) better than Cervantes' text. _Boutade_ or not, it must be really good.


 

Everybody is entitled to his opinion and Jorge Luis Borges is entitled to his.  Personally, I consider this one completely irrelevant and am surprised to learn he made it public.


----------



## daydreamer

It's just a curious fact. And I find it rather daring to qualify an opinion on literary matters by Borges as irrelevant. Irrelevant to you, maybe, surely not to millions of his admirers. But, as you say, everybody is entitled to his opinion, and so are you.
By the way, I doubt I would share that opinion (Borges'), but I can't really tell you, since I've only read the original Quijote. And probably, he meant it basically as a _boutade_, a shocking statement. But it's a quote that comes handy when you start discussing the general issue of literary translation. You know: _traduttore, tradittore... _and all that jazz.


----------



## Idiomático

daydreamer said:


> It's just a curious fact. And I find it rather daring to qualify an opinion on literary matters by Borges as irrelevant. Irrelevant to you, maybe, surely not to millions of his admirers. But, as you say, everybody is entitled to his opinion, and so are you.
> By the way, I doubt I would share that opinion (Borges'), but I can't really tell you, since I've only read the original Quijote. And probably, he meant it basically as a _boutade_, a shocking statement. But it's a quote that comes handy when you start discussing the general issue of literary translation. You know: _traduttore, tradittore... _and all that jazz.


 
I, too, admire Borges, have read Don Quijote only in Spanish, and agree that his comment may have been meant as a _boutade_.  Indeed, since we are now using French words, I'd say he just wanted to _épater les gens_ when he made it.


----------



## daydreamer

...And it certainly seems he made it with you! ;D ... No, really, of course it shocked me too when I first read it, but I bet he sincerely found the English version remarkable. I always think I should give it a look someday... Maybe after I finish Joyce's _Ulysses._ First things first...
Best regards.


----------



## Karlaina

alexacohen said:


> La versión del profesor Luis Astrana Marín, publicada en 1933, da esta traducción:
> 
> "¿Qué hay en un nombre?
> ¡Lo que llamamos rosa
> exhalaría el mismo grato perfume
> con *cualquiera otra denominación!*".



Sorry to resurrect this thread - I found it very helpful, but I'm not sure why this translation uses *cualquiera* and not *cualquier*. Shouldn't there be apocope here? 

Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Karlaina

Un año después de mi último comentario y todavía sigo con la misma duda.  Perhaps I should start a new thread, but my question is specific to this quote... I'll try once more here before opening up a new thread. (There are so many cualquier/cualquiera threads already, but none of them seems to address this question.)

* Does cualquiera only shorten to cualquier when it comes immediately before the noun?* Would that be why we'd say _cualquier denominación_, but that translation says _cualquiera otra denominación_?

Gracias de antemano.


----------



## Amapolas

Karlaina said:


> Un año después de mi último comentario y todavía sigo con la misma duda.  Perhaps I should start a new thread, but my question is specific to this quote... I'll try once more here before opening up a new thread. (There are so many cualquier/cualquiera threads already, but none of them seems to address this question.)
> 
> * Does cualquiera only shorten to cualquier when it comes immediately before the noun?* Would that be why we'd say _cualquier denominación_, but that translation says _cualquiera otra denominación_?
> 
> Gracias de antemano.


I believe it's because 'denominación' is feminine, and cualquier/a works as primer/a: the shortened version can be used only before masculine nouns. I'll check it out and get back to you.


----------



## Karlaina

Amapolas said:


> I believe it's because 'denominación' is feminine, and cualquier/a works as primer/a: the shortened version can be used only before masculine nouns. I'll check it out and get back to you.



Thanks, Amapolas. 

I don't think it's a gender thing, though, because _cualquiera_ is neither masculine nor femenine. The "a" at the end is not a gender marker but rather a result of this compound word that combines _cual_ with the simple present subjunctive of _querer_, which is _quiera. _Thus the plural becomes _cualesquiera_ when after a noun or by itself and _cualesquier _when before a noun of either gender.

Any other ideas?


----------



## Amapolas

Nope, I was wrong. The shortened form can be used in front of both feminie and masculine forms. It's just that the full form is occasionally used, but is not so common. This is from the DPD:
*cualquiera*. *1.* Adjetivo indefinido que denota que la persona o cosa a la que se refiere es indeterminada. Cuando va antepuesto al sustantivo, tanto si este es masculino como femenino, adopta la forma apocopada _cualquier,_ aunque entre ambos se interponga otra palabra: _«Daría cualquier cosa por saber con qué cara ha leído la carta»_ (MtnGaite _Nubosidad_ [Esp. 1992]); _«Cualquier buen leninista sabe cómo adaptarse a los cambios»_ (_DAméricas_ [EE. UU.] 2.5.97). Ocasionalmente puede aparecer la forma plena _cualquiera_ ante sustantivos femeninos, algo frecuente en el español de Chile: _«Cualquiera palabra que dijera en clase el profesor la relacionaba rápidamente con mi sombrero»_ (Araya _Luna_ [Chile 1982]).


----------



## Karlaina

Amapolas said:


> Nope, I was wrong. The shortened form can be used in front of both feminie and masculine forms. It's just that the full form is occasionally used, but is not so common. This is from the DPD:
> *cualquiera*. *1.* Adjetivo indefinido que denota que la persona o cosa a la que se refiere es indeterminada. Cuando va antepuesto al sustantivo, tanto si este es masculino como femenino, adopta la forma apocopada _cualquier,_ aunque entre ambos se interponga otra palabra: _«Daría cualquier cosa por saber con qué cara ha leído la carta»_ (MtnGaite _Nubosidad_ [Esp. 1992]); _«Cualquier buen leninista sabe cómo adaptarse a los cambios»_ (_DAméricas_ [EE. UU.] 2.5.97). Ocasionalmente puede aparecer la forma plena _cualquiera_ ante sustantivos femeninos, algo frecuente en el español de Chile: _«Cualquiera palabra que dijera en clase el profesor la relacionaba rápidamente con mi sombrero»_ (Araya _Luna_ [Chile 1982]).



¡Ajá! Gracias.  Qué curioso lo del uso de _cualquiera _en Chile. Nunca lo había escuchado. Y esto me aclara también la duda que tiene sobre el apócope cuando otro adjetivo va interpuesto. 

Mil gracias por habermelo aclarado.


----------



## Amapolas

Karlaina said:


> ¡Ajá! Gracias.  Qué curioso lo del uso de _cualquiera _en Chile. Nunca lo había escuchado. Y esto me aclara también la duda que tiene sobre el apócope cuando otro adjetivo va interpuesto.
> 
> Mil gracias por habermelo aclarado.


And it took you only 350 days. 
Persevera y triunfarás.


----------



## Karlaina

Amapolas said:


> And it took you only 350 days.
> If at first you don't succeed...



¡Jajajaja! That's my motto!


----------

