# früchteschweres Getreide



## Löwenfrau

Context:

"Marcellus, sieh, wie hoch das Getreide auf den Äckern steht. Jeder Halm beugt sich zur Erde – früchteschwer. Es werden herrliche Erntetage sein." Trakl

In this case, "früchteschwer" acctually means "full of grains/corn", and "das Getreide" means any sort of cereal, is that correct?


----------



## Frieder

Löwenfrau said:


> is that correct?



It is .


----------



## Löwenfrau

Frieder said:


> It is .



But if I specify "wheat", just because it sounds better in the target language (Portuguese, the word being "trigo"), it would also be ok?


----------



## berndf

Löwenfrau said:


> But if I specify "wheat", just because it sounds better in the target language (Portuguese, the word being "trigo"), it would also be ok?


That is for you to decide. It is obviously technically  a wrong translation. You have decide if this "mistake" matters in a poetic text.


----------



## perpend

It sounds to me like it truly is wheat.

But, is there a nice formulation for "grain-laden" in Portuguese, to be more neutral?

I guess the dilemma is that "Getreide" is also in the text.

I'm secretly advocating for using "wheat" for _Getreide_ and then "grain-laden" for _früchteschwer_. (If secret advocates are allowed. )

And, don't feel alone with the problem. German has never made sense to me in the grain sense.


----------



## Löwenfrau

Yes: there is no problem with "früchteschwer": Port. "cheio de grãos" or "pejados de grão" does sound poetic. The only dilemma concerns "Getreide": it is generic - any cereal -, but the generic denomination in Portuguese might sound like a Kelloggs' comercial...  That's why I'm thinking in "wheat" as an option. Maybe "ears" is another alternative...


----------



## perpend

Löwenfrau said:


> ... but the generic denomination in Portuguese might sound like a Kelloggs' commercial...


  That indeed is the problem.

I think since the text uses "jeder Halm" you can be pretty sure it's wheat (like a grass). I don't know how widespread corn (Mais) would have been back then.

With "Mais/Getreide" it would be "stalk" (Stängel), and the ears don't really weigh it down to the ground, whereas with a heavy crop of wheat, the weaker "Halm" would bend toward the ground.

So, that's a minute with farmer perpend. I still realize all these terms are still somewhat ambiguous.


----------



## Frank78

perpend said:


> That indeed is the problem.
> I think since the text uses "jeder Halm" you can be pretty sure it's *wheat *(like a grass). I don't know how widespread corn (Mais) would have been back then.



Or rye, or barley. 

If I'm not mistaken "Mais" also belongs to the "Süßgräser" family and should also have "Halme".


----------



## berndf

perpend said:


> I think since the text uses "jeder Halm" you can be pretty sure it's wheat (like a grass).


In the US you would think of wheat. I Germany, it could be, as Frank said, rye or barley as well. What came to my mind first when reading it was I pictures of a rye field, the most traditional German bread cereal.


----------



## Löwenfrau

berndf said:


> In the US you would think of wheat. I Germany, it could be, as Frank said, rye or barley as well. What came to my mind first when reading it was I pictures of a rye field, the most traditional German bread cereal.



But it is not in Germany, it's in Jerusalem at Jesus' time.


----------



## Frank78

Löwenfrau said:


> But it is not in Germany, it's in Jerusalem at Jesus' time.



And? Rye for example has been cultivated in this region for over 7000 years.


----------



## berndf

Löwenfrau said:


> But it is not in Germany, it's in Jerusalem at Jesus' time.


The most important crops were wheat, barley and sorghum. Wheat was the most expensive and barley, the cheapest, robustest and easiest to cultivate probably the most wide spread.


Frank78 said:


> And? Rye for example has been cultivated in this region for over 7000 years.


Rye is a crop that is most suited for moderate climates. Like most other cereals its origin was the fertile crescent but there it plaid only a relatively minor role.


----------



## exgerman

But _früchteschwer_ (heavy with seed) is intended as an explanation of why the stems bow down to near the ground. The suggested translations seem to miss the point of the word in context.


----------



## Löwenfrau

exgerman said:


> But _früchteschwer_ (heavy with seed) is intended as an explanation of why the stems bow down to near the ground. The suggested translations seem to miss the point of the word in context.



I don't get this, why this translation would miss the point? 


Löwenfrau said:


> "full of grains/corn"


The word in Portuguese is "pejado de grãos", and it has the connotation that is full and heavy...


----------



## bearded

Well, in ''full of grains/corns'' the concept of 'schwer' is not contained.  Not knowing Portuguese, one might think that the idea of 'heavy' is absent in your translation, which explains exgerman's remark.
But since you say that 'pejado' means full and heavy, everything is now clear in my opinion.


----------



## Löwenfrau

bearded man said:


> Well, in ''full of grains/corns'' the concept of 'schwer' is not contained.  Not knowing Portuguese, one might think that the idea of 'heavy' is absent in your translation, which explains exgerman's remark.
> But since you say that 'pejado' means full and heavy, everything is now clear in my opinion.


I think it does, especially in this context, in which there is a clear association between the adjective "früchteschwer" and the fact that 


Löwenfrau said:


> Jeder Halm beugt sich zur Erde


 The author uses " - " to stablish a cause and consequence relation. 
The association is immediate, even if the word "pejado" doesn't mean_ directly_ that it is heavy. The meaning is implicit.

Thank you guys!


----------



## Kajjo

perpend said:


> And, don't feel alone with the problem. German has never made sense to me in the grain sense.


Why's that? I believe, German is quite straight-forward in that manner.

To the title question: I would think of fields of wheat or rye. Both typically bend down a little when ripe and heavy with grains. 

I reckon, the translation as wheat would transport the meaning quite well, even if it is obviously not accurate.


----------



## perpend

_


Kajjo said:



			Why's that? I believe, German is quite straight-forward in that manner.
		
Click to expand...

 Maybe I'll start a new thread. I don't want to get off-topic._


----------



## Löwenfrau

I have another doubt... In the critical edition, the word "früchteschwer" has an hyphen:

"Marcellus, sieh, wie hoch das Getreide auf den Äckern steht. Jeder Halm beugt sich zur Erde –früchte-schwer." 

"früchte-" is the last word of a line, and "schwer" is the first word of the next line. I wonder if this is a typo? (But it is the critical editon...) A few lines further the word is written without the hyphen:

"Ich gehe mit Rahel durch die Felder, durch die früchteschweren, gesegneten Äcker!"


----------



## Kajjo

The first hyphen is very strange. There shouldn't be a hypen in front of "-früchte".

The second hyphen is a normal dash at end-of-line to separate a word that does not fit. This is possible between all syllables of German words.

The dash before a word could be a dash to generate a pause. This dash usually would have a space after it and should be longer than usual.


----------



## Löwenfrau

Kajjo said:


> The first hyphen is very strange. There shouldn't be a hypen in front of "-früchte".
> 
> The second hyphen is a normal dash at end-of-line to separate a word that does not fit. This is possible between all syllables of German words.
> 
> The dash before a word could be a dash to generate a pause. This dash usually would have a space after it and should be longer than usual.



But the first phrase I posted is precisely the one in which there is a hyphen at end-of-line. I thought it could be an end-of-line hyphen, but as I saw, in other sources, that people understood it not as an end-of-line hyphen, I wondered. For example:
"... wie hoch das Getreide auf den Äckern steht. Jeder Halm beugt sich zur Erde – früchte – schwer. Es werden herrliche Erntetage sein." (zeno.org)
Now I'm sure it's zeno's mistake.
Thank you!


----------



## manfy

It might actually be a typesetting error. This printed version spells it the same way.
I'd say, only this form is correct and makes sense: "Jeder Halm beugt sich zur Erde – früchteschwer."


----------



## Löwenfrau

manfy said:


> It might actually be a typesetting error. This printed version spells it the same way.
> I'd say, only this form is correct and makes sense: "Jeder Halm beugt sich zur Erde – früchteschwer."



I thought so. Thanks.


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> It might actually be a typesetting error. This printed version spells it the same way.


 Now it is clear. Those aren't hyphens (German: _Bindestriche_) at all. They are *both *dashes! Parenthetic en-dashes (German: _Halbgeviert-Gedankenstriche_) to be precise. Read "- ... -" like "(...)".

Look 6 lines above (_wün-schenswert_): That's a hyphen which is quarter quad (German _Viertelgeviert_) wide and not half quad (German _Halbgeviert_) wide.


----------



## Kajjo

_Jeder Halm beugt sich zur Erde –- früchteschwer._

If there is one dash and its longer than a end-of-line dash, then its a paranthetic dash. I agree.

Unfortunately, I cannot access the printed version linked above ("Not available").


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> Unfortunately, I cannot access the printed version linked above ("Not available").


Halbgeviertstriche mit viertelgeviert breitem Abstand vorher *und* nachher, also _beugt sich zur Erde – früchte – schwer. _Im Gegensatz dazu steht weiter oben ein am Zeilenende getrenntes Wort
..._wün-
schenswert..._
mit einem viertelgeviert langen Bindestrich und ohne Abstand zum vorhergehenden Wortteil.


----------



## Kajjo

Danke schön.

Der Geviertstrich als Trennungszeichen am Zeilenende ist typographisch falsch. Es müsste ein kurzer Bindestrich sein. 

Der Geviertstrich als Gedankenstrich umrahmt von Leerzeichen ist verständlich. Er deutet dann hier wohl extralange Sprechpausen und künstliche Worttrennung an, wenn das Absicht war und kein Setzfehler ist.

Typefacts | Binde- und Gedankenstrich


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> Der Geviertstrich als Trennungszeichen am Zeilenende ist typographisch falsch. Es müsste ein kurzer Bindestrich sein.


Es ist ein _*Viertel*geviertstrich_, kein G_eviertstrich. _Ein Trennzeichen (_Divis_) ist i.d.R. viertelgeviert lang. Ich schrieb:


berndf said:


> Im Gegensatz dazu steht weiter oben ein am Zeilenende getrenntes Wort
> ..._wün-
> schenswert..._
> mit einem *viertel*geviert langen Bindestrich





Kajjo said:


> Der Geviertstrich als Gedankenstrich umrahmt von Leerzeichen ist verständlich.


*Halb*geviertstrich, nicht Geviertstrich.


Kajjo said:


> Er deutet dann hier wohl extralange Sprechpausen und künstliche Worttrennung an, wenn das Absicht war und kein Setzfehler ist.


Geviertstriche werden in der Tat i.d.R. nicht parenthetisch gebraucht oder wenn, dann ohne Abstände. Aber es sind ja, wie gesagt, Halbgeviertstriche und keine Geviertstriche.


----------



## Löwenfrau

berndf said:


> Now it is clear. Those aren't hyphens (German: _Bindestriche_) at all. They are *both *dashes! Parenthetic en-dashes (German: _Halbgeviert-Gedankenstriche_) to be precise. Read "- ... -" like "(...)".
> 
> Look 6 lines above (_wün-schenswert_): That's a hyphen which is quarter quad (German _Viertelgeviert_) wide and not half quad (German _Halbgeviert_) wide.



But see, in the critical edition it is:


_(...)

Äckern steht. Jeder Halm beugt sich zur Erde – früchtes-

schwer. Es werden herrliche Erntetage sein._

The first is a dash, but the second is an end of line signal, isn't it?


----------



## berndf

Löwenfrau said:


> The first is a dash, but the second is an end of line signal, isn't it?


If it looks like that, then yes. And it would make more sense than two dashes. But as I haven't seen that edition, I can't be sure.


----------



## Löwenfrau

berndf said:


> If it looks like that, then yes. And it would make more sense than two dashes. But as I haven't seen that edition, I can't be sure.



It is exactly like that 

Thanks again.


----------



## berndf

Then one of the editions contains a typesetting error. The question is which. As I said, the version of your edition makes more sense and that might be the reason by they chose it; after all it is a _critical _edition, i.e. they have taken choices. But in poetry, when in doubt, common sense interpretations are rarely the right ones.

But if your job is explicitly to translate that edition then you are safe.


----------



## Kajjo

Löwenfrau said:


> The first is a dash, but the second is an end of line signal, isn't it?


Yes, that makes sense -- and is as I guessed it to be in #20.


----------



## Hutschi

Gedichte und Prosa

Hier ist es wahrscheinlich ein Scan-Fehler. "_Jeder Halm beugt sich zur Erde – früchte – schwer"_

Alle anderen Quellen geben
"_Jeder Halm beugt sich zur Erde – früchteschwer"
trakl "Getreide auf den Äckern steht. Jeder Halm beugt sich zur Erde" - Google Search_

(Dabei werden verschiedene Längen von "_–_" verwendet, die Ausgaben sind relativ unabhängig voneinander.)


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> Hier ist es wahrscheinlich ein Scan-Fehler.


Ja, der Vergleich der Ausgaben ergibt ein recht eindeutiges Bild.


----------

