Glossary entry (derived from question below)
French term or phrase:
abriter du contact de la main
English translation:
which were not subject to wear through use
Added to glossary by
Christopher Crockett
Mar 21, 2017 17:16
7 yrs ago
1 viewer *
French term
abriter du contact de la main
French to English
Art/Literary
Archaeology
ancient art
Hello again!
DOC: 1907 Museum catalog of ancient Egyptian mirrors. Catalog entry.
CONTEXT: 44018. Miroir. - Bronze. [Pl. IV] Le travail de ciselure, par contre, ne semble pas avoir été poussé très loin: les traces les plus manifestes en sont visibles dans le chapiteau: perruques des rois, détails ordinaires des deux têtes d'uroeus. Cependant il se pourrait que ces traces aient disparu ailleurs, par suite d'usure. En effet, dans les parties ***abritées du contact de la main*** et très difficiles à atteindre dans le nettoyage, on constate que les entailles du burin sont les plus nettes.
ATTEMPT: In fact, the burin-made grooves are the most distinct in the parts ***protected from any contact with the hand*** and very hard to reach during cleaning.
QUERY: Something bugs me about my translation. Would this be better as "parts protected from having contact with the hand"?, "parts prevented from making contact with the hand"? "the owner's hands"? "parts protected from the owner's hands? Not so crazy about any of these either. What do you think?
Thanks in advance!
DOC: 1907 Museum catalog of ancient Egyptian mirrors. Catalog entry.
CONTEXT: 44018. Miroir. - Bronze. [Pl. IV] Le travail de ciselure, par contre, ne semble pas avoir été poussé très loin: les traces les plus manifestes en sont visibles dans le chapiteau: perruques des rois, détails ordinaires des deux têtes d'uroeus. Cependant il se pourrait que ces traces aient disparu ailleurs, par suite d'usure. En effet, dans les parties ***abritées du contact de la main*** et très difficiles à atteindre dans le nettoyage, on constate que les entailles du burin sont les plus nettes.
ATTEMPT: In fact, the burin-made grooves are the most distinct in the parts ***protected from any contact with the hand*** and very hard to reach during cleaning.
QUERY: Something bugs me about my translation. Would this be better as "parts protected from having contact with the hand"?, "parts prevented from making contact with the hand"? "the owner's hands"? "parts protected from the owner's hands? Not so crazy about any of these either. What do you think?
Thanks in advance!
Proposed translations
(English)
| 5 | which were not subject to wear through use |
Christopher Crockett
|
| 3 | contact-free areas |
Pierre Castegnier
|
Change log
Mar 27, 2017 14:57: Christopher Crockett Created KOG entry
Proposed translations
1 hr
Christopher Crockett
Native in English
Specializes in field
M.A., Ph.D. Historian/Art Historian
Native in: English 
Works in: French to English, English
Related KudoZ points
:
131
Selected
which were not subject to wear through use
In fact, the groves made by the burin are most distinct in those parts which were not subject to wear through use and too difficult to be reached for cleaning.
I'm loosing the "hand" reference, but it should be clear from the context of the object that "use" involved holding the mirror in the hand.
It's quite amazing that this object would have received enough wear through use to degrade the bronze handle (which is about the most skillfully made of all those which Benediti illustrates); this suggests, to me, that it must have belonged to a priest who used it in frequent liturgical services.
The reference from the Hathitrust.org copy (p. 7) might be helpful --have to skip down to Pl. IV to see the thing (which is worth doing).
Too bad he doesn't give us a guess about what the date might be --I have no idea what kind of site Qournah might be (apparently in Gaza?).
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2017-03-21 18:38:44 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Looking at the plate (IV), it is still not clear to me what elements were subject to incision by a "burin" --is he talking about the trace of a grove which is still visible at the bottom of the central vertical element (and which has been worn away from the rest of that vertical element through use)?
When I think of the effect which a burin produces, it brings to mind a kind of deep scratch --as in an engraving-- but that vertical grove seems to be much more profound than that; perhaps there is burin work visible in the articulation of the figures on the openwork (wings and such), not clearly visible on the illustration we have.
I'm loosing the "hand" reference, but it should be clear from the context of the object that "use" involved holding the mirror in the hand.
It's quite amazing that this object would have received enough wear through use to degrade the bronze handle (which is about the most skillfully made of all those which Benediti illustrates); this suggests, to me, that it must have belonged to a priest who used it in frequent liturgical services.
The reference from the Hathitrust.org copy (p. 7) might be helpful --have to skip down to Pl. IV to see the thing (which is worth doing).
Too bad he doesn't give us a guess about what the date might be --I have no idea what kind of site Qournah might be (apparently in Gaza?).
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2017-03-21 18:38:44 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Looking at the plate (IV), it is still not clear to me what elements were subject to incision by a "burin" --is he talking about the trace of a grove which is still visible at the bottom of the central vertical element (and which has been worn away from the rest of that vertical element through use)?
When I think of the effect which a burin produces, it brings to mind a kind of deep scratch --as in an engraving-- but that vertical grove seems to be much more profound than that; perhaps there is burin work visible in the articulation of the figures on the openwork (wings and such), not clearly visible on the illustration we have.
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank you!"
3 hrs
Pierre Castegnier
Native in French
Translation, Technology, Transfer
Native in: French (Variant: Canadian) 
Works in: English to French, French to English
contact-free areas
les parties abritées du contact de la main : it's the parts of the exhibit which cannot be touched by human hands because it's hidden in a notch or fold. I don't think English needs to specify if contact is done by hands or fingers, it's simply contact.
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
Nikki Scott-Despaigne
: I agree with your idea, although not with your rendering. "Not in [direct] contact with the hand", or "free from any contact with the hand". Or simply "that were not handled".
2 hrs
|
Discussion
But, clearly, he's not talking about that area (which had no marks of the "burin").
Which leads me to think that he means some parts of the handle which are "not subject to wear through use" (or "through normal handling" if you prefer).
My thinking is that, since the "use" of this object necessarily involves "handling" (i.e., contact with the hands of the user), using "use" here is legitimate.
And those parts of the handle are not really "protected" from use, but rather are simply "not subject" to the wear caused by that use --i.e., employ the English idiom, rather than the literal translation of the French word which he uses, which doesn't seem to me to be appropriate here.
the parts which are protected from normal handling
the parts which are sheltered from routine human contact/ routine handling?
As I mentioned before, some of these issues we've been discussing may be quite beyond what is necessary to do a translation; but there is a lot more to translating than just transposing words from one language to another (if this were not true then the product cranked out by machine translators would not be such laughable gibberish).
But I feel that understanding at least *something* about the subject you're dealing with in any essentially technical subject like the present work is absolutely essential in order to 1) make sense out of it and 2) translate it.
Obviously, I go overboard with this work because I am interested in the subject itself (even though it's not a all my field, which is mid-12th c. northern French sculpture --quite a ways from 2000 B.C. Egypt).
PS Lilyquist thinks it's 2nd Intermediate Period: http://www.academia.edu/7661294/_Reflections_on_Mirrors_
I suspect it's Middle Kingdom but, as I said, just wish that Benediti had given us the benefit of his expertise in venturing an approximate date in most of his descriptions.
I note that the previous mirror (#44017) came from Saqqara, which suggests (to me) an Old Kingdom date.
Of course, none of this makes any difference to your translation, as you try to wrestle this Beast to the Ground.
So, I just put it in as Angela translated it, hoping that no one would notice....
If the work is proof-read by a native speaker of French, they may consider that you have left something out. It is one of the standard situations where you may have to convince your client that it is not an oversight. (They sometimes stick it back in anyway)!
hidden from a direct contact with the hand
I would interpret it this way "remote" and "difficult to access"