Nice mixed metaphor

On BBC World: "What are the little gems that he has to have up his sleeve to satisfy the rank and file of the Labour Party?"

Yoda syntax

I'd always assumed that Yoda's mangled syntax ("Much to learn have you, Skywalker" etc.) was just an attempt to make him sound wise and oriental (presumably by imitating Japanese topic-comment syntax). However, on re-reading "The Battle of Maldon", I was stuck by a similar phenomenon in translating Anglo-Saxon. For example, we have Douglas Killing's translation: "Onward then advanced Wistan, Thurhstan's son, to these warriors fought," which closely follows the original: "Forð þa eode Wistan, Þurstanes sunu, wið þas secgas feaht." I've never studied Anglo-Saxon so don't know much about its syntax, but I'm wondering if this kind of word-order has survived through poetic speech to give an impression of grandeur in later Englishes, and Yoda-speak is a reflection of this.

Football, Stoicism and the Battle of Maldon Again

Over in philosophy I made a few contributions to a thread on Stoicism, and criticised the popular view that Stoicism implies indifference to all emotions. I think this is at least partly the result of translating adiaphora as "things indifferent" and patheia as "emotions", neither of which are exactly right, though they're close. Adiaphora refers to the realm of things which are pleasant or unpleasant, and are thus erroneously (in the Stoic view) considered good or bad. However, even though they have no moral significance, they are still to be chosen (lepton) or avoided (alepton). In fact, what is good (agathon) is related to the ability to choose rationally between these supposedly indifferent things.

Watching Fenerbahçe play Manchester United today, I was reminded of this, not least because one of Fenerbahçe's players is a Brazilian called Marco Aurelio. I was supporting Fener, having recently defected from the other leading Turkish team, Galatasaray (who I only chose in the first place to annoy my old boss). Since Manchester won 6-2, I should have been pretty pissed off. Indeed, I was, but it did not destroy my enjoyment of the match. This is adiaphora, right? It is of no ulitmate importance who wins the match, but in order to have a good match, someone must win, and it is important to care who wins - but not too much. That's the tricky bit.

One reason why it was still a good match to watch (and I never watch a bad match, since I'm no football fanatic) was that Fener refused to let the invincible Rooney demoralise them, and kept struggling to the end. Once again I was reminded of "The Battle of Maldon":

Warriors fell,
weary with wounds. The slain fell on earth.
Oswold and Eadwold all the while,
both those brothers, strengthened the men,
with words bade their kin-friends
that they should endure at need,
unweakly use weapons.
Byrhtwold spoke, raised his shield--
he was an old retainer--shook his ash-spear;
full boldly he taught warriors:
"Thought must be the harder, heart be the keener,
mind must be the greater, while our strength lessens.
Here lies our prince all hewn,
good one on grit. He may always mourn
who from this war-play thinks now to turn.
My life is old: I will not away;
but I myself beside my lord,
by so loved a man, think to lie."