Is it normal in English?

[Andrew Bak]

I guess it's very tough to translate poetry because a lot of the beauty of poetry comes from meter, the language that it's written in, the rhymes/half-rhymes etc.

I think you've done a pretty good job of getting some rhyming and it scans reasonably well.

However lines 2-4 are pretty hard to make sense of and in the last line, I have no idea what sepulcher means but that could be my ignorance more than anything!

[MartinCarpenter]

Well, there you go: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/176261?rs ... =false#eid

The usage read as slightly odd to me, but a very easy sort of thing to get wrong in translation. (Could even be correct in principle, goodness knows with English ).

[Michael Farthing]

Well, here's my inexpert attempt at criticism, which I hope may be of interest to you.
It is not gibberish and I think it rather good - but it was a hard task for a non English speaker to attempt. I think with poetry it is far better to translate from a foreign language into your own, and not the other way round.

Here are some thoughts that occurred to me:

You will have 3 companions during the time
one is loyal to you, two are malign

one is companion, the other, tangible possession
and the third is loyal, and is rightful action

You have used 'companion' in two different ways. Firstly, to mean things that accompany you through life then later to mean the first of these three things. That double use causes problems in picking up the meaning. Perhaps something like this:

There are three that accompany you through life:
One is loyal; two are malign.

The first is friends; the second posessions ;
The third, the loyal one, is your good deeds.

A couple of changes of word there: 'tangible possessions' is a rather formal accounting-like expression. You could keep companion now it is not being used in the first two lines, but friends are closer than companions, so their later departure makes the point a bit more strongly.
Better to use second rather than 'other'. Other is used in this way only if the total number is two.

Your property won't be your company out of a palace
the companion will be with you, but to the grave

When the last day of life comes unto you
Your companion's mannerism would tell you
I won't be with you any further
temporarily l stand by your grave and linger

The second line here seems ambiguous to me. I'm not sure if it is a final comment on you losing property when you die, (going back to your original use of companion to mean the three things accompanying you through life) or whether you are using companion now to mean 'friend' and it is the start of saying that you only keep friends until you die.

'companion's mannerisms' is a bit strange sounding to me. I'd have said something like 'Your friend's face will tell you he won't be with you any further'

Your deed is loyal to you, take it as shelter
It gets with you to the bottom of death chamber

Hence the prophetic saying that for this reason
There is no friend more loyal to you than action
If good, it will be in your company forever
and if bad, it will trouble you in sepulcher

In this last section I think 'deed' and 'action' should both be in the plural in English (with, obviously changes to the verb forms to match), even if these words are singular in the original. It is a more usual and understandable way of using the words. I think also 'actions' needs a 'your' in front of it: this makes it more obvious that you are using 'action' as an alternative word for 'deed' for the poetic effect.

'take it as shelter' I am afraid didn't mean anything to me (not quite gibberish but..). I sort of see what I think you want to say but am not quite sure: difficult to know without understanding the original.

'It gets you to the bottom of death chamber'. Either 'the death chamber' or 'Death's Chamber', but I would reuse 'grave' with the English idiom 'beyond the grave' meaning 'until after death' . I think by "It gets you to"' you mean "It stays with you". So, "It stays with you beyond the grave".

'Sepulchre' I thought was OK and was a bit surprised that this was picked out. 'Tomb' might be better if you don't want to repeat 'grave' that you have used earlier. It is a more common word than sepulchre.

[John McKenna]

'Garbled' is a better description of the translation quoted above than "gibberish".

Compare this less poetic but clearer one-

In this world you have three companions -
one is faithful, the other two are treacherous.

The latter are your friends and possessions,
the faithful one is excellence in deeds.

Your wealth won't follow you out of your palace -
your friend will, but only as far as the grave.

When your day of doom comes, your friend will say,
"I've come this far, but no further. I will stand a while at your grave."

Only your deeds are faithful - make them your refuge,
for they alone will accompany you into the depths of the tomb.

Rumi (translator unknown)

[soheil_hooshdaran]

But that has no rhythm, sir.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

Well, here's my inexpert attempt at criticism, which I hope may be of interest to you.
It is not gibberish and I think it rather good - but it was a hard task for a non English speaker to attempt. I think with poetry it is far better to translate from a foreign language into your own, and not the other way round.

Here are some thoughts that occurred to me:

You will have 3 companions during the time
one is loyal to you, two are malign

one is companion, the other, tangible possession
and the third is loyal, and is rightful action

You have used 'companion' in two different ways. Firstly, to mean things that accompany you through life then later to mean the first of these three things. That double use causes problems in picking up the meaning. Perhaps something like this:

There are three that accompany you through life:
One is loyal; two are malign.

The first is friends; the second posessions ;
The third, the loyal one, is your good deeds.

A couple of changes of word there: 'tangible possessions' is a rather formal accounting-like expression. You could keep companion now it is not being used in the first two lines, but friends are closer than companions, so their later departure makes the point a bit more strongly.
Better to use second rather than 'other'. Other is used in this way only if the total number is two.

Your property won't be your company out of a palace
the companion will be with you, but to the grave

When the last day of life comes unto you
Your companion's mannerism would tell you
I won't be with you any further
temporarily l stand by your grave and linger

The second line here seems ambiguous to me. I'm not sure if it is a final comment on you losing property when you die, (going back to your original use of companion to mean the three things accompanying you through life) or whether you are using companion now to mean 'friend' and it is the start of saying that you only keep friends until you die.

'companion's mannerisms' is a bit strange sounding to me. I'd have said something like 'Your friend's face will tell you he won't be with you any further'

Your deed is loyal to you, take it as shelter
It gets with you to the bottom of death chamber

Hence the prophetic saying that for this reason
There is no friend more loyal to you than action
If good, it will be in your company forever
and if bad, it will trouble you in sepulcher

In this last section I think 'deed' and 'action' should both be in the plural in English (with, obviously changes to the verb forms to match), even if these words are singular in the original. It is a more usual and understandable way of using the words. I think also 'actions' needs a 'your' in front of it: this makes it more obvious that you are using 'action' as an alternative word for 'deed' for the poetic effect.

'take it as shelter' I am afraid didn't mean anything to me (not quite gibberish but..). I sort of see what I think you want to say but am not quite sure: difficult to know without understanding the original.

'It gets you to the bottom of death chamber'. Either 'the death chamber' or 'Death's Chamber', but I would reuse 'grave' with the English idiom 'beyond the grave' meaning 'until after death' . I think by "It gets you to"' you mean "It stays with you". So, "It stays with you beyond the grave".

'Sepulchre' I thought was OK and was a bit surprised that this was picked out. 'Tomb' might be better if you don't want to repeat 'grave' that you have used earlier. It is a more common word than sepulchre.

Thanks for the comments.
I wanted to keep the rhythm somehow. I looked at the synonyms here and picked one that could rhyme with the previous line (even with a change of order/words to the previous line).
Yes, I used 'companion' once in the sense of one who travels with you (sense 2 according to Wordnet here and once according to sense 1 (Ibid.)
Like my grandma was the companion of my grandpa, I guess, but I don't think we can say there were friends.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

I appreciate your comments room

[Michael Flatt]

But that has no rhythm, sir.

This link is to a website featuring the translation included above, although the post's author may have accessed a different source:
http://haqislam.org/three-companions/

The website contains much related literature which may be of interest and includes a copyright notice.

[John McKenna]

But that has no rhythm, sir.

This link is to a website featuring the translation included above, although the post's author may have accessed a different source:
http://haqislam.org/three-companions/
SNIP (see above)

As I said, it is less poetic - far less in fact - but the meaning is more clear - far more in fact.

I was simply trying to make something wrongly described as "gibberish" (note that complete gibberish is worse and complete and utter gibberish a worst case) less unintelligible by supplying an unattributed translation I found - on a personal blog - that came without conditions.

When I attempt to use the supplied link immediately above my browser drops out...

Now the drowser is dropping off, bye.

[MartinCarpenter]

Don't actually think sepulcher and forever do rhyme? Silly language

The bit I wasn't sure of is if you ever say in sepulcher rather than in your (the?) sepulcher or whatever. Might be a known usage though.

[Michael Flatt]

There are many specialist websites relating to Writing and Poetry which are easily discoverable using a simple Google search.

For instance:
1. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetry
2. Poetry Society, http://poetrysociety.org.uk/membership/ ... Gwodmg0DBQ
3. Poetry Forum, http://www.poems-and-quotes.com/discussion/
4. Rumi, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumi
5. Ghazal, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazal

Ghazal

The ghazal (also ghazel, gazel, gazal, or gozol) is a form of poetry common in Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Azerbaijani, Urdu and Bengali poetry. In classic form, the ghazal has from five to fifteen rhyming couplets that share a refrain at the end of the second line. This refrain may be of one or several syllables, and is preceded by a rhyme. Each line has an identical meter. The ghazal often reflects on a theme of unattainable love or divinity

[John Upham]

Soheil,

May I recommend you study the works of Stanley Unwin as a model Anglo-Saxon speaker:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY-PEeX5xYY

Enjoy!

[Michael Farthing]

Don't actually think sepulcher and forever do rhyme? Silly language

Indeed I thought the same. I think it's basically that words ending in this 'schwa' sound as I believe it is called, are both so common and indistinct that English poetry treats it as non-rhyming and would require a longer pattern such 'forever' and 'endeavour' which at first sight look to be less rhyming! [A also agree that sepulchre needs at least a 'the' or 'your' ].

[soheil_hooshdaran]

Good that I didn't reprove him in reply before asking.

[Mike Truran]

There was a young man from Iran
Whose poems just never would scan.
When asked why this was,
He replied, "It's because
I always try to fit as many words as I possibly can into the very last line".