Fustel de Coulanges in the Nordics

In The Ancient City (La cité antique), published in 1864, Fustel de Coulanges argues that ancient Greek and Roman societies were fundamentally influenced by their religious beliefs, in particular the cult of ancestors and household gods, and that the evolution of these religious practices explains the formation, revolutions and decline of their social and political institutions.

The author first goes back to the most remote sources of Ancient beliefs.

« D’après les plus vieilles croyances des Italiens et des Grecs, ce n’était pas dans un monde étranger à celui-ci que l’âme allait passer sa seconde existence ; elle restait tout près des hommes et continuait à vivre sous la terre. »

A web translator is quick to translate.

According to the oldest beliefs of the Italians and Greeks, it was not in a world alien to this one that the soul would spend its second existence; it remained very close to men and continued to live beneath the earth.

Here again, we shall practice translation into Norwegian Bokmål. Let's do the exercise scrupulously, monopolizing all our capacities to the full, and then resort to machine translation for a few didactic experiments.

Ifølge de eldste troene til italienere og grekere, var det ikke i en fremmed verden at sjelen skulle tilbringe sitt andre liv; den forble svært nær mennesker og fortsatte å leve under jorden.

In the following, we shall look at the incredible learning possibilities offered by an automatic translator, and at how to make the best use of these potentialities. For each sentence, for each group of words, we will evaluate different possible translations.

Ifølge de eldste trosforestillingene til italienerne og grekerne var det ikke i en annen verden enn denne at sjelen tilbrakte sin andre eksistens; den holdt seg svært nær menneskene og levde videre under jorden.

Here we highlight the variations in blue. Further possibilities.

Ifølge italienernes og grekernes eldste oppfatninger var det ikke i en annen verden enn denne at sjelen skulle tilbringe sin andre tilværelse; den forble tett på menneskene og bodde fortsatt under jorden.

Tirelessly, we go back to the original text (English or French), and try again on a blank page to find the Bokmål translation. The web translator proves us right or wrong, we evaluate alternatives, and start again.

In a section on Revolutions, Fustel de Coulanges studies the concomitance and reciprocal influence of the decline in religious beliefs and major social changes.

« Ce qui est certain, c’est que, dès le septième siècle avant notre ère, cette organisation sociale était discutée et attaquée presque partout. […] Les causes qui l’ont fait périr peuvent se réduire à deux. L’une est le changement qui s’est opéré à la longue dans les idées par suite du développement naturel de l’esprit humain, et qui, en effaçant les antiques croyances, a fait crouler en même temps l’édifice social que ces croyances avaient élevé et pouvaient seules soutenir. L’autre est l’existence d’une classe d’hommes qui se trouvait placée en dehors de cette organisation de la cité, qui en souffrait, qui avait intérêt à la détruire et qui lui fît la guerre sans relâche. »

Here's a decent English translation, then we'll try Bokmål and explore other ways of saying the same as we go along.

What is certain is that, from the seventh century BC onward, this social organization was under discussion and attack almost everywhere. [...] The reasons for its decline can be narrowed down to two. One is the gradual shift in ideas over time, resulting from the natural development of the human mind. This shift, by erasing ancient beliefs, also brought down the societal structure that these beliefs had constructed and could alone sustain. The other reason is the existence of a class of individuals who found themselves outside the city's organization, suffered because of it, had an interest in its destruction, and waged relentless war against it.

Det som er sikkert, er at fra og med det sjuende århundret f.Kr. ble denne sosiale organisasjonen diskutert og angrepet nesten overalt.

A nice first alternative.

Hva er sikkert, er at fra det syvende århundret f.Kr. og fremover ble denne sosiale organisasjonen utfordet og bestridt nærmest fra alle kanter.

Hva er sikkert, for Det som er sikkert,, the latter being a closer approximation of the English, What is certain, while the former is in fact the exact transcription of the original French, Ce qui est certain, (That, which is certain*).
fra og [tid] med becomes fra [tid] og fremover. Literally, the former means from and including [time], while the latter directly transcribes from [time] and onwards, or from [time] going forward.
utfordet is close in form to the German herausgefordert, the meaning is challenged. bestridt is a good approximation of was under attack, close to the German bestritten, and a descendant of the Old Norse word stríða (struggle, strive, fight).
fra alle kanter finds its literal English equivalent in from all sides, while overalt seems closer to everywhere.

Årsakene til dens tilbakegang kan begrenses til to. Den ene er det gradvise skiftet i ideer over tid, som følge av den naturlige utviklingen av menneskesinnet. Ved å fjerne eldgamle trosforestillinger førte dette skiftet også til at samfunnsstrukturen som disse forestillingene hadde bygget opp og alene kunne opprettholde, falt.

Copious, the extract provides plenty of room for lexical experimentation. But first, a few useful notions.

In til dens tilbakegang, dens is a non-reflexive possessive pronoun, that is, one that does not refer to (whose possessor is not) the grammatical subject of the sentence. Here, we speak of the decline of denne sosiale organisasjonen, of this social organization, occurring in the previous sentence. As for the reflexive possessive pronoun, it is sin, sitt, sine. Let's compare: - Han ser på hunden sin. (He looks at his [own] dog.) sin refers back to han, the subject of the sentence. - Han ser på hunden dens. (He looks at its dog.) dens refers to a third entity, not han.
ved å fjerne translates by erasing, and we note ved + infinitive for the adverbial participial phrase (by + gerund-participle).

Now, as far as the lexicon is concerned,

kan begrenses is a good transcript of can be narrowed down, but we can also say kan reduseres, or replace the whole of kan begrenses til to with går i hovedsak ut på to ting.
den gradvise endringen i ideer gjennom tidene is an interesting variant of det gradvise skiftet i ideer over tid. Here, the preposition i indicates that the change takes place in the realm of ideas. endringen or skiftet av ideer would have a slightly different, more pragmatic meaning: a change of ideas (from one specific idea to another, in a specific individual or group).
førte til at ... falt paraphrases and departs from the causative form of both the English (this shift brought down) and the original French (le changement a fait crouler), which are rendered more literally as fått til å bryte sammen. (The structure is then ... har dette skiftet også fått samfunnsstrukturen ..., til å bryte sammen). få + direct object + til + infinitive seems the most usual expression of the causative (make/have something/someone do/become something). til å gå til grunne or til å falle then perhaps even more faithfully retranscribes the idea of crouler, that is, "falling while destroying oneself".
eldgamle refers to very ancient times, but not necessarily to (Greek or Roman) antiquity. The French word antique (les antiques croyances) has both connotations, a first meaning I. A.1. referring to a very ancient period, as in

« Notre bourgeoisie actuelle, née en si peu de temps de la Révolution, n'a pas rencontré, en montant, de nobles sur sa tête. Elle a voulu d'autant plus être une classe tout d'abord. Elle s'est fixée en naissant, et, si bien, qu'elle a cru naïvement pouvoir tirer de son sein une aristocratie; autant vaut dire, improviser une antiquité. Cette création s'est trouvée, comme on pouvait prévoir, non antique, mais vieille et caduque. » Michelet, Le Peuple,1846, p. 147

and a second I. A. 2 referring directly to the Greco-Roman legacy which Fustel de Coulanges portrays. The adjective antikk in Bokmål is therefore perhaps better able to capture this semantic density. Furthermore, there are several candidate names for beliefs: trosforestillinger, troer or oppfattinger convey slightly different nuances. Trosforestillinger might rather refer to specific, structured beliefs, usually of a religious or mythological nature. (A good translation would be belief systems or doctrinal beliefs). Troer is more generalized and can refer to various kinds of beliefs or faiths, religious or otherwise. Lastly, oppfattinger generally refers to opinions or perceptions and is not specifically tied to religious or cultural beliefs (opinions or viewpoints). In short, antikke trosforestillinger seems the best bet.

Finally, opprettholde translates well sustain or soutenir. understøtte would probably be the most literal equivalent of the French. The prefix under means sous (below, under), and støtte translates supporter, in the physical sense (a pillar supports a temple) or the metaphorical sense (supporting a friend in need).

Let's go further.

The other reason is the existence of a class of individuals who found themselves outside the city's organization, suffered because of it, had an interest in its destruction, and waged relentless war against it.

The following translation looks pretty good.

Den andre grunnen er tilstedeværelsen av en klasse individer som befant seg utenfor byens organisasjon, led på grunn av den, hadde interesse av dens ødeleggelse og førte en nådeløs krig mot den.

den annen grunnen seems correct too, but annen might be considered more archaic or formal. In Norwegian, neither andre nor annen inherently implies whether or not there are additional reasons beyond the second one. Same thing with second in English, while French distinguishes "le second" (and last) from "le deuxième" (there may be more).
en klasse individer is interesting too. a class of individuals or a class of men precede the description of the set's elements with a preposition, while Norwegian does not. Let's look at further examples,

et knippe nøkler (or et nøkkelknippe) (a bunch or set of keys),

et stort antall dører (a large number of doors),

et utvalg bøker (a selection of books),

en gruppe studenter (a group of students),

et sett regler (a set of rules),

et flokk fugler (a flock of birds).

In the latter cases, a sett med regler and et flokk med fugler would be correct too, and there's undoubtedly a

great deal of idiom in these turns of phrase. After a quantifier, however, the absence of a preposition seems to

prevail, et dusin egg (a dozen eggs, so English too), et par sko (a pair of shoes).

We can be interested in something (which attracts our attention and arouses our curiosity) or have an interest in something (in a more pragmatic and utilitarian sense, an interest in something happening, for example, because it benefits us). We can distinguish between være interessert i naturvitenskap (to be interested in natural science) and å ha interesse for bevaring av naturen (to have an interest in the conservation of nature). The former uses the Norwegian preposition i (or for), the latter av. English doesn't seem to make the distinction, and French distinguishes between un intérêt pour and un intérêt à quelque chose. We are clearly in this second case with hadde interesse av dens ødeleggelse.
Precisely, a quick word about ødeleggelse. Norwegian nouns formed from a verb (called deverbal nouns) are often produced by adding an -else or -(n)ing suffix. Sometimes, to form the noun, the final -e of the verb is simply dropped, or the verb form is retained unchanged. Finally, a number of nouns of Latin origin are produced with the suffix -sjon. These most often derive from a Latin verb in -ere, as with emigrere - emigra-sjon. English equivalents are often in -tion, and other international equivalents of Latin heritage, in French for example, are in -tion too. Here's a random anthology.

å anbefale -> anbefaling (recommendation) å behandle -> behandling (treatment) å bestemme -> bestemmelse (determination) å forstå -> forståelse (understanding) å godkjenne -> godkjenning (approval) å forklare -> forklaring (explanation) å omtale -> omtale (mention) å forhandle -> forhandling (negotiation) å følge -> følge (following) å inngå (ekteskap, en kontrakt) -> inngåelse (conclusion) å tilpasse -> tilpasning (adjustment) å erklære -> erklæring (declaration) å vurdere -> vurdering (evaluation) å tilby -> tilbud (offer) å kvalifisere -> kvalifisering (qualification) å forberede -> forberedelse (preparation) å skape -> skapelse (creation) å bygge -> bygging (construction) å anskaffe -> anskaffelse (acquisition) å produsere -> produksjon (production) å undervise -> undervisning (teaching)

We have indeed produksjon for production, from the Latin producere. Also, at first sight, it seems complicated to design a rule that distinguishes between the -else and -(n)ing cases. Nevertheless, let's take a closer look at forståelse or forberedelse, as compared to anbefaling, godkjenning or forklaring. The first two might seem to emphasize the action in progress, the fact of being in the process of understanding or preparing ; the last four, meanwhile, to rather designate the result of the action, the outcome of the process of recommendation (what is recommended) or approval (what has been decided after reflection or consultation) or explanation (the fruit of reasoning). So, as a first approximation, we might assume that -else nouns focus more on the process, -(n)ing nouns on the result. In fact, things aren't quite so simple, and the production of one suffix or the other seems to depend rather on the history of the word, or more precisely, the process of its lexicalization (from a newly-formed word to its entry in a language's lexicon).

Formation of deverbal nouns seems interesting enough to warrant here further consideration. Let's talk a little about polysemy. In fact, this is what is at issue when we try to assign a systematic meaning of result or process to deverbal nouns in -else or -(n)ing - we're envisaging different meanings for a single word, or rather here for a set of closely related words, all derived from the same verb. In the 1990s, Pustejovsky developed the Generative Lexicon theory [2], which provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the dynamic behavior of word meanings in context. He distinguishes several types of polysemy. In homonymy, the same word, e.g. bat, has different and unrelated meanings, a flying mammal or a piece of sports equipment. On the contrary, in logical polysemy, of which process/result polysemy is an instance, the different meanings of a word are systematically interconnected, overlapping and dependent on each other. According to the Generative Lexicon theory, word meaning is not fixed, but generated in context depending on the other words it interacts with. More precisely, words have a core (set of) sense(s) having great internal structure, which is used to generate a larger set of senses, that are context-dependent. Co-compositionality then refers to the fact that individual words in a phrase or sentence may interact to generate new, context-specific meanings. For example, co-composition occurs when using a preposition alters the meaning of the word it accompanies (a lexical preposition, which carries meaning, as opposed to a strictly grammatical preposition). Still according to the Generative Lexicon theory, words can be characterized according to a number of criteria. Based on their argument structure, the number and types of complements they can or must take. For example, the verb to give takes three arguments: a giver, a receiver and the thing given. Based on their lexical typing, for example, the relation type to describe the relationship (above, below), the functional type to describe specific roles in terms of inputs or outputs, stative types for states or conditions, event types for actions, processes or occurrences, and so on. Based on their event structure, which includes the argument structure, any co-compositionality, and sub-events - those required, for example, by a complex action like "building a house". Importantly, it's not a question of categorizing "categorically", but of considering the categories as presenting a gradience - they are not mutually exclusive, but a word may belong to one more than the other...

But back to our Norwegian endings -else and -(n)ing. We refer to the findings (2007) of linguist Øivin Andersen [3]. Feeding off Pustejovsky and a wealth of scientific literature, the author analyzes nominalization, the gradual lexicalization of a deverbal noun, breaking it down into six stages. Initially, the unlexicalized noun is called an "imperfect noun" (the author also says "more verbal"), as it still contains evidence of the verbal form. In the second stage, a result meaning develops - implying a specific reference, as in a construction (in particular) vs. the construction process. At this stage, "the verb inside the noun is still alive", so that a tension between the two meanings, process or result, sets in. In a third stage, the deverbal noun distances itself from the process or result senses, and develops other "idiosyncratic" meanings. For example, the Norwegian word for sale (January bargains), salg, derives from selge (to sell), but no longer designates either the process or the result of the sale. The meaning is still related, but more distantly. Finally, at the last stage, the noun may have derived so far from the verb that it is no longer considered as its descendant, but as an isolated lexeme. This is lexical differentiation. In stages four and five, the deverbal noun loses certain similarities to the verb from which it derives. First in terms of argument structure, as it may also lose, for instance the ability to take direct objects or be modified by adverbs in the same way the original verb could. Then in terms of aspect, as it may lose the ability to express the range of temporal meanings (ongoing, completed, simple event) that its corresponding verb can convey. Finally, at the last stage, the noun may have derived so far from the verb that it is no longer considered as its descendant, but as an isolated lexeme. This is lexical differentiation. In Norwegian, some verbs give an -ing noun describing the process, followed by an -ning noun, which takes on an "idiosyncratic" meaning. An example is stiging (process of increasing) and stigning (part of the road on a slope). The latter then loses its lexical dependents; if stiging is complemented systematically enough to mean "increase in what", stigning exists in isolation. Along this lexicalization path, the deverbal noun shifts from transparent, regular, predictable, compositional, presenting a full inner structure, to holistic, irregular, of reduced internal structure, unpredictable and idiosyncratic.

This diachronic appreciation, that is, of the evolving language, sets us on our way: while the history of each word is singular, there is no systematic rule for the attribution or meaning of deverbal suffixes.

« Since neither -else nor -ing unambiguously carries process or result meaning, both suffixes are candidates in specific contexts when the need for a specific meaning arises. »

Each word must then be considered individually in its historical drift. For example, if a deverbal noun expressing the process already exists that features one of the suffixes, and a second one expressing the result is being created or required by usage, the latter will take on another "free" suffix (or no suffix at all).

« It is important to point out that -ing and -else do not have process or result meaning in themselves (Vinje 1973:145). The decisive factor seems to be whether the subdomain is occupied by the one or the other suffix in one or both meanings. If one of the types is established in the subdomain, the other type may emerge with the other meaning. »

But statistical trends can be observed. Not only the frequency of tokens (number of occurrences in the corpus), but also that of types (different forms). In Bokmål the most important suffixes are -(n)ing and -else. The former is very productive at both the type and the token levels, and may be added to most verb stems. The second is less productive at the type level, but has a high token frequency.

Then, "Norwegian lacks a productive suffix for the coding of process meaning like the English gerund construction, the Danish -en (so called ‘centaur nominal construction’, cf. Hansen & Heltoft (1994)) or Swedish -ande." A few examples.

Running

I enjoy running in the morning. (English gerund) Jeg nyder løben om morgenen. (Danish centaur nominal construction) Jag njuter av springande på morgonen. (Swedish -ande form) Jeg liker å løpe om morgenen. (Norwegian, no deverbal "process" form)

Swimming

I enjoy swimming in the ocean. (English gerund)

Jeg nyder svømmen i havet. (Danish centaur nominal construction)

Jag njuter av simmande i havet. (Swedish -ande form)

Jeg liker å svømme i havet. (Norwegian, no deverbal "process" form)

The deverbal noun will then be formed in -(n)ing or -else or -sjon, or zero suffix to express the process, then as it evolves and according to the existing lexicon. Not systematism, but the history of words.

Acquaintance with the mechanisms of polysemy and word formation, far from mere scholarly sophistication, seems a tremendous catalyst for practical language learning. Perhaps the ultimate stage of language fluency resides precisely in the ability to sense the cloud of meaning enveloping words and to intuit the right word for capturing a given idea, in accordance with the implicit logic of polysemy - if we may coin the phrase, in the ability to smoothly navigate the "generative lexicon".

But enough with the linguistics gymnastics, we still have to shed light on the Ancient revolutions.

« Il faut étudier pourquoi et comment les hommes se sont éloignés par degrés de cette antique organisation, non pas pour déchoir, mais pour s’avancer, au contraire, vers une forme sociale plus large et meilleure. »

We must study why and how people gradually moved away from this ancient organization, not to decline, but rather to advance toward a broader and superior social form.

Here's a good first option in Bokmål.

Vi må studere hvorfor og hvordan folk gradvis har beveget seg bort fra denne eldgamle organisasjonen, ikke for å forfalle, men tvert imot for å gå mot en bredere og bedre samfunnsform.

A few variations on the theme.

Vi må studere hvorfor og hvordan mennesker gradvis har fjernet seg fra denne antikke organiseringen, ikke for å gå i forfall, men tvert imot for å finne en bredere og bedre sosial form.

Interestingly enough, here we have organiseringen for organisasjonen, and we could endlessly gloss over the respective "degree of verbality", idiosyncrasy and iconicity of the two forms. Let's wager instead that our fluency with Norwegian polysemy and word formation will increase as we continue our pragmatic exercises.

So, revolutions are generated by the drift of ideas, and the insurrection of the discontented. The first revolution, whether in Rome, Athens or Sparta toppled royalty.

« La révolution qui avait renversé la royauté avait modifié la forme extérieure du gouvernement plutôt qu’elle n’avait changé la constitution de la société. Elle n’avait pas été l’œuvre des classes inférieures, qui avaient intérêt à détruire les vieilles institutions, mais de l’aristocratie, qui voulait les maintenir. Elle n’avait donc pas été faite pour changer l’organisation antique de la famille, mais bien pour la conserver. »

Now that's a conservative revolution.

The revolution which had overthrown royalty had modified the external form of government rather than it had changed the constitution of society. It had not been the work of the lower classes, who had an interest in destroying the old institutions, but of the aristocracy, who wanted to maintain them. It was therefore not made to change the ancient organization of the family, but rather to preserve it.

Revolusjonen som hadde styrtet kongedømmet, hadde modifisert den ytre formen for styresett mer enn den hadde endret samfunnets konstitusjon. Den var ikke et verk av de lavere klassene, som hadde interesse av å ødelegge de gamle institusjonene, men av aristokratiet, som ønsket å bevare dem. Den ble derfor ikke innført for å endre den gamle familieorganisasjonen, men for å opprettholde den.

This text is a perfect excuse to recall the pronouns in Bokmål. It in rather than it had changed is translated as den, mer enn den hadde endret. The same applies to subject pronouns in den var ikke et verk and den ble derfor ikke innført and complement in for å opprettholde den. Here, den refers to the masculine revolusjonen. Den is the subject or object pronoun when referring to a masculine or feminine noun, det when referring to a neuter noun. And all three translate into English as it.

Jeg ser hunden. Den er stor. (I see the dog. It is big.) Jeg leser boken. Den er interessant. (I am reading the book. It is interesting.)

Jeg kjøpte et bord. Det er rundt. (I bought a table. It is round.)

The plural object pronoun is dem, as in som ønsket å bevare dem (who wanted to maintain them).

Royalty defeated, aristocracy reigns.

« La même révolution, sous des formes légèrement variées, s’était accomplie à Athènes, à Sparte, à Rome, dans toutes les cités enfin dont l’histoire nous est connue. Partout elle avait été l’œuvre de l’aristocratie, partout elle eut pour effet de supprimer la royauté politique en laissant subsister la royauté religieuse. À partir de cette époque et pendant une période dont la durée fut fort inégale pour les différentes villes, le gouvernement de la cité appartint à l’aristocratie. »

The same revolution, in slightly different forms, had taken place in Athens, Sparta and Rome, and in every city whose history is known to us. Everywhere, it had been the work of the aristocracy, and its effect was to abolish political royalty while leaving religious royalty in place. From that time onwards, and for a period that varied greatly from city to city, the government of the city belonged to the aristocracy.

It's interesting to see how we can translate whose here.

Den samme revolusjonen, i litt forskjellige former, hadde funnet sted i Athen, Sparta og Roma, og i alle byer (som) vi kjenner historien til.

Perhaps the most common solution is with a verbal structure (co-composition, if we are to believe the previous jargon) quite similar to the English in that we know the history of. Another option is to use the relative pronoun der, which means where, but in this context translates well whose.

Den samme revolusjonen, i litt forskjellige former, hadde funnet sted i Athen, Sparta og Roma, og i alle byer der vi kjenner historien.

Finally, in a more formal register, we can use the relative pronoun hvis.

Den samme revolusjonen, i litt forskjellige former, hadde funnet sted i Athen, Sparta og Roma, og i alle byer hvis historie vi kjenner.

Here is a further example.

The Senate, whose members were exclusively patricians, had significant power. Senatet, hvis medlemmer utelukkende var patrisiere, hadde betydelig makt. Senatet, der medlemmene utelukkende var patrisiere, hadde betydelig makt. Senatet, som utelukkende bestod av patrisiere, hadde betydelig makt.

The translation continues.

Overalt hadde det vært aristokratiets verk, og effekten var at det politiske kongedømmet ble avskaffet, mens det religiøse kongedømmet ble beholdt. Fra da av, og i en periode som varierte sterkt fra by til by, tilhørte byens styre aristokratiet.

Note the article-free construction, tilhørte aristokratiet, corresponding to belonged to the aristocracy. Here's another example.

The Senate was composed of members who belonged to patrician families.

Senatet var sammensatt av medlemmer som tilhørte patrisierfamilier.

The second great revolution, after the abolition of royalty and the reign of the aristocracy, was the dismemberment of the gens, the primitive family organization.

« L’aristocratie n’avait opéré une révolution politique que pour empêcher une révolution sociale. Elle avait pris en mains le pouvoir, moins pour le plaisir de dominer que pour défendre contre des attaques ses vieilles institutions, ses antiques principes, son culte domestique, son autorité paternelle, le régime de la gens et enfin le droit privé que la religion primitive avait établi.

Ce grand et général effort de l’aristocratie répondait donc à un danger. Or il paraît qu’en dépit de ses efforts et de sa victoire même, le danger subsista. Les vieilles institutions commençaient à chanceler et de graves changements allaient s’introduire, dans la constitution intime des familles. »

The aristocracy had only carried out a political revolution to prevent a social revolution. She had taken power into her own hands, less for the pleasure of dominating than to defend against attacks her old institutions, her ancient principles, her domestic cult, her paternal authority, the regime of the gens and finally the private law that primitive religion had established. This great and general effort by the aristocracy therefore responded to a danger. But it seems that despite his efforts and his very victory, the danger remained. The old institutions were beginning to falter and serious changes were going to be introduced into the intimate constitution of families.

Note how the less for... than to form can be rendered.

Hun hadde tatt makten i sine egne hender, ikke så mye for å dominere som for å forsvare mot angrep sine gamle institusjoner, sine eldgamle prinsipper, sin huslige kult, sin faderlige autoritet, sitt gens-regime og til slutt den privatretten som den primitive religionen hadde etablert.

An alternative is to use the more literal mindre for... enn for.

... mindre for gleden ved å dominere enn for å forsvare sine gamle institusjoner, ...

A few further examples to practice.

The aristocracy held power, less for personal gain than to maintain the ancient traditions.

Aristokratiet holdt makten, mindre for personlig gevinst enn for å opprettholde de gamle tradisjonene.

Aristokratiet holdt makten, ikke så mye for personlig gevinst som for å opprettholde de gamle tradisjonene.

They preserved the assembly, less for democratic representation than to maintain an illusion of choice. De bevarte forsamlingen, mindre for demokratisk representasjon enn for å opprettholde en illusjon av valg.

De bevarte forsamlingen, ikke så mye for demokratisk representasjon som for å opprettholde en illusjon av valg.

And the second paragraph

Denne store og generelle innsatsen fra aristokratiet var derfor et svar på en fare. Men til tross for anstrengelsene og selve seieren forble faren der. De gamle institusjonene begynte å vakle, og alvorlige endringer var i ferd med å bli innført i familienes intime konstitusjon.

We note the prepositional collocations, fra to translate by in generelle innsatsen fra (general effort by), på in et svar på (an answer to), med in var i ferd med å (were going to), as well as til tross for (despite).

And Fustel de Coulanges goes on.

« Le vieux régime de la gens, fondé par la religion domestique, n’avait pas été détruit le jour où les hommes étaient passés au régime de la cité. On n’avait pas voulu ou on n’avait pas pu y renoncer immédiatement, les chefs tenant à conserver leur autorité, les inférieurs n’ayant pas tout de suite la pensée de s’affranchir. On avait donc concilié le régime de la gens avec celui de la cité. Mais c’étaient, au fond, deux régimes opposés, que l’on ne devait pas espérer d’allier pour toujours et qui devaient un jour ou l’autre se faire la guerre. »

The old regime of the gens, founded by domestic religion, had not been destroyed the day men passed to the regime of the city. There had been an unwillingness or inability to give it up immediately, with leaders keen to retain their authority, and inferiors not immediately thinking of breaking free. The regime of the people had thus been reconciled with that of the city. But in the end, these were two opposing regimes, which could not be expected to be allied forever, and which were bound to go to war with each other sooner or later.

A first translation is faithful to the French form, with the personal pronoun on translated as man and the active voice.

Det gamle gens-regimet, som var tuftet på den hjemlige religionen, hadde ikke blitt ødelagt den dagen menneskene gikk over til byens regime. Man hadde ikke ønsket eller man hadde ikke kunnet gi det opp umiddelbart, lederne ønsket å beholde sin autoritet, de underordnede hadde ikke umiddelbart tanken om å frigjøre seg. Man hadde derfor forent gens-regimet med bystatens. Men i bunn og grunn var det to motstridende regimer, som man ikke burde håpe å kombinere for alltid og som før eller senere måtte gå til krig mot hverandre.

The passive voice is a good alternative.

Det var ikke ønsket eller det var ikke mulig å umiddelbart gi det opp, da lederne ønsket å beholde sin autoritet, og de underordnede ikke umiddelbart tenkte på å frigjøre seg. Derfor hadde gens-regimet blitt forent med bystatens regime. Men i bunn og grunn var disse to regimene motstridende, som det ikke burde håpes å kunne kombinere for alltid, og som før eller senere måtte komme i konflikt med hverandre.

By way of conclusion, how best to practice the kind of translation exercise presented earlier? First, work out a personal Bokmål translation, even if there are gaps, in proportion to knowledge or lack thereof. Then, get a correct version from a web translator. Understand, of course, the correspondences word group by word group, and go back over grammar points if necessary. Evaluate for each word, each turn of phrase, possible alternatives. Then take the English text, a blank page, and strive to recover the translation. Not (entirely) from memory, but rebuilding piece by piece. Proceed sentence by sentence, erase, start again, at the end of a paragraph, repeat the full paragraph. Go out hiking in the forest, and on your return, start again. When the level is high enough that it's not too tedious, this is perhaps the most effective exercise for progress.

Author: Claire Bild

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges, La Cité Antique (The Ancient City), 1864. [2] Pustejovsky, James. 1998. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [3] Andersen, Øivin. (2007). Deverbal nouns, lexicalization and syntactic change. Nordic Journal of Linguistics. 30. 55 - 86. 10.1017/S0332586507001655.