Poetry!!!

[William the White]

So literal, the bish... Why do you ask me when I've answered above...

the road not taken...

the words not communicated...

the world shrunk to hand-size, mouth-size and never seeming small...

the particular universe residing, in infinite variety, between toe nail and far away speck of dandruff that Puskas confuses with metabolism, and what does God have to do with that?

I don't deny our corporeality - but i think we belong to the poet as much as the doctor...

because i don't really think you have answered - you have obfuscated. I am quite literal in many ways, you're right - I have a science degree. I think you are raising a false dichotomy between the scope of science and the scope of art - one which is often posited by artists...

a poet works within precisely the same dimensions as a physicist...

In a trivial sense, certainly, though it seems close to banal to make the point. But would you like to investigate the differences? Launch the discussion...

[Puskas]

the particular universe residing, in infinite variety, between toe nail and far away speck of dandruff that Puskas confuses with metabolism, and what does God have to do with that?

I don't deny our corporeality - but i think we belong to the poet as much as the doctor...

What am I confusing with metabolism? Can you tell me what else there is...? Beyond thoughts, feelings and so on, which are a by-product of it.

I don't deny the role of the poet - I would say that he's speaking of the same thing as the doctor. The doctor would, obviously, do so with more precision. The poet would strive for beauty over that (although I'd also maintain that precision can be beautiful in its own way).

Why do we need to try to draw up these misleading barriers?

Tell us your favourite poem, then I'll believe you...

I don't know what it's called, but it starts "There was a young man from Nantucket..."

[William the White]

the particular universe residing, in infinite variety, between toe nail and far away speck of dandruff that Puskas confuses with metabolism, and what does God have to do with that?

I don't deny our corporeality - but i think we belong to the poet as much as the doctor...

What am I confusing with metabolism? Can you tell me what else there is...? Beyond thoughts, feelings and so on, which are a by-product of it.

I don't deny the role of the poet - I would say that he's speaking of the same thing as the doctor. The doctor would, obviously, do so with more precision. The poet would strive for beauty over that (although I'd also maintain that precision can be beautiful in its own way).

Why do we need to try to draw up these misleading barriers?

Tell us your favourite poem, then I'll believe you...

I don't know what it's called, but it starts "There was a young man from Nantucket..."

I sense a misleading barrier being erected...

[thebish]

So literal, the bish... Why do you ask me when I've answered above...

the road not taken...

the words not communicated...

the world shrunk to hand-size, mouth-size and never seeming small...

the particular universe residing, in infinite variety, between toe nail and far away speck of dandruff that Puskas confuses with metabolism, and what does God have to do with that?

I don't deny our corporeality - but i think we belong to the poet as much as the doctor...

because i don't really think you have answered - you have obfuscated. I am quite literal in many ways, you're right - I have a science degree. I think you are raising a false dichotomy between the scope of science and the scope of art - one which is often posited by artists...

a poet works within precisely the same dimensions as a physicist...

In a trivial sense, certainly, though it seems close to banal to make the point. But would you like to investigate the differences? Launch the discussion...

I'm not sure it's trivial at all. Maybe you and I have a different definition of "Universe" and what it contains - I think it contains everything poets need, they do not need to go beyond it - and I am still not sure what it is "beyond the universe" that you claim poets are making use of, and in that sense - they have exactly the same scope as a scientist.

(plus - I also need to show that it isn't only Tango I argue with )

[William the White]

I'm not sure it's trivial at all. Maybe you and I have a different definition of "Universe" and what it contains - I think it contains everything poets need, they do not need to go beyond it - and I am still not sure what it is "beyond the universe" that you claim poets are making use of, and in that sense - they have exactly the same scope as a scientist.

(plus - I also need to show that it isn't only Tango I argue with )

Let me make the concession that the universe contains poets and physicists and also contains the subjects of study for both, though the profundity you think exists in that insight does escape me...

Are you now content?

And is that all you want to say on the subject?

[TANGODANCER]

My entire admiration - near worship - for Garcia Marquez comes from his work in translation. My Spanish is far too poor for me to read him other than in translation. But the translator's work has, thankfully, allowed me access to a writer who is, in my view, the greatest of the 20th century, and the single greatest novel - one hundred years of solitude.

I'll join you by adding Lorca, Pablo Neruda, Catulus and a few hundred others in that. What would we he done without them.
Even reading your namesake in the original version may have seemed a little "foreign".

[Prufrock]

UUUUUURRRRGGGGGHHHHHH Translation theory? Really? I thought I'd escaped from that forever. I hate you all. That is all.

Seriously, Pru, give us the benefit of your academic insight - I'd be really interested...

And when are you going to see 'Feet'? I'm there tonight doing a pre-show in conversation with David Thacker and co-writer...

The plan was to go tonight, but I think that looks doubtful at the moment, either next Tuesday or Wednesday hopefully.

As for translation theory, well, it's been two years since we did it, as part of th ecompulsory Classics and Literary Theory module, or Clit theory as we hillariously called it. The reason I hated it was because we studied it through Terence, who 'translated' greek comedy into Roman, however he made large changes to make them relevant to a Roman audience, which is a shame, because Greek Comedy is largely good, whereas the Romans had no discernable sense of humour.

Translation itself; well, you can certainly argue the case that everybody is a translator, both in everyday life, and particularly regarding art. The act of reading is a translation. There is a grey area of where translation stops and (there is a technical word for this, but I can't remember it) 're-imagining' starts. The idea of translation is to transfer the entirety of the work from its source language, into another. We all know however, often a literal translation, especially in poetry, will not suffice, and the translator has to balance literal translation, with getting across the ideas of the original artist. Importantly it is not just about the words. The translator must be aware of many other factors, the social context and also poetic metre. Somebody writing a poetic translation of Virgil for instance, would be well advised to avoid the original hexamter rhythm as it sounds odd in English. Many argue, that the best, and only real way of gettin a good translation is translation into one's own mother tongue, as the knowledge and understanding of idiom needed would not be possible otherwise.

The grey area I mentioned before is always an interesting one. Translations don't have to be from one language to another, modernisations can be argued to be translations. Romeo and Juliet, the Leo Di Cappiucino one falls, in my view, just on the side of translation (I imagine TD may well disagree ), West Side Story, on the other side.

Essentially the idea behind the 'art' of translation is to convey the meaning of the original author as closely as possible, however a perfect translation is never possible, some would argue even the author himself could not perfectly translate his own work. The copy of 'Brave New World' I mentioned the other day has an interestin preface. The cynic might say that, in saying he had not changed the text at all, Huxley was just being lazy and wanted some free cash, though his reasoning that "Its defects as a work of art are considerable; but in order to correct them I should have to rewrite the book - and in the process of rewriting, as an older, other person, I should probably get rid not only of some of the faults of the story, but also of such merits as it originally possessed.". Even his own 'translation' would no tbe perfectly true.

Bish's question to TD is interesting. Should TD be grateful to Fitzgerald, or Khayyam? If it is a translation well done, then both. The better Fitzgerald has done, the more closely what it says to TD is what Khayyam intended it to say to his audience.

My own view is a good translation must focus not only on the the words, but on all areas of language, and it must try translate the meaning as closely and as relevantly as possible. If a literal translation is possible, then great, but it should not be sought at the expense of the greater sense.

Well that was a waste of bastard time.

I'm with WtW anyways, brilliant bit of outnumbered where Hugh Denis says everything consists of atoms, and the kid asks what about shadows, or dreams? Now no doubt you can explain them scinetifically, but talk of electrical impulses and influnece of the subconscious doesn't quite catch it for me.

[Puskas]

I'm with WtW anyways, brilliant bit of outnumbered where Hugh Denis says everything consists of atoms, and the kid asks what about shadows, or dreams? Now no doubt you can explain them scinetifically, but talk of electrical impulses and influnece of the subconscious doesn't quite catch it for me.

So you're not interested in how things work, or why they are as they are?

Isn't that limiting to poetry? You may as well write out a list...

[thebish]

I'm not sure it's trivial at all. Maybe you and I have a different definition of "Universe" and what it contains - I think it contains everything poets need, they do not need to go beyond it - and I am still not sure what it is "beyond the universe" that you claim poets are making use of, and in that sense - they have exactly the same scope as a scientist.

(plus - I also need to show that it isn't only Tango I argue with )

Let me make the concession that the universe contains poets and physicists and also contains the subjects of study for both, though the profundity you think exists in that insight does escape me...

Are you now content?

And is that all you want to say on the subject?

I think we're missing at an odd tangent.

I was surprised by your notion of a poet reaching beyond the Universe - when everything I see you describing poetry as being about is actually in the Universe and part of the Universe. (human emotion is part of the universe - I'm struggling to imagine what isn't.)

this followed from your idea that poetry is "eternal" and science isn't - whatever that means.

I happen to think that both poetry and science are ways of making sense of the universe in all its glorious complexity. They are not the same - but each has the same glorious infinite scope as the other - you seemed to be presenting science as "shackled" and poetry as "free".

I wasn't claiming any great profundity for this observation (as you seem to suggest) - not everything I type on here claims great profundity, and I was never not content!

[Prufrock]

I am merely asking whether in saying you like Khayyam's poetry - what you should ACTUALLY be saying is that you like Fitzgerald's poetry.... Khayyam's poetry is not accessible to you - you are not reading his work - you are reading Fitzgerald's work.

it is not a criticism either way - just a question about who should get the tribute you give to it....

Whichever way you want to see it, I like Omar Khayyam. Nothing will change that. Fitzgerald was but a messenger of his words. All in my opinion, of course.

(sigh) nobody is trying to get you to dislike Omar Khayyam - I really don't know where you would pluck that one from.

my point is simple - and not controversial - and contains NO judgement whatsoever of Khayyam's poetry - I am not talking about liking or not liking.

here it is again..

poetry is 100% language - its nuances, its hidden meanings/double meanings/associations through the culture and traditions and histories of that language.

words can be translated - aprroximately - but the 99% of meaning/association and steeped-in culture that inhabit the words of any one particular language CANNOT be carried over to another with mere translation.

to get anywhere near (and still not there in my opinion) you have to MORE THAN translate - you have to attempt the whole project again - and at best you get a paraphrase - an interpretation

the new thing that you get is inspired by the original - but it is NOT the original - it cannot be

hence - in some ways it is a new work with a new poet.

(to even begin to translate poetry you have to be a poet yourself - I believe - you cannot simply be a translator.)

Hmmm I'm not sure I can agree with this. You seem to be arguing that if you read through Fitzgerald, you are not reading Khayyam, because his reading of it changes it. But in that sense it is impossible to read Khayyam, because you change it when you read it yourself. A translator should be thought of as similar to a pair of glasses. The better the translator, the clearer the image, but even if the translator is poor, and the pair of glasses blury, you are still looking at the image, not the pair of glasses. When we tell stories we change details, we might change the order, even change the facts of the tale, however, let's assume my friend 'General'* tells me a story about how he met a famous celebrity in London. Now I tell you that story. Some details will change, I might tell it in a different order, but the story is still General's, the idea is still General's. Reading through a translator has to make you more removed, and in that sense I think it is always even at best slightly less insightul than reading in the original, but I still think you can argue you are reading Khayyam, or Virgil, or whomever.

*All names and events are fictional, and any similarities to real life characters or events is purely coincidental, and Prufrock accepts no liability for any distress or damage called

[William the White]

Much better for all our cultures that he did it rather than not... Cos, really, it's good... And more enduring in many of its insights than Khayyam's maths and astronomy...

which I sorta like... the poet lives eternally... the scientist is transient...

Meh. Science which turns out to be incorrect is of course transient. Science which is true lasts - see, for example, Newton, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, etc....

Bad poetry, fortunately, is also transient.

Although I am reminded of the joke about the difference between a mathematician and a philosopher.
The mathematician needs a pen, paper and bin to do his work. The philosopher only needs a pen and paper.

It's just that the scientist's sphere is so limited - to the universe.

Whereas the poet's is unlimited - to the flesh, bone and spirit...

The bish... See that yellow blobby thing at the end of this post? what do you think that might indicate?

And the highlighted bit further up, which I now invite you to read as a reference to the poet/scientist Omar Khayyam and to consider which of his works is most enduring...

[thebish]

I am merely asking whether in saying you like Khayyam's poetry - what you should ACTUALLY be saying is that you like Fitzgerald's poetry.... Khayyam's poetry is not accessible to you - you are not reading his work - you are reading Fitzgerald's work.

it is not a criticism either way - just a question about who should get the tribute you give to it....

Whichever way you want to see it, I like Omar Khayyam. Nothing will change that. Fitzgerald was but a messenger of his words. All in my opinion, of course.

(sigh) nobody is trying to get you to dislike Omar Khayyam - I really don't know where you would pluck that one from.

my point is simple - and not controversial - and contains NO judgement whatsoever of Khayyam's poetry - I am not talking about liking or not liking.

here it is again..

poetry is 100% language - its nuances, its hidden meanings/double meanings/associations through the culture and traditions and histories of that language.

words can be translated - aprroximately - but the 99% of meaning/association and steeped-in culture that inhabit the words of any one particular language CANNOT be carried over to another with mere translation.

to get anywhere near (and still not there in my opinion) you have to MORE THAN translate - you have to attempt the whole project again - and at best you get a paraphrase - an interpretation

the new thing that you get is inspired by the original - but it is NOT the original - it cannot be

hence - in some ways it is a new work with a new poet.

(to even begin to translate poetry you have to be a poet yourself - I believe - you cannot simply be a translator.)

Hmmm I'm not sure I can agree with this. You seem to be arguing that if you read through Fitzgerald, you are not reading Khayyam, because his reading of it changes it. But in that sense it is impossible to read Khayyam, because you change it when you read it yourself. A translator should be thought of as similar to a pair of glasses. The better the translator, the clearer the image, but even if the translator is poor, and the pair of glasses blury, you are still looking at the image, not the pair of glasses. When we tell stories we change details, we might change the order, even change the facts of the tale, however, let's assume my friend 'General'* tells me a story about how he met a famous celebrity in London. Now I tell you that story. Some details will change, I might tell it in a different order, but the story is still General's, the idea is still General's. Reading through a translator has to make you more removed, and in that sense I think it is always even at best slightly less insightul than reading in the original, but I still think you can argue you are reading Khayyam, or Virgil, or whomever.

*All names and events are fictional, and any similarities to real life characters or events is purely coincidental, and Prufrock accepts no liability for any distress or damage called

I like your glasses metaphor... and of course I am not suggesting there is NONE of Khayyam in Fitzgerald's translation - far from it. What I am asking is how much what Fitzgerald has done is "mere" translation - and how much more is actually a whole "new" poetic project, but with the ideas contained already defined by Khayyam.

Khayyam chose his words wisely (I have to assume - as Iranians hail him as a great poet). those words have a history and a context and cultural associations and also he must have juxtaposed words and contrasted words because the words interact with one another in a particular way in hi language that they simply don't in English.

so - in order to recapture that - Fitzgerald has to reach for the same kinds of associations and juxtopositions and idioms and nuances - and that is not the work of a mere translator - it is the work of a poet.

my question was - how much of what Fitzgerald has done should actually be regarded as a new work of poetry - because the project (in order to capture the whole of what Khayyam offers) is a lot more than mere translation and making it rhyme...

the question would be the same for any translated work of poetry.

[thebish]

Much better for all our cultures that he did it rather than not... Cos, really, it's good... And more enduring in many of its insights than Khayyam's maths and astronomy...

which I sorta like... the poet lives eternally... the scientist is transient...

Meh. Science which turns out to be incorrect is of course transient. Science which is true lasts - see, for example, Newton, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, etc....

Bad poetry, fortunately, is also transient.

Although I am reminded of the joke about the difference between a mathematician and a philosopher.
The mathematician needs a pen, paper and bin to do his work. The philosopher only needs a pen and paper.

It's just that the scientist's sphere is so limited - to the universe.

Whereas the poet's is unlimited - to the flesh, bone and spirit...

The bish... See that yellow blobby thing at the end of this post? what do you think that might indicate?

And the highlighted bit further up, which I now invite you to read as a reference to the poet/scientist Omar Khayyam and to consider which of his works is most enduring...

So, does the wink mean that you didn't actually mean what you said?

I knew he was a mathematician before I knew he was a poet - maybe that's because I did a maths degree - but none of his maths rhymed! (I can't recall any of his poetry - despite Tango quoting it - but I can recall some of his maths... so, I'd say his science is most enduring.)

[Prufrock]

I'm with WtW anyways, brilliant bit of outnumbered where Hugh Denis says everything consists of atoms, and the kid asks what about shadows, or dreams? Now no doubt you can explain them scinetifically, but talk of electrical impulses and influnece of the subconscious doesn't quite catch it for me.

So you're not interested in how things work, or why they are as they are?

Isn't that limiting to poetry? You may as well write out a list...

I do find those things interesting, but I do think science and poetry can look at the same things and come up with different answers. Equally at times they can overlap. My argument isn't one is better than the other, but that they are two different ways of looking at the same things. Both are about observation.

[William the White]

[

So, does the wink mean that you didn't actually mean what you said?

I was just, you know, being a bit playful...

[thebish]

[

So, does the wink mean that you didn't actually mean what you said?

I was just, you know, being a bit playful...

ooh - you scamp!

(in which case - sorry for pouncing)

[Prufrock]

I like your glasses metaphor... and of course I am not suggesting there is NONE of Khayyam in Fitzgerald's translation - far from it. What I am asking is how much what Fitzgerald has done is "mere" translation - and how much more is actually a whole "new" poetic project, but with the ideas contained already defined by Khayyam.

Khayyam chose his words wisely (I have to assume - as Iranians hail him as a great poet). those words have a history and a context and cultural associations and also he must have juxtaposed words and contrasted words because the words interact with one another in a particular way in hi language that they simply don't in English.

so - in order to recapture that - Fitzgerald has to reach for the same kinds of associations and juxtopositions and idioms and nuances - and that is not the work of a mere translator - it is the work of a poet.

my question was - how much of what Fitzgerald has done should actually be regarded as a new work of poetry - because the project (in order to capture the whole of what Khayyam offers) is a lot more than mere translation and making it rhyme...

the question would be the same for any translated work of poetry.

Hmm it is interesting. I haven't read Fitzgerald's translation so I am making very general points here. Some would argue, when it comes to translations of poetry, that a true translation must be poetic as well, and the skill of the translator is in translating not just the words, but the ideas. In order to do that, you cannot just change the words and make it rhyme. I think you do translation a disservice, by saying 'mere translation and making it rhyme'. There is a difference between translation, and what they now (or did when I was at school) call 'transfer of meaning'. Anyone with a vague grasp of language can do that. I think you are close to bang on when you say it is the work of a poet, Krasicki, some polish guy Wikipedia goes on about said, "Translation... is in fact an art both estimable and very difficult, and therefore is not the labor and portion of common minds; [it] should be [practiced] by those who are themselves capable of being actors, when they see greater use in translating the works of others than in their own works, and hold higher than their own glory the service that they render to their country". It is an art itself, translation, and as such can never be perfect. You are right to say reading Fitzgerald is not the same as reading Khayyam first hand, but I still think what you read is far more Khayyam than it is Fitzgerald. " There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."

[thebish]

I like your glasses metaphor... and of course I am not suggesting there is NONE of Khayyam in Fitzgerald's translation - far from it. What I am asking is how much what Fitzgerald has done is "mere" translation - and how much more is actually a whole "new" poetic project, but with the ideas contained already defined by Khayyam.

Khayyam chose his words wisely (I have to assume - as Iranians hail him as a great poet). those words have a history and a context and cultural associations and also he must have juxtaposed words and contrasted words because the words interact with one another in a particular way in hi language that they simply don't in English.

so - in order to recapture that - Fitzgerald has to reach for the same kinds of associations and juxtopositions and idioms and nuances - and that is not the work of a mere translator - it is the work of a poet.

my question was - how much of what Fitzgerald has done should actually be regarded as a new work of poetry - because the project (in order to capture the whole of what Khayyam offers) is a lot more than mere translation and making it rhyme...

the question would be the same for any translated work of poetry.

Hmm it is interesting. I haven't read Fitzgerald's translation so I am making very general points here. Some would argue, when it comes to translations of poetry, that a true translation must be poetic as well, and the skill of the translator is in translating not just the words, but the ideas. In order to do that, you cannot just change the words and make it rhyme. I think you do translation a disservice, by saying 'mere translation and making it rhyme'. There is a difference between translation, and what they now (or did when I was at school) call 'transfer of meaning'. Anyone with a vague grasp of language can do that. I think you are close to bang on when you say it is the work of a poet, Krasicki, some polish guy Wikipedia goes on about said, "Translation... is in fact an art both estimable and very difficult, and therefore is not the labor and portion of common minds; [it] should be [practiced] by those who are themselves capable of being actors, when they see greater use in translating the works of others than in their own works, and hold higher than their own glory the service that they render to their country". It is an art itself, translation, and as such can never be perfect. You are right to say reading Fitzgerald is not the same as reading Khayyam first hand, but I still think what you read is far more Khayyam than it is Fitzgerald. " There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."

I can't really disagree with any of that. In appreciating a work of poetry ina foreign language - short of becoming more than fluent (surely deepest riches of language expressed in poetry take way more than a passing knowledge of a language?) then we are at the mercy of the meaning-transferers in reliably communicating to us the breadth and depth of another's work.... If they do a good job - then it is only because they are good poets themselves - and in order to do a good job is it needful that they are close in poetic stature to the original author?

in other words - is it possible for a poor poet (who may be a fine translator) to communicate the mind of a great poet in an entirely different language?

[Prufrock]

I like your glasses metaphor... and of course I am not suggesting there is NONE of Khayyam in Fitzgerald's translation - far from it. What I am asking is how much what Fitzgerald has done is "mere" translation - and how much more is actually a whole "new" poetic project, but with the ideas contained already defined by Khayyam.

Khayyam chose his words wisely (I have to assume - as Iranians hail him as a great poet). those words have a history and a context and cultural associations and also he must have juxtaposed words and contrasted words because the words interact with one another in a particular way in hi language that they simply don't in English.

so - in order to recapture that - Fitzgerald has to reach for the same kinds of associations and juxtopositions and idioms and nuances - and that is not the work of a mere translator - it is the work of a poet.

my question was - how much of what Fitzgerald has done should actually be regarded as a new work of poetry - because the project (in order to capture the whole of what Khayyam offers) is a lot more than mere translation and making it rhyme...

the question would be the same for any translated work of poetry.

Hmm it is interesting. I haven't read Fitzgerald's translation so I am making very general points here. Some would argue, when it comes to translations of poetry, that a true translation must be poetic as well, and the skill of the translator is in translating not just the words, but the ideas. In order to do that, you cannot just change the words and make it rhyme. I think you do translation a disservice, by saying 'mere translation and making it rhyme'. There is a difference between translation, and what they now (or did when I was at school) call 'transfer of meaning'. Anyone with a vague grasp of language can do that. I think you are close to bang on when you say it is the work of a poet, Krasicki, some polish guy Wikipedia goes on about said, "Translation... is in fact an art both estimable and very difficult, and therefore is not the labor and portion of common minds; [it] should be [practiced] by those who are themselves capable of being actors, when they see greater use in translating the works of others than in their own works, and hold higher than their own glory the service that they render to their country". It is an art itself, translation, and as such can never be perfect. You are right to say reading Fitzgerald is not the same as reading Khayyam first hand, but I still think what you read is far more Khayyam than it is Fitzgerald. " There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."

I can't really disagree with any of that. In appreciating a work of poetry ina foreign language - short of becoming more than fluent (surely deepest riches of language expressed in poetry take way more than a passing knowledge of a language?) then we are at the mercy of the meaning-transferers in reliably communicating to us the breadth and depth of another's work.... If they do a good job - then it is only because they are good poets themselves - and in order to do a good job is it needful that they are close in poetic stature to the original author?

in other words - is it possible for a poor poet (who may be a fine translator) to communicate the mind of a great poet in an entirely different language?

I'm not sure they have to be great poets themselves, but they have to understand something of poetry, they have to love poetry, and in particular I think, they have to love and understand the work they are translating. I'm told one of the finest translations of Homer was by Alexander Pope. I've only read bits of it, because it is useless for what I do on my course, which is called translation, but is probably much closer to the 'transfer of meaning' I mentioned before. When we translate, we are doing so to prove we understand the language, and as such, must try to keep it as literal as possible. In doing so, I think we lose something.

[thebish]

When we translate, we are doing so to prove we understand the language, and as such, must try to keep it as literal as possible. In doing so, I think we lose something.

I remember quite recently having this discussion with my daughter's french teacher. She was translating something which contained the mild expletive "sacré coeur!" which she translated "sacred heart!"

I suggested to her that in English you would never say that - and suggested she translated it as "Flipping Norah!"

The french teacher maintained that "Sacred heart!" was the answer that would get her better marks....