I've been listening to much 18-19th century British and Russian
literature (the latter in translation of course) in audiobook format
lately and was inspired by it to produce this retelling of what I
remember as originally being a Central Asian or Anatolian Turkish
folktale. I'd appreciate any comments, especially as to punctuation as
I'm out of practice with punctuating dialog.

TIA

<begin>

A fair reward

A middlingly prosperous peasant farmer and his wife dwelling in a
pleasant land decided they should go to the nearby market town the
next day as there were many things they were in need of. Early in the
morning they harnessed up their donkey, secured its pannier over its
back, tenderly hugged and kissed their children admonishing them to
behave in their absence, and set out, he walking on one side and she
on the other.

Soon they came upon a man astride a horse by the roadside who, from
his garb and portliness, they assumed must be a merchant. As they drew
nearer, the stranger spoke out to them saying "Look here. Do you feed
that donkey for its good looks? It's wasteful to keep livestock that
you don't work. Why are you walking when its saddle is empty?" The
husband and wife looked at each other. "Good husband" said the woman,
"you ride, for your legs are not so strong as mine" and I shall amble
along beside you." Nodding in assent, the peasant mounted the saddle
and, though he was much discomforted by the awkwardness of his
position and by the chafing of the fittings, he said nothing of it.
"Thank you for your advice, good sir" said he. "If you are headed for
yonder market town, do accompany us thither and we shall pass the time
in congenial conversation. That way shall we all be fairly rewarded."
Thinking the latter remark was an inept thing to say, the merchant
attributed it to some peasantish figure of speech and said only "I
shall do that" and fell in with the party.

After a while they came upon a second horseman by the roadside who,
from his dress and severe and dour demeanour, they supposed to be a
lawyer. As they drew nearer, the stranger spoke out to them saying
"Look here. It is unjust that one of you should ride and the other
walk." "My husband's legs are not as strong as mine" said the woman
"and so he is riding and I am walking along side." "Be that as it may"
said the stranger, "then both of you must ride as that is the only
equitable thing to do." Husband and wife looked at each other and the
woman mounted the donkey behind her husband. And though this position
discomforted the both of them, the husband even more so, and though
the donkey staggered ever so slightly under the additional load, they
said nothing of it. "Thank you for your advice, good sir" said the
peasant. "If you are headed for yonder market town, do accompany us
thither and we shall pass the time in congenial conversation. That way
shall we all be fairly rewarded." Thinking the latter remark was an
irrelevant thing to say, the merchant attributed it to some peasantish
inexactitude of speech and said only "I shall do that" and he too fell
in with the party.

Proceeding still closer to the market town, they came upon a third man
seated on a horse by the roadside whose clerical attire clearly
identified him as a clergyman of some sort, though they could not say
as to what. As they drew nearer, the stranger spoke out to them saying
"Look here. It is unrighteous that the two of you should so burden
this poor beast of God's creation with such a load. See how the
creature's legs tremble already and soon you will be filling up those
baskets with weighty goods. Why are you both riding thus?" "I advised
them both to ride" spoke up the lawyer. "For it is unjust that only
one of them should ride and the other has to walk. Though it matters
not to me if neither of them rides." Unable to restrain himself, the
merchant objected "Oh, is that so? It is wasteful if a beast of burden
goes about unburdened. Though it matters not to me which of them
rides." "And so must they both ride?" asked the perplexed clergyman.
"Yes" the other two replied as one. "That is the only frugal thing to
do" said the merchant. "That is the only just thing to do" said the
lawyer. "You talk of frugality and justice" said the clergyman with
some severity in his voice, "yet no one speaks of righteousness or of
the donkey's welfare." These exchanges quickly increased in number and
rancour and became increasingly more heated. The farmer and his wife
silently dismounted from the saddle, both glad to be out of their most
discomfortable positions. "Good sirs" said the peasant as he took the
donkey by its lead, "we have yet a ways to go and the day is moving
on. If you will but give us leave…" But the other three heard them
not: for they had all got off their horses and, advancing menacingly
towards one another, their quarrel soon turned into an altercation,
and then a tussle, and at last a brawl in which sticks were wielded
and stones hurtled through the air.

Leaving the scene behind, the woman looked back briefly then turned
away and set her eyes on the road ahead saying "Well, good husband. I
do believe we have all had a fair reward."

</end>
--
Bob
The people your parents warned you about

Opinicus:

> I've been listening to much 18-19th century British
> and Russian literature (the latter in translation of
> course) in audiobook format lately and was inspired
> by it to produce this retelling of what I remember
> as originally being a Central Asian or Anatolian
> Turkish folktale. I'd appreciate any comments, espe-
> cially as to punctuation as I'm out of practice with
> punctuating dialog.

That's interesting, but my reservoirs of time are dan-
gerously low and who knows what cosmic confusion may
befall if they become exhausted...

> A middlingly prosperous peasant farmer ->

Is there not a single adjective with the sense of
"middlinlgly prosperous"? Well-to-do? Anyway, is
`middlingly' crucial to the story? Is not "peasant
farmer" a tautology, like widow woman? I should re-
move `farmer' and keep `peasant' as the more fairy-
tale-ish word.

> -> and his wife dwelling in a pleasant land decided
> they should go to the nearby market town the next
> day as there were many things they were in need of.

I think removing "next day" will not harm anything. I
am not always certain when it should be "next day" and
when "the next day". How do you decide it?

> Early in the morning they harnessed up their donkey,
> secured its pannier over its back,

Did they neglect to feed it? Did you neglect to put a
comma after `morning'? I seem often to see commas
curbing such phrases from the rest of the sentence.
Were I telling this to a child I should certainly
pause after `morining'. My punctutation is no better
than yours, unlike mine English, which is worse.

> tenderly hugged and kissed their children admonish-
> ing them to behave in their absence,

In order to safe a repetiton of the pronoun, I should
say "while alone" insetead.

> and set out, he walking on one side and she on the
> other.

Of the donkey or of the road?

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 17:28:03 +0300, Anton Shepelev
<anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:

> > A middlingly prosperous peasant farmer ->
>
> Is there not a single adjective with the sense of
> "middlinlgly prosperous"? Well-to-do? Anyway, is
> `middlingly' crucial to the story? Is not "peasant
> farmer" a tautology, like widow woman? I should re-
> move `farmer' and keep `peasant' as the more fairy-
> tale-ish word.
>
> > -> and his wife dwelling in a pleasant land decided
> > they should go to the nearby market town the next
> > day as there were many things they were in need of.
>
> I think removing "next day" will not harm anything. I
> am not always certain when it should be "next day" and
> when "the next day". How do you decide it?
>
> > Early in the morning they harnessed up their donkey,
> > secured its pannier over its back,
>
> Did they neglect to feed it? Did you neglect to put a
> comma after `morning'? I seem often to see commas
> curbing such phrases from the rest of the sentence.
> Were I telling this to a child I should certainly
> pause after `morining'. My punctutation is no better
> than yours, unlike mine English, which is worse.
>
> > tenderly hugged and kissed their children admonish-
> > ing them to behave in their absence,
>
> In order to safe a repetiton of the pronoun, I should
> say "while alone" insetead.
>
> > and set out, he walking on one side and she on the
> > other.
>
> Of the donkey or of the road?

Good catches. All much appreciated. Thanks.

And FWIW I'd say the quality of English from what I've seen of it here
is easily in the 99% percentile.
--
Bob
The people your parents warned you about

Opinicus:

> Soon they came upon a man astride a horse ->

It is the last phrase I should use. Did you deliber-
ately refute `horseman' and `man on horseback'?

> -> by the roadside

What can a man astride a horse be doing by the road-
side? If he were taking a rest, he would be off the
horse and lying on the grass in the coolth of a tree,
the horse tethered nearby. I think it would have been
more natural for this and following horsemen to be go-
ing the same way as the principal travelers, and, be-
gin on horseback, overtake them. Loth to breath their
traildust, the good peasants would surely prefer to go
with the new company than to let them go on ahead.
Futhermore, medieval roads were lonely and dangerous,
and the larger the company the safer! A fairy tale
must be realistic within its universe.

> who, from his garb and portliness, they assumed must
> be a merchant.

Since you seem to affect snatches of archaic speech,
you might inflect `who' as well, for better integrity.

> As they drew nearer, the stranger spoke out to them
> saying "Look here. Do you feed that donkey for its
> good looks?

I think that basic politeness and fairy-tale tradition
both require some kind of greeting, whereas "Look
here" is simultaneously rude and modern. I like
William Morrison's elegant greeting "He gave them the
sele of the day." and old-style enquiry "Whither will
you?"

> It's wasteful to keep livestock that you don't work.

This, too, seems modern, and also too general: the ma-
jority of livestock is not beasts of burden. What
about saying it directly: "wasteful to keep a donkey
and not ride it"? Also, the doney is already "worked"
by carring their marketware. Can you be more exact,
e.g.: "to keep a donkey and not get the most out of
it." I don't like my ideas much, but hope the will
give you an idea for improvement.

> Why are you walking when its saddle is empty?"

Would `while' fit better than `when'?

> The husband and wife looked at each other. "Good
> husband" said the woman, "you ride, for your legs
> are not so strong as mine" and I shall amble along
> beside you."

My experience with `shall' and `will' tell me to use
`will' here. The loving wife is willing to walk for
the sake of her dear old man.

> Nodding in assent, the peasant mounted the saddle ->

"Nodding assent" is equally correct, but sounds better
in this context. Does one mount the saddle or the
beast under it?

> -> and, though he was much discomforted by the awk-
> wardness of his position and by the chafing of the
> fittings, he said nothing of it.

Whence the discomfort? Are they not supposed to be
pro donkey-riders, at their age?

> "Thank you for your advice, good sir" said he.

To a touch of archaism, I should say "I thank you
for..."

> "If you are headed for yonder market town, ->

Can you say `yonder' about something you have not
meantioned earler not can point it at?

> -> do accompany us thither and we shall pass the
> time in congenial conversation.

Again, I should use `will' here. The desire and intent
of the speaker embraces even the plural first-person
pronoun. I am telling it from experience of several
books by different authors.

> That way shall we all be fairly rewarded."

Now this `shall' is right.

> Thinking the latter remark was an inept thing to
> say, the merchant attributed it to some peasantish
> figure of speech and said only "I shall do that" and
> fell in with the party.

`will', for assent. I know this for certain from both
experience and "King's English."

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 01:01:53 +0300, Anton Shepelev
<anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote:

More good catches. Thanks especially about the matter of an itial
greeting. I can add a layer of depth by creating a salutation tailored
according to each of the three horseman.

Note: The mix of modern and archaic is intentional.

Thanks again for your time and effort.
--
Bob
The people your parents warned you about