Interesting article about language

[dan1984]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MJ18Ad02.html

 

Found this article really interesting in and of itself, and the context it put "the East" and the Chinese language in.

[A Mafan]

Please don't take this personally, but I didn't like the article.

 

For the most part, there is no such thing as being unable to translate a word into another language. It may take a sentence instead of a word, or a paragraph, or even a page to describe, but there is always a way to translate a concept.

 

Moreover, when there is no word-for-word direct translation available, it is because of cultural assumptions, or technology, or just that one of the languages lacks a word.

 

For instance, they don't seem to have cranberries in China. My wife had never heard of them before coming to the US. So how do you translate "cranberry"? I just call it the "no-name fruit" in Chinese when I want to tell her we should buy some.

 

Placenames are also tough: do you translate "Springfield" as a sound, or by using the word for "spring" and "field". If so, what about Fairfax? "Fair" + "fax" (facsimile) doesn't make any sense at all. And do you translate "fair" as light-colored, or festival, or even-handed justice?

 

The point is, you always go back to the original concepts, and you use the words you need to give people the sense of what you are talking about.

 

So maybe there is no word for "shengren" in English. I'd argue that there is: "Renaissance Man" is a good one. "Genius" may be another...because how do you describe Leonardo da Vinci, who was awesome in so many fields other than that one word? But since there is no equivalent, "philosopher" works fine. It gives you the right impression you need to understand what Confucius contributed most: a philosophy of how to relate to others in society. A "shengren" absolutely is a type of philosopher. The only time you really need the distinction of exactly what ways a "shengren" differs from Emmanuel Kant is if you already have the capability to understand what a "shengren" is...but most people really don't need to know that.

 

Same with "wenming".

 

Or another example: we translate Chinese nobility titles into English nobility titles of "Earl" and "Duke". Are these historical figures really earls and dukes? Of course not. But it gives the right flavor.

 

Overall, the article just seems unnecessarily pedantic to me. But the same could probably be said of my reaction, so I'll drop the issue.

 

If you got something useful to you out of it, then it was worth you sharing with the rest of us. The world doesn't revolve around me.

 

I think.

[credzba]

The world doesn't revolve around me.

 

Actually, yes it does, or so I've been telling my children all their lives.

The theory of the universe is it is expanding outwords in all directions, thus it must be moving away from you in all directions.

If everything is moving away from you in all directions, then in fact, yes you ARE the center of the universe, but then so am I.

[Randy W]

The world doesn't revolve around me.

 

Actually, yes it does, or so I've been telling my children all their lives.

The theory of the universe is it is expanding outwords in all directions, thus it must be moving away from you in all directions.

If everything is moving away from you in all directions, then in fact, yes you ARE the center of the universe, but then so am I.

 

Cute reply!

[david_dawei]

Overall, the article just seems unnecessarily pedantic to me.

I agree to a point. But when translating one does not always have a sentence or paragraph; if your translating a text your translating words as accurately [in context] as possible. You cannot rewrite a 5000 word text of Laozi's Dao De Jing into 20,000 english words just to suit the idea that one can use a paragraph.

 

The linguist noted in the article, Gu Zhengkun, has translated the Laozi text (which I have a copy) and one can invariably see the challenge even in his work. And 'shengren' in the Laozi will be quite different than for Confucius (who tended to use Junzi)... but there is also 'zhenren' (true man) in the ancient text; and it would probably all differ somewhat from what a modern would say it means; so context is really quite important in the translation; one has to know the thought and meaning of the speaker, not just the word itself. It does get very pedantic very quickly...

[A Mafan]

Overall, the article just seems unnecessarily pedantic to me.

I agree to a point. But when translating one does not always have a sentence or paragraph; if your translating a text your translating words as accurately [in context] as possible. You cannot rewrite a 5000 word text of Laozi's Dao De Jing into 20,000 english words just to suit the idea that one can use a paragraph.

 

The linguist noted in the article, Gu Zhengkun, has translated the Laozi text (which I have a copy) and one can invariably see the challenge even in his work. And 'shengren' in the Laozi will be quite different than for Confucius (who tended to use Junzi)... but there is also 'zhenren' (true man) in the ancient text; and it would probably all differ somewhat from what a modern would say it means; so context is really quite important in the translation; one has to know the thought and meaning of the speaker, not just the word itself. It does get very pedantic very quickly...

Right, and understood.

 

But you have to match the degree of accuracy to the task at hand.

 

99% of the time, "philosopher" is fine, because it puts the right picture into the listener/reader's head. 99.9% of the time, the listener/reader doesn't need anything that precise, they just need to understand what is going on, and delving into the exact difference between "shengren", "zhenren" and "philosopher" will just get things bogged down and may confuse people.

 

That's why I didn't like the article. It would have been effective to me if he had been explaining why translating nouns that attach to concepts that existed only in antiquity and/or in other cultures.

 

Instead, all I got out of the article was someone complaining about how translating is really difficult and not accurate, along with an extreme exaggeration about how using foreign terms may be cultural treason.

 

But maybe it just rubbed me the wrong way. I have encountered these translation problems over and over, and rather than complaining about them, I relish finding the right translation that gets the right understanding to the listener, while glossing over any unnecessary details.

 

For instance, let's say you run across "°ËÒ»" while translating an article. It could be the °ËÒ»´óÂ¥ (81 Building) or °ËÒ»ÖÐѧ (81 elementary school) or something else. Do you translate it as the 1 August Building, the Army Day Building, the Army Birthday Building or the 8/1 Building? Any one of those is literally correct. You ned to choose the one that gives the listener the right feeling.

 

In the US, the US military celebrates both Navy Day and the Navy Birthday (two different things, due to the Navy being decommissioned after the Revolutionary War). Since Navy Day celebrates the US Navy's re-establishment, and since the Communist Army was established on 1 August, and since China doesn't really celebrate 1 August as a "birthday", I think for most purposes, the Army Day Building is the best translation.

 

Do you really need to explain the background to help people get it? No. Is it cultural treason to talk about the Chinese Army Day? Of course not. Is it accurate to call it the 1 August Building? Yes, but...

 

I guess my point is just that if the writer's point was try to help laymen understand the problem of translating, he could have chosen better examples, and explained the problem more aptly. If not, then I don't know what he was getting at.

[knloregon]

"The point is, you always go back to the original concepts, and you use the words you need to give people the sense of what you are talking about.

 

So maybe there is no word for "shengren" in English. I'd argue that there is: "Renaissance Man" is a good one. "Genius" may be another...because how do you describe Leonardo da Vinci, who was awesome in so many fields other than that one word? But since there is no equivalent, "philosopher" works fine."

 

Except, Nathan, that unless the Chinese already knows da Vinci, (and his works) he is still at a total loss in the translation. But the real problem isn't unfamiliar vocabulary (ie: cranberries) ---although it could be---such as the first bite of apple in Genesis -- which wasn't an apple at all.

 

But rather, that language isn't static --- it streams, and misunderstandings can become compounded in clusters. The more difficult the concepts, the more difficult (convoluted and side-tracked) ) the translation. Where it really matters: Statecraft --- broad understanding of both cultures becomes that much more important, and I have gained a healthy respect for those involved, particularly with direct translation ( my brilliant niece, now in England). But even at the end of a translation session of the most advanced students, there is great disagreement among them about the proper nuance and weight that should have been given to the translation between English and Chinese. And that discussion goes on (among professional translators) in the bars NY after every UN session.

[david_dawei]

I am back in North China and took some time to read the article again. I get as the gist of the article that the west is lax in translating 'correctly' to the chinese concept; and instead translates to the closest western equivalent even if not accurate. I think the point has some merit and is unavoidable on some level, although the author seems to want to expand the list of untranslated words to be adopted words: Words like 'Dao' or 'Kung Fu' or 'Feng Shui' are usually left written in their chinese pinyin form for lack of western equivalent. I favor this for some words but would probably be hesitant to expand it so easily.

 

But we're still stuck, IMO, with the importance of context which includes the original author and their time of writing since the word used in classical times may not be the same as modern times. Shengren would be a perfect example since it is never translated as 'philosopher' from classical writings since it has nothing to do with being a philosopher (as we think in the west). It is most often translated as 'Sage' which is more telling and closer but still not the same, IMO.

 

What is telling about the author is this quote:

Finally, the shengren is the ideal personality and highest member in that family-based Chinese value tradition, a sage that has the highest moral standards, called de, who applies the principles of ren, li, yi, zhi and xin (and 10 more), and connects between all the people as if they were, metaphorically speaking, his family.

This is strictly a Confucian view of the word and possibly more modern. In more classical text the 'Shengren' was extolled as one who could lead or guide in proper word-action; It could be said of a great teacher or a ruler (ie: Think Sage-Kings). Confucius more often mentions the 'Jun Zi' (Ideal man) who stood in awe of three things: The ordinances of heaven, great men, and the Sage's [shengren] words.

 

For the Daoist, the 'Shengren' portrayed a different kind of integrated spirit. Zhuangzi said the Shengren is 'complete in spirit'; this spirit was the spirit of Dao. To Daoist, the Junzi was more earth bound; The Shengren was more in the line of Shamanistic ways (connecting Heaven and Earth).

 

In either case, 'word=action' is the operative idea; thought without aligned action is empty (useless) thought; they are not separated in chinese really. In the west, a philosopher has no structure of thought-action requirement; This cannot be properly called 'Shengren' to chinese, IMO. TO the west, this may be acceptable to get the basic idea, but if a classical text, the true meaning is definitely lost.