7 ms·

My synopsis: The only way to understand text is to learn the original language. When I compared Arabic text with translated versions for example, although done

by La-ang 7y ago

My synopsis: The only way to understand text is to learn the original language. When I compared Arabic text with translated versions for example, although done by supposedly professionals, I couldn't help but sense awkward misalignments in context. Perhaps the interpretation (understanding) of both reader and writer differ, and so does the translation. The transcending misunderstanding can not be rectified unless a glance is made at the original. I know learning another language just to read a book is indeed way too much, but it is worth it, for you will not be reading one book eventually, and learning a language like Mandarin in this instance is an exciting experience. Examples of books I've read in original language and translation include Political Ideals by B. Russell, 100 years of solitude By G. Marquez, Spirits Rebellious By Khalil Gibran. I am also learning Mandarin, but rest assured, I still need another 5 years to be able to read and write decently.

tasogare 7y ago
> My synopsis: The only way to understand text is to learn the original language. Exactly my approach too, hence why I learn Sumerian for instance. Also note that we are speaking of Chinese philosophy here so the language to learn is Classical Chinese, not Mandarin. Few people would jump into that without at least some knowledge of a modern Chinese language, but it can be done (notably by reading Pulleyblank book).
- La-ang 7y ago
  Yes indeed, although I assume that since Mandarin is more accessible for learners, it can serve as a 101 to classical. Quote: [None of what has been said up to this point is to suggest that studying Chinese language and early thought is only for the classically curious and linguistically intrepid].
  - derefr 7y ago
    I would be curious whether it'd be easier to learn Classical Chinese and then Mandarin, rather than the other way 'round. Seems like, if you take the "forward" approach, you get to reinforce your language learning with a complementary narrative of cultural evolution, where the two bodies of knowledge can reinforce one-another.
    - lnanek2 7y ago
      That does sort of happen to those of us who need learn both traditional and simplified. If you learn traditional, you have a better chance of being able to read simplified with a little more effort than the other way around.
      - dwohnitmok 7y ago
        Eh... I feel like I hear claims of both directions. The Chinese internet is full of people claiming that Taiwanese people can't read simplified Chinese or that PRC people can't read traditional Chinese. FWIW, anecdotally every mainland Chinese person I've met has been able to read traditional characters. For some of them it is, however, more laborious. All of them have been able to read long tracts in traditional Chinese (think the length of a newspaper article or longer), although sometimes it takes obvious effort. This has not been true of some Taiwanese people I've met for simplified characters. I'm mostly tempted to chalk this up to environmental factors rather than reasons intrinsic to the script. The mainland often gets a lot of Taiwanese cultural imports, while I don't think Taiwan gets as much cultural imports from the mainland. Furthermore there is a lot of stylistic usage of traditional characters in the mainland (posters, store signs, branding, calligraphy, artwork) and university-level Classical Chinese language classes (aimed at domestic students) are often taught exclusively with traditional characters. In comparison there is essentially no usage of simplified characters at all in Taiwan. The two scripts essentially have a one-to-one correspondence with each other anyways so it's not really that hard to go between the two if you have full fluency in one.
        derefr 7y ago
        I would argue that, due to merging different characters together, simplified Chinese is more ambiguous in meaning than traditional Chinese. So it's harder for someone more versed in traditional to read simplified, since there's a bit of guessing as to which "mapping" back to a traditional character should be taken. Whereas there's only one way to map a traditional character to a simplified character, so it's just memorization+recall if you learn simplified first. I'd compare reading simplified Chinese characters after a traditional-Chinese education, to reading Japanese written purely in kana, and trying to figure out what kanji are meant. It's something that requires active use of your brain sometimes, where the opposite—translating kanji to kana—is a rote task.
- voldacar 7y ago
  How did you learn sumerian? And what sumerian texts are you reading? I am intrigued
  - tasogare 7y ago
    I registered to a remote degree offered by one of the universities I graduated from (400€ a year). I'm not reading Sumerian texts yet, beside those in the class which are mostly texts celebrating foundation of sometime (a temple to a god for example). The language is way more grammatical than I expected, and the first year if focussed on learning that. Really interesting nonetheless.
derefr 7y ago
Alternately, you can heavily annotate a text as you translate it, such that the annotations serve effectively as a language course to teach the reader exactly as much of the source language as is needed to appreciate the context of the translation. This is often done for works in early-modern English, simply because there's enough commonality with modern English that the "language learning guide" can fit in the margins, rather than taking up 90% of the work. But even with these annotated works, I often wish that the original text was supplied alongside the translation (as it usually is in lyrical translations, e.g. opera), so that the annotations could point to aspects of the original text to explain the choices made, instead of referring to an out-of-band original that's not clear on the page.
- La-ang 7y ago
  It also becomes a hurdle to read the footnotes. I often times got sucked in them and forget even how to come back to the original text, let alone the original idea I was reading.

by La-ang 7y ago

tasogare 7y ago

> My synopsis: The only way to understand text is to learn the original language. Exactly my approach too, hence why I learn Sumerian for instance. Also note that we are speaking of Chinese philosophy here so the language to learn is Classical Chinese, not Mandarin. Few people would jump into that without at least some knowledge of a modern Chinese language, but it can be done (notably by reading Pulleyblank book).

La-ang 7y ago
Yes indeed, although I assume that since Mandarin is more accessible for learners, it can serve as a 101 to classical. Quote: [None of what has been said up to this point is to suggest that studying Chinese language and early thought is only for the classically curious and linguistically intrepid].
- derefr 7y ago
  I would be curious whether it'd be easier to learn Classical Chinese and then Mandarin, rather than the other way 'round. Seems like, if you take the "forward" approach, you get to reinforce your language learning with a complementary narrative of cultural evolution, where the two bodies of knowledge can reinforce one-another.
  - lnanek2 7y ago
    That does sort of happen to those of us who need learn both traditional and simplified. If you learn traditional, you have a better chance of being able to read simplified with a little more effort than the other way around.
    - dwohnitmok 7y ago
      Eh... I feel like I hear claims of both directions. The Chinese internet is full of people claiming that Taiwanese people can't read simplified Chinese or that PRC people can't read traditional Chinese. FWIW, anecdotally every mainland Chinese person I've met has been able to read traditional characters. For some of them it is, however, more laborious. All of them have been able to read long tracts in traditional Chinese (think the length of a newspaper article or longer), although sometimes it takes obvious effort. This has not been true of some Taiwanese people I've met for simplified characters. I'm mostly tempted to chalk this up to environmental factors rather than reasons intrinsic to the script. The mainland often gets a lot of Taiwanese cultural imports, while I don't think Taiwan gets as much cultural imports from the mainland. Furthermore there is a lot of stylistic usage of traditional characters in the mainland (posters, store signs, branding, calligraphy, artwork) and university-level Classical Chinese language classes (aimed at domestic students) are often taught exclusively with traditional characters. In comparison there is essentially no usage of simplified characters at all in Taiwan. The two scripts essentially have a one-to-one correspondence with each other anyways so it's not really that hard to go between the two if you have full fluency in one.
      - derefr 7y ago
        I would argue that, due to merging different characters together, simplified Chinese is more ambiguous in meaning than traditional Chinese. So it's harder for someone more versed in traditional to read simplified, since there's a bit of guessing as to which "mapping" back to a traditional character should be taken. Whereas there's only one way to map a traditional character to a simplified character, so it's just memorization+recall if you learn simplified first. I'd compare reading simplified Chinese characters after a traditional-Chinese education, to reading Japanese written purely in kana, and trying to figure out what kanji are meant. It's something that requires active use of your brain sometimes, where the opposite—translating kanji to kana—is a rote task.
voldacar 7y ago
How did you learn sumerian? And what sumerian texts are you reading? I am intrigued
- tasogare 7y ago
  I registered to a remote degree offered by one of the universities I graduated from (400€ a year). I'm not reading Sumerian texts yet, beside those in the class which are mostly texts celebrating foundation of sometime (a temple to a god for example). The language is way more grammatical than I expected, and the first year if focussed on learning that. Really interesting nonetheless.

derefr 7y ago

Alternately, you can heavily annotate a text as you translate it, such that the annotations serve effectively as a language course to teach the reader exactly as much of the source language as is needed to appreciate the context of the translation. This is often done for works in early-modern English, simply because there's enough commonality with modern English that the "language learning guide" can fit in the margins, rather than taking up 90% of the work. But even with these annotated works, I often wish that the original text was supplied alongside the translation (as it usually is in lyrical translations, e.g. opera), so that the annotations could point to aspects of the original text to explain the choices made, instead of referring to an out-of-band original that's not clear on the page.

La-ang 7y ago
It also becomes a hurdle to read the footnotes. I often times got sucked in them and forget even how to come back to the original text, let alone the original idea I was reading.