6 ms·

Yeah, that seems a bit hyperbolic. There are lots of the translations out there, varying from literal but incomprehensible (“TAO called TAO is not TAO.”) to cl

Yeah, that seems a bit hyperbolic. There are lots of the translations out there, varying from literal but incomprehensible (“TAO called TAO is not TAO.”) to classic-but-probably-wrong ("The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.”) to modern ("The Tao set forth as dogma is not the everlasting Tao."). https://www.taosurfers.com/ideasandwellbeing/2020/4/21/whats-the-best-tao-te-ching-translation-or-paraphrase-to-use https://www.taosurfers.com/ideasandwellbeing/2020/4/21/whats...

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> literal but incomprehensible (“TAO called TAO is not TAO.”) For this to be a literal translation, wouldn't you need to translate 可 as "call"?
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  Why was I downvoted? The opening goes (classically): 道可道非常道 ["The Dao can be spoken; it is not the constant Dao"] or, from Mawangdui: 道可道也非恆道也 ["The Dao can be spoken; it is not the constant Dao" - except that this version makes the division into sentences much clearer by using 也, and the use of a synonym for 常 really helps identify what sense of the character is meant.] Dao 道 is of course the noun meaning "way" as well as the verb "say", explaining the traditional translation. But the character only appears three times. If the translation says "TAO called TAO is not TAO", that accounts for all three 道 characters. Where does "calling" show up?
  - HKH2 5y ago
    '可道' can be translated to 'can be talked about' which is more general than 'called', though 'called' does not seem far off.
    - cyanydeez 5y ago
      it seems to mean "this is not a pipe"
      - HKH2 5y ago
        As far as I can see, it's about ineffability.
        thaumasiotes 5y ago
        I tend to interpret it as "you can talk about the Way, but you[r words] will not capture its true nature".
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      Yes, but that assumes that in 可道, 道 is a verb. The proposed translation "TAO called TAO is not TAO" mentions 道 three times, and it's always unambiguously a noun. So 'called' has to be coming from somewhere else, and the only other word in that sentence is 可.
      - brutusborn 5y ago
        I only know English, but I am curious about your logic above. How can you tell that the assumption you mentioned is incorrect? I.e. "that in 可道, 道 is a verb" is false? Is it something about the character itself or perhaps the syntax?
        thaumasiotes 5y ago
        I do not believe that that assumption is false. I'm confident it's correct. I'm arguing against the translation "TAO called TAO is not TAO". I think "the Way can be [spoken (of) / discussed / whatever]" makes more sense, even if the goal is "as literal of a translation as possible". Following 可 is strong evidence that 道 is a verb, though I don't know enough to call it conclusive evidence. The character 道 is identical between the noun meaning "way" and the verb meaning "say". To tell the difference, you can look at context or rely on traditional commentaries (of which there are many). In this case, the context should be sufficient. 道 [noun] 可道 [verb]。非常道 [noun]。
        HKH2 5y ago
        '可' also had the meaning of something like 'cute' (like in '可人') but that's clearly not relevant here. You're correct.
      - HKH2 5y ago
        Yes, you're right. They can't all be nouns.
curtis3389 5y ago
My favorite is D. T. Suzuki's translation: The Canon of Reason and Virtue: > The Reason that can be reasoned is not the eternal Reason. He takes more poetic liberties than most translations.
- dhosek 5y ago
  The translation I read, by R. B. Blakney, was rather disgraceful, with spurious references to Plato and the Bible in its interleaved commentary. In my defense, it was an old copy that I had pilfered from my parents' bookshelves when I was in college.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    In researching translations of the Lunyu of Kongzi (Analects of Confucius), I learned that such an approach is the norm for commentators on Chinese texts. They are having a conversation with the author and it may veer into other topics. It's been many years, but my notes say that this paper was helpful: Alice W. Cheng, "The Master's Voice: On Reading, Translating and Interpreting the Analects of Confucius", The Review of Politics, Notre Dame. Vol 62, Issue 03, Summer 2000; pp 563-582. DOI: S0034670500041693
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      There's a big difference between writing a translation of something or writing a commentary on it.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        Often both are done, as with many translations of the Lunyu.
patch_cable 5y ago
> varying from literal but incomprehensible (“TAO called TAO is not TAO.”) Having read numerous translations, that sounds perfectly comprehensible to me.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> literal but incomprehensible (“TAO called TAO is not TAO.”) For this to be a literal translation, wouldn't you need to translate 可 as "call"?

thaumasiotes 5y ago
Why was I downvoted? The opening goes (classically): 道可道非常道 ["The Dao can be spoken; it is not the constant Dao"] or, from Mawangdui: 道可道也非恆道也 ["The Dao can be spoken; it is not the constant Dao" - except that this version makes the division into sentences much clearer by using 也, and the use of a synonym for 常 really helps identify what sense of the character is meant.] Dao 道 is of course the noun meaning "way" as well as the verb "say", explaining the traditional translation. But the character only appears three times. If the translation says "TAO called TAO is not TAO", that accounts for all three 道 characters. Where does "calling" show up?
- HKH2 5y ago
  '可道' can be translated to 'can be talked about' which is more general than 'called', though 'called' does not seem far off.
  - cyanydeez 5y ago
    it seems to mean "this is not a pipe"
    - HKH2 5y ago
      As far as I can see, it's about ineffability.
      - thaumasiotes 5y ago
        I tend to interpret it as "you can talk about the Way, but you[r words] will not capture its true nature".
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    Yes, but that assumes that in 可道, 道 is a verb. The proposed translation "TAO called TAO is not TAO" mentions 道 three times, and it's always unambiguously a noun. So 'called' has to be coming from somewhere else, and the only other word in that sentence is 可.
    - brutusborn 5y ago
      I only know English, but I am curious about your logic above. How can you tell that the assumption you mentioned is incorrect? I.e. "that in 可道, 道 is a verb" is false? Is it something about the character itself or perhaps the syntax?
      - thaumasiotes 5y ago
        I do not believe that that assumption is false. I'm confident it's correct. I'm arguing against the translation "TAO called TAO is not TAO". I think "the Way can be [spoken (of) / discussed / whatever]" makes more sense, even if the goal is "as literal of a translation as possible". Following 可 is strong evidence that 道 is a verb, though I don't know enough to call it conclusive evidence. The character 道 is identical between the noun meaning "way" and the verb meaning "say". To tell the difference, you can look at context or rely on traditional commentaries (of which there are many). In this case, the context should be sufficient. 道 [noun] 可道 [verb]。非常道 [noun]。
        HKH2 5y ago
        '可' also had the meaning of something like 'cute' (like in '可人') but that's clearly not relevant here. You're correct.
    - HKH2 5y ago
      Yes, you're right. They can't all be nouns.

curtis3389 5y ago

My favorite is D. T. Suzuki's translation: The Canon of Reason and Virtue: > The Reason that can be reasoned is not the eternal Reason. He takes more poetic liberties than most translations.

dhosek 5y ago
The translation I read, by R. B. Blakney, was rather disgraceful, with spurious references to Plato and the Bible in its interleaved commentary. In my defense, it was an old copy that I had pilfered from my parents' bookshelves when I was in college.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  In researching translations of the Lunyu of Kongzi (Analects of Confucius), I learned that such an approach is the norm for commentators on Chinese texts. They are having a conversation with the author and it may veer into other topics. It's been many years, but my notes say that this paper was helpful: Alice W. Cheng, "The Master's Voice: On Reading, Translating and Interpreting the Analects of Confucius", The Review of Politics, Notre Dame. Vol 62, Issue 03, Summer 2000; pp 563-582. DOI: S0034670500041693
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    There's a big difference between writing a translation of something or writing a commentary on it.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Often both are done, as with many translations of the Lunyu.

patch_cable 5y ago

> varying from literal but incomprehensible (“TAO called TAO is not TAO.”) Having read numerous translations, that sounds perfectly comprehensible to me.