3 ms·

>When reading ancient classics in translation, the wisest approach is comparing multiple translations. Only then a more complete picture will emerge. But if I

>When reading ancient classics in translation, the wisest approach is comparing multiple translations. Only then a more complete picture will emerge. But if I can't read the original ancient Chinese, what good does comparing the translations do? I can tell which ones read better to me, but I have no idea if any of them are actually accurate.

ethanbond 3y ago
I think the idea is that "the real content" will be nearest where all the translations have consensus. Aberrational translations are quickly discounted this way. Even the single best translation will probably be worse than reading the top three best translations since translation is as much an art as a science.
woopsn 3y ago
So right at the beginning it says this -- you can talk about Tao, but not the eternal Tao[1]. From a philosophy perspective, it is a good idea to read different versions because there isn't really a "right way to put it". This kind of Taoism is meant to make you think and relate to the universe in a certain way. If you're more interested in studying an authentic version of the text though, almost all of the English "translations" are inadequate and misleading. This was a book about dynastic China. The oldest sources appear to have been compiled from multiple sources themselves, and then underwent further revision, eg the order of Tao and Te was probably reversed at some point, the text became less regionally specific as it traveled across China, acquired different vocabulary and grammar, was appropriated by Confucians, separated into chapters, etc. So in this sense it's interesting to read multiple translations and analysis. To get the full picture you have to consider the sinology around the text too. [1] John C. H. Wu's translation: https://terebess.hu/english/tao/wu.html#Kap01 https://terebess.hu/english/tao/wu.html#Kap01
z2 3y ago
Not to make it sound hopeless, but Old Chinese is lossy because it tended to favor conciseness at the expense of unambiguous clarity. There is no total truth and a bit of subjective interpretation is required. 持而盈之 for instance is "持=hold 而=yet 盈=overflow 之=[implied subject or this]" while the translator decided to add a cup, writing "Holding a cup and overfilling it." It's a great assumption as 盈 has the etymology of a vessel being filled, but still an assumption nonetheless.

ethanbond 3y ago

I think the idea is that "the real content" will be nearest where all the translations have consensus. Aberrational translations are quickly discounted this way. Even the single best translation will probably be worse than reading the top three best translations since translation is as much an art as a science.

woopsn 3y ago

So right at the beginning it says this -- you can talk about Tao, but not the eternal Tao[1]. From a philosophy perspective, it is a good idea to read different versions because there isn't really a "right way to put it". This kind of Taoism is meant to make you think and relate to the universe in a certain way. If you're more interested in studying an authentic version of the text though, almost all of the English "translations" are inadequate and misleading. This was a book about dynastic China. The oldest sources appear to have been compiled from multiple sources themselves, and then underwent further revision, eg the order of Tao and Te was probably reversed at some point, the text became less regionally specific as it traveled across China, acquired different vocabulary and grammar, was appropriated by Confucians, separated into chapters, etc. So in this sense it's interesting to read multiple translations and analysis. To get the full picture you have to consider the sinology around the text too. [1] John C. H. Wu's translation: https://terebess.hu/english/tao/wu.html#Kap01 https://terebess.hu/english/tao/wu.html#Kap01

z2 3y ago

Not to make it sound hopeless, but Old Chinese is lossy because it tended to favor conciseness at the expense of unambiguous clarity. There is no total truth and a bit of subjective interpretation is required. 持而盈之 for instance is "持=hold 而=yet 盈=overflow 之=[implied subject or this]" while the translator decided to add a cup, writing "Holding a cup and overfilling it." It's a great assumption as 盈 has the etymology of a vessel being filled, but still an assumption nonetheless.