Talk:Tao Te Ching: Difference between revisions
imported>Rein Raud |
imported>David Yamakuchi mNo edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
::David: I have another quote for you, "Do not walk in the footsteps of the Masters, rather seek what they sought", which might be read, "Stop quoting everyone else and think for yourself." --[[User:Michael J. Formica|Michael J. Formica]] 02:46, 24 January 2008 (CST) | ::David: I have another quote for you, "Do not walk in the footsteps of the Masters, rather seek what they sought", which might be read, "Stop quoting everyone else and think for yourself." --[[User:Michael J. Formica|Michael J. Formica]] 02:46, 24 January 2008 (CST) | ||
Dear colleagues, is there any reason why Blakney's translation of the first paragraph is given as the norm and the both more traditional and the more accurate second version as an "alternative"? | Dear colleagues, is there any reason why Blakney's translation of the first paragraph is given as the norm and the both more traditional and the more accurate second version as an "alternative"? - Rein Raud | ||
:better?--[[User:David Yamakuchi|David Yamakuchi]] 13:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:29, 16 April 2010
Translation Etiquette and Accuracy
Michael, perhaps you are more familiar with definitive translations of foriegn texts than I, but when you assert a particular Kanji Ideogram _is_ translated thus and so I find I must disagree. There are many "ways" that can be translated...
no...pun intended.
I know it seems somehow less informative to say that a word "can be translated" or "may be" a particular English word, but I assert that that is the most accurate we are going to get. What's even worse, in translations from every other language I've encountered, there are always subtleties that become lost. Double entendre almost never work, and sometimes it's the real message that becomes obscured by the literal or "accurate" translation. --David Yamakuchi 22:13, 22 January 2008 (CST)
- David: The protocol is to avoid "wiggle words", such as "can be", "may be", and to go for definitive. The way to do this is to provide definitive translations with references. This might include several variants of the tranlation, all referenced.
- To whit, I am aware that "The Classic of the Way and Its Virtue" is a transliteration, not a tranlation. However, to the best of my knowledge, the tranlations of the invidual words, Tao, Te and Ching, are accurate. Go to it!... I will be at home later today, and check my own library. I suspect we can teach each other something! Blessings... --Michael J. Formica 06:41, 23 January 2008 (CST)
Michael: some thoughts...
(1) I really like the way the article is shaping up, and thanks for sharing. It's clearly an improvement.
(2) I understand the idea of "wiggle words" and I do admit to using them too often. But as one of my teachers pointed out: I think therefore I am...and pretty much everything else is opinion (vs. knowledge.)
(3) As far as translations or transliterations or whatever: "There are names but not nature in words." Perhaps a another English version of this might be "If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand."
- David: I have another quote for you, "Do not walk in the footsteps of the Masters, rather seek what they sought", which might be read, "Stop quoting everyone else and think for yourself." --Michael J. Formica 02:46, 24 January 2008 (CST)
Dear colleagues, is there any reason why Blakney's translation of the first paragraph is given as the norm and the both more traditional and the more accurate second version as an "alternative"? - Rein Raud
- better?--David Yamakuchi 13:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)