From the discussion of other thread, it triggered me to ponder about the accuracy of translation and interpretation of ancient Chinese philosophical texts into modern English language. It could be the same situation as the bible. The bible was written in mainly Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It was later translated into Latin and English. There are three approaches of the translations:
1. words by words from ancient langugages into English
2. Thought by thought from ancient languages into English
3. A mixture of words and thought translation
Given that the anicent Chinese language is very different from modern Chinese, there might be some losts in the actual meanings of the original texts. I believe most of the English translations are based on the translated modern Chinese texts rather than the ancient Chinese texts, more actual meanings might be missed during the translation and interpretation process.
Looking at the book shelves in the book shops about English translated books on
I-Ching (book of Change) and Tao Te Ching, there are so many different versions by various authours. What are the recommended approach to ensure the interpretations are closer to the original anicent texts?
To my mind, there is too much going on in texts like the Book of Changes or the Daodejing to allow meaningful discussion of approaches to translation. Not only is the language itself difficult and obscure to begin with; anyone who wishes to make sense of the intellectual content of the text must perforce form an opinion about how to interpret the key concepts, but then, once you commit yourself in one area-- if only as a starting point from which to begin your speculation-- you have already closed off a number of alternative options. This is how we have wound up with a myriad ways, many of them conflicting, of reading even a single term.
Thanks for the comments. As I mentioned in other thread earlier, philosophy is different from religion. All the ancient Chinese philosophical texts do not have an universal body to govern them. There isn't a single source of truth as the meanings of the texts are free to be translated and interpreted by different authors and scholars. Ideally we should learn the ancient Chinese language and try to understand the original texts. However, it is rough tough to master the ancient texts for most of us and thus not very practical. Same question as do we need to learn Hebrew to understand the Bible? I guess a more pragmatic approach is to read widely and follow the interpretations that accepted by most of the people.
Just recall that Confucius explanied the meaning of "ren" (virtue) differently to different followers. Thus, the meaning of the word really doesn't matter but it is the concept behind of the teachings.
Anthony Yeong, to my mind to "follow the interpretations that (are) accepted by most of the people" is a poor strategy. You will end up to be conversant in what is often called "translationese".
My problem with abstract languages like Chinese is that often the translations will be colored by the understanding of the translator and not the original author. Even Western texts in other languages lose some meaning in translation, so I do not see this as a specific problem with Asian languages but more of an issue with how the author wanted the text to be perceived. Chinese is a colorful language which can have many subtexts and abstract thoughts behind seemingly simple sentences, which adds to the difficulty in understanding with those who are not completely versed in the "classics".
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science