44 replies to this topic

[fcharton]

Hmm, I am also so tired of writing Duke Xian of Jin since it does not sound quite right to me! I really think that saying Jin Xian Gong is merely the most accurate translation. Do you guys mind if I write the names like that from now on?

Personally, I don't, because I can figure out what it means (ie I know the characters behind it). But I don't think it is a good way of translating, because a lot of information is lost in the process.

First, Jin is not a family name, but a fiefdom Jin Xian Gong is not the same as Mao Zedong, say. Second Xian, as a posthumous name does mean something, which is lost here (granted, few people translate this). And finally gong is a title, ie a common word, which ought to be translated: why not then speak of the Huangdis of China, and used Wang instead of king, and Tianzi, and... well, let everything in chinese, because no word has an exact equivalent in english. My problem with Jin Xian Gong is that it sort of defeats the purpose of having a discussion *in english* about chinese history, because it requires that the reader to both understand chinese and work the characters back from pinyin in order to get the meaning.

Francois

Edited by fcharton, 17 November 2006 - 10:06 AM.

[Yun]

I agree with Francois - any Chinese who wants to converse on Chinese history with people who don't speak or read Chinese must be willing to take the trouble to translate, and translate as precisely as possible.

If Duke Xian of Jin is not accurate enough, then one can try Lord Xian of Jin or simply Ji Guizhu, Lord of Jin. Since Ji Guizhu was his real name, and he did not carry the title Xian when still alive, it is actually most true to reality to call him Ji Guizhu, Lord of Jin. That is also why I prefer to call emperors by their real names rather than posthumous titles, except when the title has become highly well-known (e.g. Qin Shihuangdi, Han Wudi, and Tang Taizong). I would even call Kangxi (or more correctly the Kangxi Emperor) as Aisingioro Xuanye if people would understand who I'm talking about.

[snowybeagle]

I think Bo Yang's commentary did a lot of that - referring to rulers by their given name during their lifetimes. It took me a while to get used to it.

More difficult was when he referred to legendary emperors by these names too - instead of Yao, Shun, Yü etc., I got Yao ChongHua ... and sometimes the editors did not include a note of explanation.

[Yun]

I think Bo Yang's commentary did a lot of that - referring to rulers by their given name during their lifetimes.

Yes, I got this practice directly from reading Bai Yang's books. He wanted to take these figures off their lofty pedestals and portray them as ordinary human beings.

BTW, he gets called Bo Yang a lot, but my dictionary tells me it should be Bai Yang. 'Bai' is either a kind of tree (like Yang) or a surname, while 'Bo' is only used in the context of the Chinese transliteration of 'Berlin' (Bolin). Even then, I don't think Bai Yang is his real name - just a nom de plume.

[Ashura]

Bo Yang's birth name is 郭定生. Got this from his memoir.

Edited by Ashura, 18 November 2006 - 03:52 AM.

[Sephodwyrm]

I think he himself pronounces it as Bo Yang.

In any case, he's too polemic to be a good historian. I find some of his ideas to be emotionally charged and hence not convincing as a historical argument. History should be a science, not a propaganda tool.

[Yun]

In any case, he's too polemic to be a good historian. I find some of his ideas to be emotionally charged and hence not convincing as a historical argument. History should be a science, not a propaganda tool.

Agreed. He often uses commentary on history to express his political views. But his Outline History of the Chinese People and translation of the Zizhi Tongjian were major influences on my early study of the Age of Fragmentation, before I entered university, simply because no one else bothered to put the history of the AOF into an accessible form for laymen.

[thirdgumi]

Wow, this is getting more and more confusing, maybe we should have translations for names which everybody in this forum could agreed on?

[Rong Qin Wang]

Personally, I don't, because I can figure out what it means (ie I know the characters behind it). But I don't think it is a good way of translating, because a lot of information is lost in the process.

First, Jin is not a family name, but a fiefdom Jin Xian Gong is not the same as Mao Zedong, say. Second Xian, as a posthumous name does mean something, which is lost here (granted, few people translate this). And finally gong is a title, ie a common word, which ought to be translated: why not then speak of the Huangdis of China, and used Wang instead of king, and Tianzi, and... well, let everything in chinese, because no word has an exact equivalent in english. My problem with Jin Xian Gong is that it sort of defeats the purpose of having a discussion *in english* about chinese history, because it requires that the reader to both understand chinese and work the characters back from pinyin in order to get the meaning.

Francois

Zunjing de Fcharton,

Hmm, I have a completely opposite viewpoint than yours regarding this issue as I just cannot see why a lot of information will be lost in the process?

Of course, Jin was the state’s name, Xian was the posthumous name of that lord, while Gong was the Chinese equivalency of the English title of duke or lord. If we lived in that time period, then of course, we would not call him Jin Xian Gong because his posthumous name was given yet. So, he would just be known to others as Jin Gong as he was the present leader of the Jin state.

Right, I am also so tempted to use Wang instead of Kings, Huang Di instead of Emperors and Tian Zi instead of King X of Zhou.

I really cannot understand why doing so would sort of defeat the purpose of having discussions in English? I mean these terms were direct translations from Chinese to English since they are in alphabetic form rather than being in Chinese characters. I believe it will be more accurate to use these direct terms since they are really no English equivalency.

Xie Xie,

[thirdgumi]

So, he would just be known to others as Jin Gong as he was the present leader of the Jin state.

No, the rulers of Jin were marquises, so they would be known (while still living) as Jin Hou 晋侯, even the word Gong 公 was given after their death and it didn't mean Duke, it meant something like "venerable ancestor" in posthumous names.

[fcharton]

Hi Rong Qin Wang,

I really cannot understand why doing so would sort of defeat the purpose of having discussions in English? I mean these terms were direct translations from Chinese to English since they are in alphabetic form rather than being in Chinese characters. I believe it will be more accurate to use these direct terms since they are really no English equivalency.

Yes, but if I push your reasoning, many words have no exact equivalent in another language, and translation becomes impossible. Besides, this is done all the time in english: we use the word emperor both for the Roman Emperors, for Charlemagne and for Napoleon, even though they are not the same at all... We use the same nobility titles for different eras and countries, where they had different significations. Are chinese emperors and dukes so different that we cannot use the same word?

Another difficulty in using the translitteration of the chinese text (instead of providing an english equivalent) is that it assumes that the reader (who speaks english) has some prior knowledge of chinese (to know that Jin Xian Gong is the name of a state, and then a name of person, and then a title, and not, for instance a surname and a two character first name...), and even so, it puts some additional burden on him, because the original characters are lost, and confusion is possible with other homonyms. Think for instance of the Yellow Emperor, the pinyin would be Huang Di, but we then lose the "fact" that Huang means yellow, and have a possible confusion with the Huangdi which means emperor, and uses a different character.

Basically, it all depends on what we want a translation to achieve. Is it supposed to be as close as possible to the original, and usually become very difficult to read for someone who doesn't know the subject? (But then, why translate at all) Or is it meant to pass on the meaning, at the price of a number of approximations? (which are not greater than the approximations we currently use in our own language).

I believe that the solution is somewhere in the middle, but I would naturally tend to err on the "translating more" side.

Francois

[Ashura]

I think it is the responsiblity for everybody who studies Chinese history to learn Chinese, unless such person is Japanes or Korean who can read Chinese characters. There is no way to get around the fact that something will be lost in translation.

I propose that for terms such as Gong, Hou, and other names, we put pinyin, Chinese Character and a rough English translation as standard practice, unless it is some well known english translated terms such as Confucius. As a matter of fact I prefer Kong Qiu 孔丘 and Kong Zi 孔子. Confucius is a term created by orientalism.

We should also have a team who are specialized in this kind of stuff so when someone is not sure about a term then he can send them a PM and the team will correct his post.

[thirdgumi]

I propose that for terms such as Gong, Hou, and other names, we put pinyin, Chinese Character and a rough English translation as standard practice,

I agree with this.

[Rong Qin Wang]

I agree with Francois - any Chinese who wants to converse on Chinese history with people who don't speak or read Chinese must be willing to take the trouble to translate, and translate as precisely as possible.

If Duke Xian of Jin is not accurate enough, then one can try Lord Xian of Jin or simply Ji Guizhu, Lord of Jin. Since Ji Guizhu was his real name, and he did not carry the title Xian when still alive, it is actually most true to reality to call him Ji Guizhu, Lord of Jin. That is also why I prefer to call emperors by their real names rather than posthumous titles, except when the title has become highly well-known (e.g. Qin Shihuangdi, Han Wudi, and Tang Taizong). I would even call Kangxi (or more correctly the Kangxi Emperor) as Aisingioro Xuanye if people would understand who I'm talking about.

Zunjing de Yun the Sage-King,

Hmm, you are proposing a new concept here by referring to leaders by their real names. I personally don’t support that at all. The purpose of posthumous names was to ensure the proper way of addressing the leaders by future generations. Posthumous names were designed for future generations to refer back to the leaders. Hence, I think it is the most appropriate way of directing the leaders. Of course, it gets really confusing when Emperors started taking on more than one title and having titles with several characters; however, one will get used to it after a while.

By the way, since China does not really have a monarchy anymore, we won’t get executed for calling these leaders by their personal names. Hehehe!

[fcharton]

I think it is the responsiblity for everybody who studies Chinese history to learn Chinese, unless such person is Japanes or Korean who can read Chinese characters. There is no way to get around the fact that something will be lost in translation.

So, in order to have a meaningful discussion *in english* on CHF, which is an english language forum, one should be able to read chinese characters? I must say I don't get the logic of this.

Besides, the original texts are in classical chinese, lots are lost in translation, even for modern chinese readers, when one reads them with "modern eyes", and a little more is lost as we go from characters to pinyin.

I think it is the responsiblity for I propose that for terms such as Gong, Hou, and other names, we put pinyin, Chinese Character and a rough English translation as standard practice, unless it is some well known english translated terms such as Confucius. As a matter of fact I prefer Kong Qiu 孔丘 and Kong Zi 孔子. Confucius is a term created by orientalism.

I am pretty much opposed to this, as it puts an unnecessary burden on the reader, both because it implies some prior knowledge, and therefore looks like the "techspeak" which marketers, or IT people, love to use to confuse the unwary, and because it would make posts very disagreable to read.

Note that there is not reason of limiting it to titles, many colours have no equivalent in english (think of xuan, which can mean azure or black, or huang which can mean yellow or brown), and long cannot be a dragon, and translating junzi would be a weird idea, and shi and jia are not quite like scholars or knights, and I don't think there is a good equivalent for words like ba and bo (hegemon is a greecism), or for zhuhou and meng and hui... and even translating ke as clients is a bit imprecise...

Hmm, the last sentence might have been a bit hard to read, eh? this is how our posts would appear to someone who cannot read the characters, do we want this?

Francois

Edited by fcharton, 21 November 2006 - 03:41 AM.