44 replies to this topic

[Yun]

The purpose of posthumous names was to ensure the proper way of addressing the leaders by future generations.

It was the proper way for people living under that regime, who had to observe the taboo against the names of past and present rulers on pain of death. It need not be the proper way for me.

In fact, ancient Chinese people were also not supposed to mention the name of their father (whether living or deceased) or even to use any word from the name of their father. Hence I would have to avoid using the common words 'li' (strength) and 'xing' (walk/do/can) if I observed this taboo, since my father's name is Lixing. I would also not be able to fill in my father's names in any official forms.

The entire purpose of posthumous titles in ancient China was to observe the taboo on personal names. I do not hold myself to such taboos. Hence I do not have to stick to posthumous titles. I can either say Ying Zheng or Qin Shihuangdi, Liu Che or Han Wudi, Li Shimin or Tang Taizong.

Respect for tradition or respect for past people has nothing to do with it.

[Yun]

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.

Rong Qin Wang, I think I should explain to you the difference between transliteration and translation. Transliteration renders the sound of a word in another language, while translation renders the meaning. When translating texts, one usually has to make some choices between the two, and most translators would choose only to transliterate personal and place names, and translate almost everything else, because this makes it as easy as possible for the reader to understand the text without knowing the language being translated.

Of course, I have also seen translation going too far. For example, a recent popular history on the First Emperor of Qin (Qin Shihuangdi) by a Western writer translates the state of Yan as 'the Land of Swallows' (because Yan can also mean swallow), and Ji Dan, the Crown Prince of Yan, as 'the Red Prince' (because Dan also means red). These are I find to be totally ridiculous misrepresentations of the terminology of the period.

[Ashura]

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.

Well if we study Roman history, should we at least be familiarized with some terms in Latin? I'm not saying that we should learn Latin in order to study Roman history, but without understand what is a tribune or a Caesar or a Gladius or un bello per se, we will not be able to understand the various aspects of the Roman Empire. It would be absurd to a say short sword everytime you want to say Gladius. Of course Latin is alphabet, so is English so nobody would think putting Latin in English text is a problem. Chinese character is only a problem when one is not used to it. If the study of Chinese history takes effort, why not make an effort to understand the some terms in Chinese?

[fcharton]

Well if we study Roman history, should we at least be familiarized with some terms in Latin? I'm not saying that we should learn Latin in order to study Roman history, but without understand what is a tribune or a Caesar or a Gladius or un bello per se, we will not be able to understand the various aspects of the Roman Empire. It would be absurd to a say short sword everytime you want to say Gladius. Of course Latin is alphabet, so is English so nobody would think putting Latin in English text is a problem. Chinese character is only a problem when one is not used to it. If the study of Chinese history takes effort, why not make an effort to understand the some terms in Chinese?

I am not sure about this. In fact, most pupils in the west learn roman and greek history in textbooks which do not include (or, rather, seldom include) latin and greek, and all the translations of Plato, or Suetone, I have seen do not pepper the text with latin words, but use translated equivalents. Yet, as I said previously, translating "imperator" as emperor (with all the modern connotation the word has) is somewhat imprecise.

Although, I do agree that knowing chinese, and understanding specific terms is useful, I believe that a lot can be explained by translation (and maybe notes). In fact, translitteration seems less desirable to me, because it replaces a meaningful concept with a hollow and alien sound.

Francois

[fcharton]

Of course, I have also seen translation going too far. For example, a recent popular history on the First Emperor of Qin (Qin Shihuangdi) by a Western writer translates the state of Yan as 'the Land of Swallows' (because Yan can also mean swallow), and Ji Dan, the Crown Prince of Yan, as 'the Red Prince' (because Dan also means red). These are I find to be totally ridiculous misrepresentations of the terminology of the period.

I think names of persons and places are where it becomes difficult. Because they sometimes are meaningful (eg Yellow River) and sometimes are not (eg my first name, François, which litterally means French, but is not translated, although if I was called Guillaume, some could use William instead...).

An interesting instance of what you note can be found in books by the French sinologist Jean Levi. Levi is an expert on Warring States philosophy. In his translations of ancient texts (Han Fei, or the Yan Tie Lun) he consistently translitterates most names. But he also writes novels based on events in chinese history, and there, he does translate and adapt the names of people and place, and, once the first surprise has passed, the result actually looks quite nice.

Francois

[Ashura]

I am not sure about this. In fact, most pupils in the west learn roman and greek history in textbooks which do not include (or, rather, seldom include) latin and greek, and all the translations of Plato, or Suetone, I have seen do not pepper the text with latin words, but use translated equivalents. Yet, as I said previously, translating "imperator" as emperor (with all the modern connotation the word has) is somewhat imprecise.

Although, I do agree that knowing chinese, and understanding specific terms is useful, I believe that a lot can be explained by translation (and maybe notes). In fact, translitteration seems less desirable to me, because it replaces a meaningful concept with a hollow and alien sound.

I'm reading a book about Cannae and I see a lot of Latin terms there to trace the original intent of the ancient authors.

For beginner history where we do not discuss the specifics, we can get by with english just fine but once we want to get deeper there will be no other way around but to learn the terms in their original language. However as we are in an english forum, we should also put an english translation to describe the terms.

[Bao Pu]

Ashura

I think it is the responsiblity for everybody who studies Chinese history to learn Chinese...

I'm not exactly sure how literally you mean this, but if you expect everyone who wants to learn about other cultures to learn their language, the poeple of the world will become more isolated, because poeple do not have the time to learn a bunch of other languages. Having said this though...

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.

Excellent. This is what I have been doing in my book-in-progress for years now. (Sorry François,) this will help people learn some Chinese as they go. It is standard in scholarly writing, but not general public writing. CHF seems to be a mix of both. (And I too have considered using Kong Zi instead of Confucius.)

Rong Qin Wang

I mean these terms were direct translations from Chinese to English since they are in alphabetic form rather than being in Chinese characters.

Pinyin is not English, its Chinese.

Francois

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...)

Yes. Even with some knowledge of Chinese someone may not know that that name includes a title and state name, especially since there aren't even tone marks. We should be using English + Pinyin (with or without tone marks) + characters. If you wanted to drop something, drop the pinyin, but the characters are a must. That's my opinion.

[Ashura]

I'm not exactly sure how literally you mean this, but if you expect everyone who wants to learn about other cultures to learn their language, the poeple of the world will become more isolated, because poeple do not have the time to learn a bunch of other languages. Having said this though...

What I was saying is that, if one wants to learn Chinese history, he has to learn enough Chinese to allow him to read the sources.

Can one anounces that he loves [insert nation] poerty without reading one of the poems in its original langauage? The translaion and the original are totally different.

By the way can we split these into other thread?

[Rong Qin Wang]

Rong Qin Wang, I think I should explain to you the difference between transliteration and translation. Transliteration renders the sound of a word in another language, while translation renders the meaning. When translating texts, one usually has to make some choices between the two, and most translators would choose only to transliterate personal and place names, and translate almost everything else, because this makes it as easy as possible for the reader to understand the text without knowing the language being translated.

Of course, I have also seen translation going too far. For example, a recent popular history on the First Emperor of Qin (Qin Shihuangdi) by a Western writer translates the state of Yan as 'the Land of Swallows' (because Yan can also mean swallow), and Ji Dan, the Crown Prince of Yan, as 'the Red Prince' (because Dan also means red). These are I find to be totally ridiculous misrepresentations of the terminology of the period.

Zunjing de Yun the Sage-King,

First of all, I never had any intentions of stating that you could not refer to Emperors by their personal names. I was just merely expressing the objective of posthumous names since some people had the wrong impression that they were practically meaningless.

Thank you very much for your explanation; I really appreciate it! Now I have thoroughly understood the difference between transliteration and translation. Please allow me to provide an example to display my understanding of this subject. The words “Gong Zhu” and “Ge Ge” are transliterations because they don’t really have any meanings in English. On the other hand, the English equivalency of these two terms is “princess.” Is this a good sample?

I believe that only transliterating personal and place names is the most accurate approach since sometimes these things don’t really have any meanings.

Yeah, you have supplied a very good example of the errors with pure translations.

However, I must agree with Ashura that if you truly want to be well-versed in Chinese History, then you must be knowledgeable of some basic Chinese terms. This only applies to people who have the desire to excel in Chinese History as the beginners don’t fall into the same category.

Well, this is also an English speaking forum, so any English translations would be greatly appreciated! Hence, I render all my support to Ashura’s proposal for having a separate thread with specialists providing transliterations and English equivalencies for Chinese technical terms!

Xie Xie,

[Yun]

Please allow me to provide an example to display my understanding of this subject. The words “Gong Zhu” and “Ge Ge” are transliterations because they don’t really have any meanings in English. On the other hand, the English equivalency of these two terms is “princess.” Is this a good sample?

That's a perfect example, Rong Qin Wang.

[Prince of the South]

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,

I believe Rong Qin Wang has a point. Yun and Francois also have a point.

As it stand, because there are 2 languages we are dealing here, there is neither right or wrong in translation or the convention of writing, as long as one is not vague, and readers know who the writers are talking about.

Jin Xian Gong or Duke Xian of Jin or Ji Guizhu?

- The use of posthumous name "Xian" is accdeptable as we are not contemporary of this man, we are writing people of history

- If Duke Xian of Jin is more acceptable than Jin Xian Gong than Han Wu Di should be Emperor Wu of Han, but if the Kangxi Emperor (some english books it's Emperor Kangxi) is more correct than Kangxi, than we should say the Martial Emperor of Han

- As for Duke of Wellington being Weilingtun Gongjue, one would not write that in English language and certainly not in Chinese language but "wei ling tun gong jue" in chinese characters, so i don't see anything wrong here

- If Ji Guizhu is used, should not it be Guizhu Ji? as Chinese write George Bush not Bush George in Chinese characters

- If personal names are desirable than when we say Elizabeth do we mean the present Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Elizabeth II being the reign name. Then we have George....

- Then again why not Jin Xiangong and not Jin Xian Gong since we have Han Wudi more often than Han Wu Di?

If you ask me i'll prefer Prince of the South rather than Nan Wang Zi, or Prince Nan simply because Nan Wang can be translated to Prince of the South without the loss of meaning.

I'll prefer Duke Xian of Jin because we usually say title_name_place like Mr Smith of Manchester for eg.
But I can accept Jin Xian Gong if the writer prefer it that way. I choose Duke Xian of Jin because we can distinguish the title, name and place (state) easier than using Jin Xian Gong which to the uninitiated would be mistaken for a personal name, for eg.

[fcharton]

On the translation of names, I suspect there is no best way. The problem gets even more complex when we observe that some people can have different ways of being referred to (title vs name, or sometimes just two names, like the King of Wei, the warring state, being called both King of Wei and King of Liang ancient histories, ...). Should we consistently use one name, to help the reader, or remain faithful to the text, have all the names, and and footnotes, with the risk of falling into the academic book syndrome: 10 pages of notes in small print for half a page of text...

Same goes for some specific naming convention. Just for example, in the early years of the Spring and Autumn Annals, princesses (daughters of feudal princes who get married to other feudal princes) often have a name made of two characters. The first is their rank in the family (bo 伯 or meng 孟, zhong 仲, shu 叔, ji 季, for the first, second, third and younger daughter), and the second their clan (姓) of origin. We then get names like Mengzi (孟子) for the oldest daughter of the duke of Song, or Zhongji (仲姬), for the second daughter of the Duke of Lu (or any other state with surname Ji) or Shujiang (叔姜) for the young princess of the marquis of Qi. Now, this naming convention is very meaningful, because a contemporary could get at first glance where the princess came from, and where she stood in her family. Yet, this specificity is probably lost on most modern readers, even in the chinese original. A note can help, of course, but what should a translator do?

Translating Mengzi as "the eldest princess of Song" makes sense, but sounds clumsy, even more for "the princess born in the third rank in a state ruled by the Ji clan"... in this case, translitteration (mengzi) and a note, would be the only option.



Rong Qin Wang,

The numbers of 1000 and 100 for the states of Zhou (West and East) are probably gross estimates. I think someone actually tried to count all the states mentioned in the original documents, and arrived, for the whole Zhou dynasty, at several hundreds. But then, not all of them existed simultaneously, some went by different names in different texts, I think the real number is probably a few hundreds at the beginning, going down as time goes by.

As for the warring states, the number seven comes from the expression "six states against Qin", which was used to describe the period. The six states are Wei, Han, Zhao, Yan, Qi, and Chu. All of them were destroyed by Qin (the seventh). But several other states existed for most of this era (Yue, until 334, Song, until 286, Lu, until 249, and Zhongshan in the fourth century). There were probably a handful of smaller states, but I think it is fair to say that the Warring States were more like 10 than 7. I think the expression seven states is only correct for the very last part of the period, ie 246-221, after the demise of the last Zhou king, from the crowning of Zheng, King of Qin (Qin Wang Zheng) to his claiming the imperial title of First Emperor Qin (Qin Shi Huangdi).

Francois

Edited by fcharton, 29 November 2006 - 08:03 AM.

[Yun]

As for Duke of Wellington being Weilingtun Gongjue, one would not write that in English language and certainly not in Chinese language but "wei ling tun gong jue" in chinese characters, so i don't see anything wrong here

My point was that pure transliteration does not help anyone without prior knowledge understand what is being said. My examples were actually:

Duke of Wellington - 丢克威零顿 - 威零顿公爵 (which is easiest for the Chinese reader to understand?)
晋献公 - Jin Xiangong - Duke Xian of Jin (which is easier for the English-speaking reader to understand?)

-

If Ji Guizhu is used, should not it be Guizhu Ji? as Chinese write George Bush not Bush George in Chinese characters

Ji Guizhu is fine because non-Chinese people learning about China should first be aware that the Chinese put their surnames first. That is exactly like how Chinese people are able to write 'George Bush' as 乔治·布什 without mistaking 乔治 for his surname.

- The use of posthumous name "Xian" is accdeptable as we are not contemporary of this man, we are writing people of history

Fair enough, as long as people using the name are aware it is a posthumous title. I have seen cases of people falling for the illusion that Han Wudi was really known as Wudi during his lifetime.

In fact, I am sure many Europeans and Americans would think Han was the emperor's surname, and Wudi was his name, since the dynasty is called Han after all. That is why it might be prudent in certain settings to use 'Emperor Wu of the Han dynasty' or just 'Liu Che, the Han emperor' (in case people start thinking the emperor's name is Wu or Han Wu). 'The Martial Emperor of the Han dynasty' is possible, but seems like over-translating to me since the actual meaning of the posthumous title Wu is not usually relevant to the discussion, and some posthumous titles are cumbersome to translate (e.g. Daowudi of the Northern Wei would become 'the Emperor whose Way is Martial', and his successor Mingyuandi would be 'the Emperor who Illuminates the Origin').

- If personal names are desirable than when we say Elizabeth do we mean the present Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Elizabeth II being the reign name. Then we have George....

That is not a problem. Even non-monarchs can have Jr. or III as part of their name for clarity. I would favour using Elizabeth II except when there is no doubt about which Elizabeth we are referring to. Same as how we may say President George W. Bush Jr. in some places to distinguish him from George H.W. Bush Sr., but just call him Bush when there's no doubt about which Bush we're talking about.

[Prince of the South]

On the translation of names, I suspect there is no best way. The problem gets even more complex when we observe that some people can have different ways of being referred to (title vs name, or sometimes just two names, like the King of Wei, the warring state, being called both King of Wei and King of Liang ancient histories, ...). Should we consistently use one name, to help the reader, or remain faithful to the text, have all the names, and and footnotes, with the risk of falling into the academic book syndrome: 10 pages of notes in small print for half a page of text...

Perhaps a brief explanation can help, what can you do if the person has not just one or two titles but maybe even more? for example, some nobility in Europe had different concurrent titles in different states and territory. Queen Victoria was also the Empress of India for example. But i guess historians are less incline to say the Empress of India but rather Queen Victoria.

certainly something to look into

[Prince of the South]

Duke of Wellington - 丢克威零顿 - 威零顿公爵 (which is easiest for the Chinese reader to understand?)
晋献公 - Jin Xiangong - Duke Xian of Jin (which is easier for the English-speaking reader to understand?)

Got your point. Certainly the first would not make much sense. I noticed some time back I saw "jincha" written on the back of PRC police man instead of "police" or just plain chinese characters. This is transliteration gone too far! Or "Zhongguo dituce" on a book that should be titled "The Altas of China" in English in a PRC publication

Ji Guizhu is fine because non-Chinese people learning about China should first be aware that the Chinese put their surnames first. That is exactly like how Chinese people are able to write 'George Bush' as 乔治·布什 without mistaking 乔治 for his surname.

The problem is, most people will think Guizhu the last name / family name and Ji the first name / personal name in non-chinese or western countries. Look at the names of Chinese people in the west or Australia you'll understand what i mean. example,

SEN-DOU CHANG who wrote
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE MORPHOLOGY OF CHINESE WALLED CITIES

not Chang Sen-dou? and MingNa Wen the actress not Wen MingNa?


In fact, I am sure many Europeans and Americans would think Han was the emperor's surname, and Wudi was his name, since the dynasty is called Han after all. That is why it might be prudent in certain settings to use 'Emperor Wu of the Han dynasty' or just 'Liu Che, the Han emperor' (in case people start thinking the emperor's name is Wu or Han Wu). 'The Martial Emperor of the Han dynasty' is possible, but seems like over-translating to me since the actual meaning of the posthumous title Wu is not usually relevant to the discussion, and some posthumous titles are cumbersome to translate (e.g. Daowudi of the Northern Wei would become 'the Emperor whose Way is Martial', and his successor Mingyuandi would be 'the Emperor who Illuminates the Origin').

I agree Martial Emperor of the Han Dynasty will be too cumbersome and trying too much. Emperor Wu of Han Dynasty or Liu Che, the Han Emperor sound much better. One should take care to explain Han Wudi if they choose this convention. You probably can't get away with a brief explanation, because sometimes our audience extend far beyond non-Chinese Chinese history enthusiasts who don't understand the Chinese language but care to familiarise a bit but also the general public.

That is not a problem. Even non-monarchs can have Jr. or III as part of their name for clarity. I would favour using Elizabeth II except when there is no doubt about which Elizabeth we are referring to. Same as how we may say President George W. Bush Jr. in some places to distinguish him from George H.W. Bush Sr., but just call him Bush when there's no doubt about which Bush we're talking about.

As it is, even if we use personal name, we have to first distinguish the person with their title or reign names before we shorten them to just the personal name. If I say just plainly Arthur Wellesley, how do we know I mean Arthur Wellesley, the 1st Duke of Wellington? That is not to say i propose Elizabeth, Queen Elizabeth II of the U......! i mean we can't just simply state their personal name only but to include "II" which actually denotes the reign title. If she's not queen, she'll be known as just Princess Elizabeth (of course there will be cousins and aunts, grandaunts, nieces also know as Elizabeth) and we don't need to distinguish her at all

we must always take the initiative to state the full name first before we shorten it to Elizabeth or Bush in subsequent mentioning, if not confusion would arise, surely

For example, George Bush sanctioned war against Iraq.

which Bush? which war?

Just when we say Liu Che, the Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, we can refer to him as just "Liu" in subsequent paragraph