Hacker News Reader

Comment by thaumasiotes | Hacker News Reader

> His latest book, available December 7, 2021, is titled The Eternal Tao Te Ching, based on the meanings of the ancient Chinese characters in use when the Taoist classic was written. It is the first translation to employ the meanings of the pre-writing brush characters in use 2,400 years ago, when the classic was written, rather than relying on the often-different meanings of the more modern brush characters, as other translations have done.

Translating a thousands-of-years-old text as if the words of the time had their modern meanings is a ridiculous oversight that could not possibly have gone unnoticed until 2021. The written Chinese of 2,400 years ago has been studied thoroughly. What is this supposed to mean?

View on HN

Yeah, that seems a bit hyperbolic. There are lots of the translations out there, varying from literal but incomprehensible (“TAO called TAO is not TAO.”) to classic-but-probably-wrong ("The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.”) to modern ("The Tao set forth as dogma is not the everlasting Tao.").

https://www.taosurfers.com/ideasandwellbeing/2020/4/21/whats...

> literal but incomprehensible (“TAO called TAO is not TAO.”)

For this to be a literal translation, wouldn't you need to translate 可 as "call"?

Why was I downvoted? The opening goes (classically):

道可道非常道 ["The Dao can be spoken; it is not the constant Dao"]

or, from Mawangdui:

道可道也非恆道也 ["The Dao can be spoken; it is not the constant Dao" - except that this version makes the division into sentences much clearer by using 也, and the use of a synonym for 常 really helps identify what sense of the character is meant.]

Dao 道 is of course the noun meaning "way" as well as the verb "say", explaining the traditional translation. But the character only appears three times. If the translation says "TAO called TAO is not TAO", that accounts for all three 道 characters. Where does "calling" show up?

'可道' can be translated to 'can be talked about' which is more general than 'called', though 'called' does not seem far off.

Yes, but that assumes that in 可道, 道 is a verb.

The proposed translation "TAO called TAO is not TAO" mentions 道 three times, and it's always unambiguously a noun. So 'called' has to be coming from somewhere else, and the only other word in that sentence is 可.

I only know English, but I am curious about your logic above.

How can you tell that the assumption you mentioned is incorrect? I.e. "that in 可道, 道 is a verb" is false? Is it something about the character itself or perhaps the syntax?

I do not believe that that assumption is false. I'm confident it's correct. I'm arguing against the translation "TAO called TAO is not TAO". I think "the Way can be [spoken (of) / discussed / whatever]" makes more sense, even if the goal is "as literal of a translation as possible".

Following 可 is strong evidence that 道 is a verb, though I don't know enough to call it conclusive evidence.

The character 道 is identical between the noun meaning "way" and the verb meaning "say". To tell the difference, you can look at context or rely on traditional commentaries (of which there are many). In this case, the context should be sufficient.

道 [noun] 可道 [verb]。非常道 [noun]。

'可' also had the meaning of something like 'cute' (like in '可人') but that's clearly not relevant here.

You're correct.

Yes, you're right. They can't all be nouns.

it seems to mean "this is not a pipe"

As far as I can see, it's about ineffability.

I tend to interpret it as "you can talk about the Way, but you[r words] will not capture its true nature".

My favorite is D. T. Suzuki's translation: The Canon of Reason and Virtue:

> The Reason that can be reasoned is not the eternal Reason.

He takes more poetic liberties than most translations.

The translation I read, by R. B. Blakney, was rather disgraceful, with spurious references to Plato and the Bible in its interleaved commentary. In my defense, it was an old copy that I had pilfered from my parents' bookshelves when I was in college.

In researching translations of the Lunyu of Kongzi (Analects of Confucius), I learned that such an approach is the norm for commentators on Chinese texts. They are having a conversation with the author and it may veer into other topics.

It's been many years, but my notes say that this paper was helpful:

Alice W. Cheng, "The Master's Voice: On Reading, Translating and Interpreting the Analects of Confucius", The Review of Politics, Notre Dame. Vol 62, Issue 03, Summer 2000; pp 563-582. DOI: S0034670500041693

There's a big difference between writing a translation of something or writing a commentary on it.

Often both are done, as with many translations of the Lunyu.

> varying from literal but incomprehensible (“TAO called TAO is not TAO.”)

Having read numerous translations, that sounds perfectly comprehensible to me.

> Translating a thousands-of-years-old text as if the words of the time had their modern meanings

The text quoted from the OP doesn't appear to say that.

I did ask "what is this supposed to mean?". What do you think it says?

Rereading, I misunderstood you, sorry. I thought you were saying the OP interpreted the old characters by their newer meanings, but now I see you're saying that the OP's claim that everyone else has done it seems implausible (and I agree).

Even modern Chinese is ambiguous. Claiming to know the exact definitions of characters in Ancient Chinese is laughable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com