https://www.taosurfers.com/ideasandwellbeing/2020/4/21/whats...
For this to be a literal translation, wouldn't you need to translate 可 as "call"?
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?
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.
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?
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]。
You're correct.
Having read numerous translations, that sounds perfectly comprehensible to me.
> The Reason that can be reasoned is not the eternal Reason.
He takes more poetic liberties than most translations.
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