Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)

terebess.hu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 106 posts

Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)

#51

Post by guerrilla »

Podgajski wrote: post #48
qwerty456127 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing with the Bible - to me reading it as a single translation seems making little sense. Reading every verse in multiple versions in multiple languages, looking up multiple meanings of every word feels a whole different story. Luckily reading Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin and Old English is much easier than reading Chinese. I still feel like learning Chinese to read Taoist texts though, because they are so coo…

Regarding the Bible, you should read Young’s literal translation. It blew me away how much liberties that king James version took in their interpretation.

Thanks for the tip. That sounds fun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_Literal_Translation

Text: https://www.bible.com/bible/821/GEN.1.YLT98

Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1xjL2wFDoY&list=PLciALUPf8s...

"THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN."

So cool.

Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)

#53

Post by dr_dshiv »

namelosw wrote: post #24

I've seen Tao Te Ching's translation on the HN front page for several times. It seems people are interested in it. The thing with Tao Te Ching is it's too ambiguous because: 1) The Chinese language is very overloaded and thus very ambiguous. 2) Classical Chinese is even more so. 3) Tao Te Ching is intentionally filled with clever puns which makes it more ambiguous. The problem with translations is the translator has…

These translations need to provide original Chinese alongside. Otherwise, it is too hard to evaluate.

ChatGPT allows everyone to gain their own interpretation.

Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)

#55

Post by suoduandao3 »

Podgajski wrote: post #48
qwerty456127 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing with the Bible - to me reading it as a single translation seems making little sense. Reading every verse in multiple versions in multiple languages, looking up multiple meanings of every word feels a whole different story. Luckily reading Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin and Old English is much easier than reading Chinese. I still feel like learning Chinese to read Taoist texts though, because they are so coo…

Regarding the Bible, you should read Young’s literal translation. It blew me away how much liberties that king James version took in their interpretation.

Is there a difference between '-th' and '-s' suffixes in English? I thought 'seeth' was just an old fashioned way of saying 'sees' but now I'm wondering if this is saying something about tenses that I'm missing.

Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)

#57

Post by imchillyb »

vitiral wrote: post #8
palad1n wrote: post #5

I remember reading Stephen Mitchell's version waaaay back in 1991, when I was still young and impressionable. There was one line that really blew me away in his translation, and I might be remembering it slightly incorrectly: "The Tao is older than God".

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/mitchell.html 4 The Tao is like a well: used but never used up. It is like the eternal void: filled with infinite possibilities. It is hidden but always present. I don't know who gave birth to it. It is older than God. My favorite, although my favorite depends on the season 9 Fill your bowl to the brim and it will spill. Keep sharpening your knife and it will blunt. Chase after money a…

It’s almost as if they’re saying: “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity and grasping of the wind… “There is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God,” -‭‭Ecclesiastes‬

Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)

#58

Post by vitiral »

noufalibrahim wrote: post #35
namelosw wrote: post #24

I've seen Tao Te Ching's translation on the HN front page for several times. It seems people are interested in it. The thing with Tao Te Ching is it's too ambiguous because: 1) The Chinese language is very overloaded and thus very ambiguous. 2) Classical Chinese is even more so. 3) Tao Te Ching is intentionally filled with clever puns which makes it more ambiguous. The problem with translations is the translator has…

There was a period in my life in my early 20s when I dabbled heavily in taoism. The book was a staple read for me and I tried to adjust my Outlook accordingly for a long time. Finally though, i dropped it and went back to who I was. Your comment makes me wonder if the specific translation of the book I read was a big factor.

Traditionally Taoism was a path for the old, for those who had completed their duty. Confucianism is the path for the young, for those who must fulfill their duty. One might say that fulfilling your duty without resistance is in fact following the Tao.

Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)

#59

Post by driggs »

If you can find the oversized print copy of this Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English translation, originally published by Random House, it is one of the most visually inspiring books to read:

https://eheart.com/TAO/TTC/TTCchapters-small.pdf

Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English were married (by Alan Watts!), and each chapter of the book includes inspiring black-and-white photography by English, with artful Chinese calligraphy from Gia-Fu.

They also published a translation of Chuang Tzu in the same beautiful format.

Re: Tao Te Ching – Gia-Fu Feng, Jane English Translation (1989)

#60

Post by vitiral »

OfSanguineFire wrote: post #16
palad1n wrote: post #5

I remember reading Stephen Mitchell's version waaaay back in 1991, when I was still young and impressionable. There was one line that really blew me away in his translation, and I might be remembering it slightly incorrectly: "The Tao is older than God".

Stephen Mitchell has no real training in Old Chinese.[0] His “translation” is simply repackaging or distorting what was found in earlier, informed translations, for the sake of a publishing industry keen to cash in on “wisdom lit”. He is an analogue of Coleman Barks the Rumi “translator” who doesn’t know Persian, and Brooks Haxton the Heraclitus “translator” without a background in Greek. [0] https://academic.oup.com…

He has translated many works from other ancient languages and is a trained Zen monk. In the spirit of Taoism he is likely a better translator than an intellectual.

The work is brief. There is room for multiple translations and interpretations.

Post reply on HN