Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: A new translation of Sun Tzu

Expand Messages
  • Douglas Henderson
    ... It s not awful, but the level of scholarship is not high. Apparently the group translating it started teaching themselves enough chinese to translate
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 1, 2001
      --- In Sun_Tzu@y..., norpinal@y... wrote:
      > Last week end I saw a new translation of Sun Tzu
      >
      > http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1570625522.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

      It's not awful, but the level of scholarship is not high. Apparently
      the group translating it started teaching themselves "enough" chinese
      to translate the Sunzi. The problem with this is it is too narrow a
      focus, how can you translate the work well, if you are not familiar
      with other works from the same period (ranging from 6th c, to 4th
      century, depending who you talk to).

      I was disappointed in it, but it is well written and while worth a
      look, in retrospect, I would not have bought it.

      From what I've seen so far, of the recent versions, Roger Ames's (and
      his Sun Pin (Sunbin) is the one to get, although the Griffith still
      has merit and Sawyer is also good (I just finished rereading his
      notes, from what I remember his translation was not bad but did not
      make me particularly sit up and take notice.)

      Regards

      Douglas
    • norpinal@yahoo.ca
      ... Apparently ... chinese ... a ... I agree ... (and
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 1, 2001
        --- In Sun_Tzu@y..., "Douglas Henderson" <kueikutzu@h...> wrote:
        > --- In Sun_Tzu@y..., norpinal@y... wrote:
        > > Last week end I saw a new translation of Sun Tzu
        > >
        > > http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1570625522.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
        >
        > It's not awful, but the level of scholarship is not high.
        Apparently
        > the group translating it started teaching themselves "enough"
        chinese
        > to translate the Sunzi. The problem with this is it is too narrow
        a
        > focus, how can you translate the work well, if you are not familiar
        > with other works from the same period (ranging from 6th c, to 4th
        > century, depending who you talk to).
        >
        I agree



        > I was disappointed in it, but it is well written and while worth a
        > look, in retrospect, I would not have bought it.
        >
        > From what I've seen so far, of the recent versions, Roger Ames's
        (and
        > his Sun Pin (Sunbin) is the one to get, although the Griffith still
        > has merit and Sawyer is also good (I just finished rereading his
        > notes, from what I remember his translation was not bad but did not
        > make me particularly sit up and take notice.)
        >
        > Regards
        >
        > Douglas
      • norpinal@yahoo.ca
        ... Apparently ... chinese ... a ... (and ... I read primarily original classical Chinese Sun Tzu, of which I have three versions, minor difference in
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 1, 2001
          --- In Sun_Tzu@y..., "Douglas Henderson" <kueikutzu@h...> wrote:
          > --- In Sun_Tzu@y..., norpinal@y... wrote:
          > > Last week end I saw a new translation of Sun Tzu
          > >
          > > http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1570625522.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
          >
          > It's not awful, but the level of scholarship is not high.
          Apparently
          > the group translating it started teaching themselves "enough"
          chinese
          > to translate the Sunzi. The problem with this is it is too narrow
          a
          > focus, how can you translate the work well, if you are not familiar
          > with other works from the same period (ranging from 6th c, to 4th
          > century, depending who you talk to).
          >
          > I was disappointed in it, but it is well written and while worth a
          > look, in retrospect, I would not have bought it.
          >
          > From what I've seen so far, of the recent versions, Roger Ames's
          (and
          > his Sun Pin (Sunbin) is the one to get, although the Griffith still
          > has merit and Sawyer is also good (I just finished rereading his
          > notes, from what I remember his translation was not bad but did not
          > make me particularly sit up and take notice.)
          >
          > Regards
          >
          > Douglas

          I read primarily original classical Chinese Sun Tzu, of which
          I have three versions, minor difference in individual words.
          My English translation is novelist James Clavell edition of
          Lionel Giles translation. Imo, rather free style.

          martin
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.