Why, yes I do!
William H. Nienhauser, Jr., ed., The Grand Scribe’s Records, vol. 7 (Indiana University Press, 1994), pp. 263-273.
Fabulous … now I just have to try to find it before Thursday! 
As i recall there was no hard and fast rule, but on the whole wo 我 was an object and wu 吾 a subject.
It depends on which period of time and which works you’re talking about. Classical Chinese was not as static a language as many people believe.
Yes, this is why I emphasised therei s no hard and fast rule.
From Norman’s Chinese, 4.3:
Norman suggests that for a different view, one go to Huang2 Sheng4zhang1 1963. Gu hanyu de renshen daici yanjiu. Zhongguo Yuwen 6, 443-72.
Norman’s Chinese, 4.3 again
你们研究的东西可真深呀~！~！
Buddha, Bryan, et al,
I know this must be a stupid question and kindly don’t jump down my throat, but since you folks seem quite serious about this stuff (especially since Buddha is working on his MA at TaiDa[hyphen added by the machine], right?), well, I’m a little confused by your wanting to use English translations as a cheat-sheet of sorts. What were these translations based on? What do your Taiwanese/Chinese professors rely on?
I’ve only read about half a dozen of the old books, and none of the ones you’ve been speaking of on this thread, but I’m thinking if you’re reading an English translation for serious study (I’m just a hobbyist), wouldn’t you want to go to what they used? I mean, if Watson or Legge or others you’ve mentioned came up with something, it surely wasn’t in their head – or if it was they’d be rightly discredited – so why not look at what they used? I’ve thus far found reading the original has shed light on the necessarily imperfect English translations. Of course, the English translations are nice sometimes simply for their necessary imperfection, but I just wouldn’t have guessed that people so knowledgeable would use it as a form of serious study.
I use the annotated readers that most Taiwanese/Chinese use. I’m not skilled or daring enough to dive into something without my training wheels on. And yet, I can’t help but think that if my knowledge of the classics was so profound that I could/would do that, as you folks apparently are, I would have even less need for the English, and want to use the commentaries and what not that those translators used to give them insights into the texts.
I suppose you could use their translations as a chat with a friend, the way one reads philosophy in one’s native language as a conversation with an admirable mind. But, unless I missed it, the talk has been all about English. A Chinese reference book has been mentioned from time to time, but no Chinese commentaries that I recall anyone mentioning.
Obviously, I must be missing something. Hope you’ll tell me what that is.
Thanks.
If I have to give a presentation in class, or am rushed for time, I will check an English translation to get the gist of a story. When I’m doing a real research paper or my thesis, I always use the original. It’s also interesting looking for mistakes or discrepancies (both between Western-language translations, and interpretations from Chinese commentators) and then try to see why these divergences occur. I’ve done some research in that regard on “Dream of the Red Chamber.” I wouldn’t call it a “cheat sheet” at all.
Yonglan: If you read some of the great translators like Legge, you will find that they actually try to explain why a passage means what it means. The modern annotated versions tend to just present glosses that they have cribbed from random commentaries without giving you the source. They make no effort to defend those glosses or give you alternatives. I think you need to use both the translations and the annotated versions until you have a good handle on reading traditional commentaries.
Thanks, Buddha. That makes sense. What sorts of books do your classmates use? I mean, beyond the standard annotated readers (see below)?
Feiren, you’re certainly right about the annotated readers in Taiwan. But none of the translations I’ve read have much information either. Maybe that’s because I’ve read stuff that while written by scholars was intended for a popular audience. I haven’t read Legge before because until this thread I had always heard him poo-pooed.
Who else does well footnoted, well-explained translations? Something that tells me why the translator translated things as he did.
Also, can anyone recommend annotated readers in Chinese, either from Taiwan or China, that are well explained in terms of sources and such? When I lived in Taiwan, I bought the sort of annotated readers Feiren mentioned. I’ve been reading them and had thought them fine for my purposes until now, but listening to you folks I am curious to see what else there is.
Many thanks.
喂，麻煩你寫繁體字？這個BBS位於台灣，台灣不是用簡體字的地方，所以許多個Forumosan不會簡體字。此外，用簡體字寫給在台灣的人看有一點不禮貌。
Just out of curiosity, did you ever look at the Nienhauser? I remember using it for a paper I was doing, and relying on it quite a bit. I’m curious to know your opinion.
为什么不礼貌呢！~ 两岸交流 何必拘于文字体上！~
况且我们大陆的从没有觉得 在和别人交流时对方使用 繁体字 是一种不礼貌。
所以 我认为 你应该想一想 是否
無所謂
I write 番茄, you write 番茄…
That was a very bad joke.
Shouldn’t that be “I say 番茄 you say 西紅柿”? 
To get the topic back on track … is anyone aware of any big translation projects going on now besides the re-translation of the “Records of the Historian”? I think Victor Mair’s translation of Laozi, based on the Mawangdui texts, is good, but it’s not footnoted enough and doesn’t contain any of the traditional commentaries. But I think it’s meant for a much broader audience as opposed to scholars. I’d really like to see a good, scholarly re-translation of Zhuangzi come out though.
There’s a new translation of “Plum in the Golden Vase” (Jin Ping Mei) that’s supposed to be in five volumes (to replace the old three volume one, which isn’t very good, IMO), but so far only two volumes have come out and it’s been a while …
That translation actually has two sets of notes. The ones for a general audience are included with the book. The more specialized notes, however, were published separately, as issue number 20 of Sino-Platonic Papers.
I recommend you look through the complete catalog of issues. You might find many items of interest.
Mair, the editor of the series, has returned from abroad and is thus available to fill orders now.
Mair has also translated this. Again, the specialized notes were published separately, as issue 48 of Sino-Platonic Papers.
A recent project by Mair that might be of interest is the Hawaii Reader in Traditional Chinese Culture. This nearly 800-page anthology of more than 90 primary sources will be issued in February 2005. The introduction, table of contents, and samples are on line (see link above).
Thanks for the info, Cranky! I noticed that my Chinese religions professor, Tanya Storch (she was a student of Victor Mair), contributed an article on Buddhist historiography to that newsletter … I’ll have to check it out!
Let me try asking again. When I was in Taiwan, my Taiwanese friends recommended the annotated readers (such as those published by 三民，世一，五南，et al). Now some of you folks have made reference to the various commentaries which I knew existed, but had not seen in general bookstores such as Eslite, though that may be because I wasn’t looking, not that they aren’t actually there – you tell me.
Can you recommend anything? Buddha, what do your classmates use? Anyone, what do these translators read? My original reason for learning Chinese, thought no longer the main reason, was to read the classics in the original. Like I said before, doing so with the annotated readers has been fruitful, but since you folks keep referring to commentaries, I’d like to know what you use and what bookstore stocks these. Though currently in the US, I’ll be going to China very soon, so recommendations on that side of the strait are also welcome. Thank you.
That was one of things I had been talking about. Thanks.