In Taking Account of the Indic Source Text (2010), Rod Bucknell demonstrates at length the nuanced reading that is required when translating a Chinese text into English when the Chinese itself has been translated from Indic languages such as Sanskrit or Gandhari. This is illustrated as he describes the process by which he transcribed the Chinese Buddhist texts Taisho Volumes One and Two (Bucknell 2010: 45).
A parallel text - early writings which informed the initial Indic text - are of immense value in attempting to reconstruct the meaning and intention of the source material. With this backgrounding, the Chinese can be translated to Pali - a language closer to the Indic languages - which can then be translated into English. Bucknell likens this to a mental reconstruction, in skeleton form, of the Indic languages, that can then be fleshed out as it were, allowing for a more accurate English translation (Bucknell 2010: 46). Given the inconsistencies of the Chinese texts, this step preceding an English translation is necessary.
While this approach is generally favourable to accurate translations, there are occasions where distinctions must be made not only between mistranslations into Chinese and genuine doctrinal disagreements, but also where double meaning may exist which to stress or value over the other (Bucknell 2010: 49-50). Further challenges arise as a result of some Chinese characters bearing close resemblance to one another, and thus the underlying reasoning for both must be sought. Ideally, one set of characters would fit closely with the meaning in Pali or Sanskrit, and the other would not, meaning that it is an error in the copying, rather than two equally plausible translations with significantly differing interpretations (Bucknell 2010: 51).
References
Bucknell, Rod. 2010. Taking account of the Indic Source-text. In Translating Buddhist Chinese:
Problems and Prospects. (K. Meisig, ed.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 45-52.
No comments:
Post a Comment