Warts and all kind of history

[JNclone]

It's enormously important that Bill Hamblin be condemned.

For everything. No matter how small and insignificant.

No witticisms, no cuteness, no whimsicality is to be permitted to such people.

I once heard an old scholar say "Ignorance is not amusing". There's something in that.

Professor Hamblin seems to put a lot of effort into amusing us on this board. Let's say I was just trying to help him sharpen his game a little.

[Bill Hamblin]

I once heard an old scholar say "Ignorance is not amusing". There's something in that.

The old fart obviously never saw Laurel and Hardy; or Dumb and Dumber. Or even the Three Stooges. Ignorance is often hilarious!

Professor Hamblin seems to put a lot of effort into amusing us on this board. Let's say I was just trying to help him sharpen his game a little.

No trouble. Really, no trouble at all.

At any rate, I thought it was kind of clever for someone who doesn't know Chinese to come up with a quotation in Chinese. Some people just can't be pleased.

But it was really not that hard.

http://zhongwen.com/lunyu.htm

You put in two bits of ancient Chinese transliterated into modern Beijing pronunciation. One (minus tone marks) was of a phrase not actually found in ancient texts.

So how would you properly transliterate the ancient Chinese of this passage?

I compared the text on the internet site with my copy of Legge's Chinese edition of the Lunyu. They appear to be the same (Legge numbers it 9.8 instead of 9.9). Which character (phrase?) that I cited is not in the ancient texts?

Just trying to sharpen your game a little.

[Scott26.2]

I was persuaded to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet over the years, and I accepted it based on my understanding of what a prophet was, and how a prophet should behave.

Pardon me Mary, but you don't sound as though you had a particularly strong testimony of the Prophet Joseph. Furthermore, do you have trouble with Biblical prophets based on "how a prophet should behave?"

Scott26.2

[e=mc2]

The old fart obviously never saw Laurel and Hardy; or Dumb and Dumber. Or even the Three Stooges. Ignorance is often hilarious! No trouble. Really, no trouble at all. At any rate, I thought it was kind of clever for someone who doesn't know Chinese to come up with a quotation in Chinese. Some people just can't be pleased. But it was really not that hard. http://zhongwen.com/lunyu.htmSo how would you properly transliterate the ancient Chinese of this passage?I compared the text on the internet site with my copy of Legge's Chinese edition of the Lunyu. They appear to be the same (Legge numbers it 9.8 instead of 9.9). Which character (phrase?) I cited is not in the ancient texts. Just trying to sharpen your game a little.

You just never cease to amaze me.

Pardon me Mary, but you don't sound as though you had a particularly strong testimony of the Prophet Joseph. Furthermore, do you have trouble with Biblical prophets based on "how a prophet should behave?"Scott26.2

Omigosh I hope she doesn't......... Folks we are still talking human all too human even with the prophets...... I promise you don't wanna go down this road. Yes they are blessed with exceedingly astonishing spiritual revelations and visions, but to put them in another category nigh unto perfection in order for them to receive God's word is simply dangerous. Flat out dangerous.

[Abulafia]

Pardon me Mary, but you don't sound as though you had a particularly strong testimony of the Prophet Joseph. Furthermore, do you have trouble with Biblical prophets based on "how a prophet should behave?"

Scott26.2

Well, I came to believe that he was a prophet, based on what I had been taught through seminary, sunday school etc. I guess I had enough of a testimony to serve voluntarily for 19 months, a mission. Looking back, I don't doubt that I was sincere in my belief.

Actually, I do have a problem with a lot of the old testament, and some of the new. I have a picture of Jesus of Nazareth in my head and how he behaved and if the OT doesn't fit (or the NT) then I reject it. So I don't see God commanding men to kill men, women and children. I do see 'men' commanding 'men' to kill men women and children and then assigning those actions to God's will. For me, it's a big difference, and explains many of the atrocities committed in the name of a supposedly loving God.

Nowadays, I kind of like (John Shelby) Spong's view of christianity, I also have great sympathy with Richard Dawkins view of religion.

Mary

[JNclone]

You want to go on with this one? OK, so long as we keep it fairly short.

Ignorance is often hilarious!

From the Three Stooges, maybe. It's a matter of taste.

But if people holding chairs in reputable universities identify themselves as such when posting on message boards, then how do we feel when they try to amuse us by quoting foreign languages, and get them wrong? I think we can at least say that the mode of laughter provoked, if any, is significantly different from that accorded to the Three Stooges, who were consummate professionals doing their job pretty well flawlessly.

If you want to take the Analects stuff further -

1) You won't find any ancient Chinese text that introduces words said to be by Confucius with the four characters that you romanised in modern Beijing pronunciation according to the pinyin system as "Kong fu zi yue". To prove me wrong, you just have to find a single instance of this. I'll accept anything earlier than (say) 1000 CE No doubt you have colleagues who can help you out here: there are very quick ways of checking this point.

2) In your other quote, you have the tone of "lun" wrong for its usage in the book title "Lun yu": you can see that if you look at the transliteration of the book title in the online source you give - it's on the first page. The other error is not entirely your fault, since the online source you are using does indeed have a character read "hu" where all the texts I know have "fu", a different character. However, you do say "I compared the text on the internet site with my copy of Legge's Chinese edition of the Lunyu. They appear to be the same (Legge numbers it 9.8 instead of 9.9)." They aren't. Legge has "fu" here, as expected. Verify your reference.

If you are interested in attempts to reconstruct the way Chinese was pronounced in ancient times, which one of your queries seems to indicate, ask a qualified colleague to direct you to appropriate resources.

I note in passing that the expression "old fart" is now acceptable on this board (see your post above) as a critical descriptor for a third party whose views or words are cited by another poster with evident respect and deference. That should make some of our exchanges more stimulating.

[Bill Hamblin]

But if people holding chairs in reputable universities identify themselves as such when posting on message boards, then how do we feel when they try to amuse us by quoting foreign languages, and get them wrong?

Amused? At any rate, since the inmates of the Bedlam Board were apparently going on about the Confucius and the glass house joke, I thought I'd cite a little Confucius. The meaning of the passage I quoted--which nobody seems to have paid attention to--has been translated, "I'm finished, aren't I?" or "I'm done for" or "It is all over with me." In other words, quoting the Lunyu is a satirical response to their claims of my moral and intellectual depravity. Then, I thought, why not put it in Chinese transliteration to annoy them, so I did. Just a joke. Not a scholarly proclamation or pretension.

If you want to take the Analects stuff further -

1) You won't find any ancient Chinese text that introduces words said to be by Confucius with the four characters that you romanised in modern Beijing pronunciation according to the pinyin system as "Kong fu zi yue". To prove me wrong, you just have to find a single instance of this. I'll accept anything earlier than (say) 1000 CE No doubt you have colleagues who can help you out here: there are very quick ways of checking this point.

Guess what? I never said it did! It wasn't a quotation from an ancient Chinese text. I was translating "Confucius said" into Chinese, or, rather, I was giving the Chinese original for Confucius. I am well aware that in the Lunyu Confucius is generally known as the Master, is generally called simply zi/Master or Kong zi "Master Kong". He is also much more frequently known as Kong zi rather than Kong fuzi. So? I never claimed otherwise. But Kong zi does not transliterate into the Latinized Confucius, does it. Kong fuzi does. Confucius is the latinization for Kong fuzi, not Kong zi, right?

But you are reading far too much into my little joke.

2) In your other quote, you have the tone of "lun" wrong for its usage in the book title "Lun yu": you can see that if you look at the transliteration of the book title in the online source you give - it's on the first page. The other error is not entirely your fault, since the online source you are using does indeed have a character read "hu" where all the texts I know have "fu", a different character. However, you do say "I compared the text on the internet site with my copy of Legge's Chinese edition of the Lunyu. They appear to be the same (Legge numbers it 9.8 instead of 9.9)." They aren't. Legge has "fu" here, as expected. Verify your reference.

Guilty as charged. I don't know tone transliteration. (I notice you're not using it in your transliterations either.) You're also right that the fourth character in Legge is different. It's the phrase in Lunyu 5.26a that has hū. Sorry.

If you are interested in attempts to reconstruct the way Chinese was pronounced in ancient times, which one of your queries seems to indicate, ask a qualified colleague to direct you to appropriate resources.

So using "modern Beijing pronunciation" [pinyin] to transliterate "ancient Chinese" is acceptable practice, no? Because, basically, no one is sure how ancient Chinese was pronounced, right? So why the snarky remark about using "modern Beijing pronunciation"?

I note in passing that the expression "old fart" is now acceptable on this board (see your post above) as a critical descriptor for a third party whose views or words are cited by another poster with evident respect and deference. That should make some of our exchanges more stimulating.

Guess you don't know very many old professors. Trust me, in many cases no other phrase will do. ("Pompous windbag" is a close second, but it doesn't have the flare that "old fart" does.)

To summarize, in reality, what you're saying in all this is that I got one tone mark wrong (and I notice you don't use them at all in your pinyin transliteration here; should I start sniping at you because you aren't doing your tone marks right?). The error in the character from the Lunyu was an error in the edition I was citing; I, however, cited it correctly. I also correctly transliterated Confucius as deriving from Kong fuzi rather than Kong zi.

So, your snarky comments were perhaps a bit exaggerated?

[Jason]

Two men enter! One man leaves!

Two men enter! One man leaves!

Two men enter! One man leaves!

[Bill Hamblin]

Two men enter! One man leaves!

Two men enter! One man leaves!

Two men enter! One man leaves!

Can I be the one who leaves? Now? Pleeeeeese!

[JNclone]

So using "modern Beijing pronunciation" [pinyin] to transliterate "ancient Chinese" is acceptable practice, no? Because, basically, no one is sure how ancient Chinese was pronounced, right? So why the snarky remark about using "modern Beijing pronunciation"?

Not snarky - I was just being precise about the fact that we are using a modern pronunciation to represent ancient text, and avoiding all possibility of being (even purportedly) misunderstood, a precaution which is I think wise in the environment of this board.

Guess you don't know very many old professors.

You guessed wrong. (But anyone who wishes may contradict me: I am anonymous, and my mere assertions are valueless in themselves.)

Trust me, in many cases no other phrase will do. ("Pompous windbag" is a close second, but it doesn't have the flare that "old fart" does.)

I find I learn a lot by listening respectfully to my learned elders and betters. And I still think the one who said "ignorance is not amusing" was right on the button.

And that's "flair" surely? It is very dangerous to attempt to flare farts.

[Bill Hamblin]

Not snarky - I was just being precise about the fact that we are using a modern pronunciation to represent ancient text, and avoiding all possibility of being (even purportedly) misunderstood, a precaution which is I think wise in the environment of this board.

You guessed wrong. (But anyone who wishes may contradict me: I am anonymous, and my mere assertions are valueless in themselves.)

I find I learn a lot by listening respectfully to my learned elders and betters. And I still think the one who said "ignorance is not amusing" was right on the button.

And that's "flair" surely? It is very dangerous to attempt to flare farts.

Flair indeed! That's very good

At any rate, what it all boils down to is that I did one tone mark wrong, and you don't like me very much. Was that final conclusion really worth all the effort and posturing, especially considering that you don't write tone marks either? The answer is, no. Like Confucius said: "It's a tempest in a proverbial teacup." (And no, Confucius really didn't say that either.)