Reading this, I wonder how much of the quality is related to your own wisdom, and how much can be attributed to the original author?
The original:
国之贫于师者远输,远输则百姓贫;
What google translate makes of it:
If the country is poor than the teacher, those who lose far away will lose, and the people who lose far will be poor;
Your version
Resupplying an army over long distances impoverishes a country.
The last one seems to me like pragmatic direct clean common sense. If someone didn’t know it, I would think they were not right for military planning.
If every planned military campaign was to be checked against a checklist of common sense objections (that someone might have forgotten mid-planning based on groupthink or enthusiasm or something) then having that line in the checklist makes sense to me. Useful! Practical!
Google’s translation has no such virtues and I can’t read Chinese. Other lines have a similar pattern of “quality”?
Maybe… I’m reading (and appreciating!) “Lsusr’s Steelman Of Sunzi” rather than “the original itself”??
Maybe there’s a gap in my cross-cultural literary interpretation capacities (and/or Google is still terrible at Chinese translation) and I’m expecting to be spoon fed, and any normally capable classical Chinese reader would have “basically gotten the same thing you did” from the original, but then perhaps admire specifically your skill at translating it to a new domain (English) with different literary standards (pop culture infused midwits like me)?
Another theory might be that in the original, all the lines ARE vague. Perhaps they are elliptically written to avoid political attacks in Sunzi’s own time? Or just honestly lacking the punch and wisdom? Still, all of them together might cause someone who reads Chinese to “read between the lines” and be able to “get” each line?
One test might be to round trip your translation back through Google, and back to Chinese, and see if it “sounds way more sane and direct and useful” in the very last stage still?
Some lines from the original:
故兵闻拙速,未睹巧之久也。夫兵久而国利者,未之有也。
国之贫于师者远输,远输则百姓贫;
故兵贵胜,不贵久。
Google’s version:
Therefore, the soldiers heard the clumsy speed, and they have not seen the cleverness for a long time. There is no such thing as a husband and a soldier who benefits the country for a long time.
If the country is poor than the teacher, those who lose far away will lose, and the people who lose far will be poor;
Therefore, a soldier is expensive to win, not for a long time.
Your take:
There is no such thing as a beneficial protracted war.
Resupplying an army over long distances impoverishes a country.
A valuable victory is a quick victory.
Then back through Google?
没有所谓的持久战。
长途补给军队会使一个国家贫穷。
宝贵的胜利是快速的胜利。
So, the final Chinese looks pretty different in terms of characters and density and so on, but I can’t read or judge it as language. Your English seems way better than Google’s English. Is there a similar jump in quality from Chinese at the beginning as compared to the Chinese at the end?
The Art of War is written in Classical Chinese. Google Translate uses modern Chinese. Google Translate will spit out garbage if you attempt to translate directly from the original text. You have to translate it twice: once from Classical Chinese into modern Chinese and then from modern Chinese into English.
You can get a translation from Classical Chinese into modern Chinese by going here, selecting the chapter you want to read and then clicking the “原文/译文” button in the upper right corner. The Classical Chinese will remain black. A modern Chinese translation will appear in gold. Copy the gold text into Google Translate or Baidu Translate to get a better English translation.
Google Translate from modern Chinese into English:
Sun Tzu said: In combat with soldiers, you usually have to dispatch thousands of chariots, thousands of transport vehicles, and gather 100,000 soldiers to transport grain and grass thousands of miles along the way. In this way, all kinds of domestic and foreign expenses, the cost of entertaining envoys and strategists, the cost of repairing materials such as glue and paint for combat equipment, and the maintenance of tanks and armor, all cost a huge amount of money every day. After these preparations are made, the 100,000 army can be dispatched!
Reading this, I wonder how much of the quality is related to your own wisdom, and how much can be attributed to the original author?
The original:
What google translate makes of it:
Your version
The last one seems to me like pragmatic direct clean common sense. If someone didn’t know it, I would think they were not right for military planning.
If every planned military campaign was to be checked against a checklist of common sense objections (that someone might have forgotten mid-planning based on groupthink or enthusiasm or something) then having that line in the checklist makes sense to me. Useful! Practical!
Google’s translation has no such virtues and I can’t read Chinese. Other lines have a similar pattern of “quality”?
Maybe… I’m reading (and appreciating!) “Lsusr’s Steelman Of Sunzi” rather than “the original itself”??
Maybe there’s a gap in my cross-cultural literary interpretation capacities (and/or Google is still terrible at Chinese translation) and I’m expecting to be spoon fed, and any normally capable classical Chinese reader would have “basically gotten the same thing you did” from the original, but then perhaps admire specifically your skill at translating it to a new domain (English) with different literary standards (pop culture infused midwits like me)?
Another theory might be that in the original, all the lines ARE vague. Perhaps they are elliptically written to avoid political attacks in Sunzi’s own time? Or just honestly lacking the punch and wisdom? Still, all of them together might cause someone who reads Chinese to “read between the lines” and be able to “get” each line?
One test might be to round trip your translation back through Google, and back to Chinese, and see if it “sounds way more sane and direct and useful” in the very last stage still?
Some lines from the original:
Google’s version:
Your take:
Then back through Google?
So, the final Chinese looks pretty different in terms of characters and density and so on, but I can’t read or judge it as language. Your English seems way better than Google’s English. Is there a similar jump in quality from Chinese at the beginning as compared to the Chinese at the end?
The Art of War is written in Classical Chinese. Google Translate uses modern Chinese. Google Translate will spit out garbage if you attempt to translate directly from the original text. You have to translate it twice: once from Classical Chinese into modern Chinese and then from modern Chinese into English.
You can get a translation from Classical Chinese into modern Chinese by going here, selecting the chapter you want to read and then clicking the “原文/译文” button in the upper right corner. The Classical Chinese will remain black. A modern Chinese translation will appear in gold. Copy the gold text into Google Translate or Baidu Translate to get a better English translation.
Example classical Chinese:
Example modern Chinese:
Google Translate from modern Chinese into English: