寫真 for photograph?

[Mark Yong]

In Japanese, 'photograph' is referred to as 寫真. Is this term also used in Chinese? Intuitively, it seems that 寫真 is a more accurate translation of 'photograph' than 照片 or even 相片, in the same way 傳真 is an accurate translation of 'facsimile' (i.e. "to transmit a true image of something").

[muyongshi]

Why do think it is a better translation?? Writing has nothing to do with a photograph....

Both 照片 and 相片 make sense as it requires light on film to make a picture and 相 has to do with appearance and looks and a photograph is...a piece of paper with someone's likeness....

[skylee]

Is this term also used in Chinese?

Yes, in the manner of fashionable loan words like 水着, 達人, etc.

[Mark Yong]

muyongshi wrote:

Why do think it is a better translation?? Writing has nothing to do with a photograph....

Colloquially speaking, you are right. The angle I am speaking from is similar to asking whether or not 計算機 is a better translation than 電腦 for 'computer'. Technically speaking, 計算機 is more accurate, because strictly speaking, 'compute' is 計算. But colloquially and practically speaking, a computer is essentially an 'electrical brain', i.e. 電腦.

I am just trying to establish whether in this case, semantically-speaking, the Japanese got it more accurate than the Chinese.

[zhwj]

写真 means 'likeness' (as a type of representational portraiture; check pre-photography examples in Chinese literature); you could argue that as technology advances, 真 takes on new meanings, so 写真 should be updated to apply to the representation that is closest to the original. When holograms become widespread, perhaps we should call them 写真, too.

Edit: There's a great book on this subject by Lydia Liu; she addresses how western ideas were translated into Chinese phonetically, conceptually, and with Japanese as an intermediary. Translingual Practice translated as 《跨语际实践》.

[liuzhou]

Writing has nothing to do with a photograph

Well, actually, the English word 'photograph' comes from the Greek for 'light writing.'

'graph' means 'write'.

[c_redman]

It's an interesting discussion how different languages name things differently, but I don't think you'll get a definitive answer for which is more semantically accurate.

As muyongshi stated, photographs aren't written (it is a chemical process). Thus, perhaps the Chinese word is more semantically accurate than the English photograph. In a similar way, many languages use the term "flying machine" instead of airplane, a vehicle which is neither an unbounded two-dimensional shape, nor does it skim the surface of the air.

[adrianlondon]

many languages use the term "flying machine" instead of airplane

And some use aeroplane ;)

[Mark Yong]

zhwj wrote:

写真 means 'likeness' (as a type of representational portraiture; check pre-photography examples in Chinese literature...

Yes, that is what I meant. Semantically, a 'photograph' is the capturing of the likeness of something. 相片 is too limiting, in that it refers only to portraiture. Perhaps something like 照寫真 would be the most semantically-accurate!

zhwj wrote:

When holograms become widespread, perhaps we should call them 写真, too.

"三維寫真", perhaps?

[Mark Yong]

In some of the 閩南 Minnan dialects, 'aeroplane' is referred to as 飛船 pue-chun, rather than 飛機. Strangely, I actually find the former more semantically-accurate, since it refers specifically to a 'flying passenger vessel', rather than just a 'flying machine'. Comments?

[muyongshi]

But that then is inaccurate as there exist many flying machines not just passenger ones. Even if you want to argue that a fighter plane (which could generally be referred to as a 飞机) carries people so it is better to say 飞船, there are drones, rockets, and many other objects that fly that do not carry people that could be placed in a general category of 飞机.

[zhwj]

I've dug up my copy of Translingual Practice, and in the appendix, Liu has two entries for 'photograph'.

The first gives the missionaries translation as 照像法 for photography (also 影像 and 日影像); camera was rendered as 照像镜 (also 照相器 and even 神镜).

A second entry, in the list of "returned words" (words that existed in classical Chinese but which re-entered China from Japan, where they had been given new meanings) gives citations for 写真 in classical works from Wang Anshi to Liu Xie. Its new meaning of 'photograph' was used by Wang Tao in 1879.

Besides, if you want to argue about whether something is "semantically accurate" (which I would say is not very meaningful except perhaps for particular facets of meaning), you'd have to get in to issues of representation and manipulation - not just the question of whether 写真 should be used for an altered or otherwise "prepared" photograph, but the whole idea of "fidelity" to the source material - just because an image is a photograph doesn't make it true. In that respect, a word that refers to the physical properties of a photograph is more "semantically accurate" than the idea of "likeness."

As for 三維寫真 - perhaps, but if we're aiming for the semantic accuracy you're talking about, then a hologram would be 寫真, and a photograph would have to be something else, like 平面寫真, since it would no longer be the closest representation....

[melop]

The term 寫真 in Chinese has a much narrower sense than Japanese. It usually refers to photographes with partial or complete nudity, that's what "真" really conveys in Chinese.

The translation "照片" corresponds better with "photograph", because greek root "photo-" means light, "graph-" means a piece of work.

[Mark Yong]

Hi, everyone,

Thanks for all your inputs. I realise there really isn't a correct answer to the question on this thread, and all your points are valid.

Anyway, just to throw another curveball, here's another example: 計時器 (or, in Japanese, 時計) or 時鐘 for 'clock'? Semantically, I would vote the former, since 鐘 semantically refers to a bell, not a time piece. On the same note, 表 for 'watch' is not qutie correct either, since 表 is really a 'table'. Some people write it as 錶; if I am not mistaken, that character did not originally mean 'watch' either.

[Mark Yong]

On the same topic, transliteration of names of foreign places are often phonetic rather than semantic. The latter would have made them more transferable to Japanese, and also retain the true meaning of the names of the places where the name of the place actually carries a certain meaning (e.g. Japan/Nippon = rising sun, Vietnam = southernmost).

For instance:

1. I would argue that Singapore (Sanskrit: Lion City) should really have been translated as 獅城 (which is the alternate 'unofficial' name), instead of 新加坡

2. Australia (Terra Incognito Australasis "unnamed southern land") should have been translated as 南洲 (note the 三點水 in 洲 - this one I admit could be confused with 南州 in 浙江 province).

3. America. Okay, my recommendation here may be a little archaic, but since the America's were once considered as the "New World", would 新界 have worked?

[Mugi]

Vietnam = southernmost

I think you've misunderstood the meaning of 越南 - it means "South of Yue" (越 = 粵)

but since the America's were once considered as the "New World", would 新界 have worked?

Then the New Territories in Hong Kong would have had to choose a different name!

[Jialihai Jiejie]

1. I would argue that Singapore (Sanskrit: Lion City) should really have been translated as 獅城 (which is the alternate 'unofficial' name), instead of 新加坡

Likewise, we should call 东京, 北京 Capital of the East and Capital of the North respectively?

But they don't though. Sometimes we can't just translate words literally like that.

Because there are some weird places that are better left in their original readings.

See some ACTUAL place names below:

Cunter in Switzerland.

Dildo in Canada.

Wank in Germany.

Intercourse in USA.

Climax in USA.

Twatt in UK.

Rimswell in UK.

Shitterton in UK.

Cockermouth in UK.

Surely, we cannot translate these place names listed above the way you did your 'Lion City' so semantically.

[HashiriKata]

Likewise, we should call 东京, 北京 Capital of the East and Capital of the North respectively?

Not "Capital of the East" and "Capital of the North" but "Capital in the East" (Eastern Capital) and "Capital in the North" (Northern Capital). No, I'm not trying to split hairs . The difference may be slight but crucial because they are national capitals, not regional capitals.

I think you've misunderstood the meaning of 越南 - it means "South of Yue" (越 = 粵)

By Vietnamese sources, the name Viet Nam is intended to reflect the origin of the race and not the geography of the country: Vietnamese is said to be a race originally lived in a country further North than what is now Vietnam, but their homeland was gradually took over by the huge & mighty Chinese, so they were continually driven towards the South, crossing to (越) the South (南) to settle in a then sparsely populated land which was not originally their own.

[Jialihai Jiejie]

Not "Capital of the East" and "Capital of the North" but "Capital in the East" (Eastern Capital) and "Capital in the North" (Northern Capital). No, I'm not trying to split hairs . The difference may be slight but crucial because they are national capitals, not regional capitals.

Not necessary. You know these two countries in the past. They had a very big ambition to call themselves the Big Brother IN the world. China thought they were right in the centre IN the world; Japan wanted to colonise much of Eastern Asia.

[Lu]

Not necessary. You know these two countries in the past. They had a very big ambition to call themselves the Big Brother IN the world. China thought they were right in the centre IN the world; Japan wanted to colonise much of Eastern Asia.

The reasoning is nice, but historically it's not correct. If Zhongguo was the leader of the world, its capital would be called Jiejing, not Beijing. And what about Nanjing? Isn't that the Southern Capital exactly because there already was a Northern Capital?

I don't know much about Japanese history, but I think that by the time the country became aware of the fact that they were in the East, and much later wanted to rule over all of East Asia, the name of the capital had been in place for a very, very long time already.