translation help?

[Pravit]

I'm reading 黄仁宁's 中国大历史. It's pretty good, although the writing is kind of hard to understand at certain points. I just came across this passage, which I don't quite understand:

既然如此，为什么此后有这么多的变迁，牵涉到周期性的盛衰起伏？从宏观的角度看来，这问题不难解答。中国自汉以来累积的财富，一旦达到某种程度，便无法阻止，也不能在制度上予以集中巩固。

I don't quite understand what he means with the last sentence. Here's my understanding of the passage:

Such being the case, why were there so many changes afterwards, involving a cycle of rise and fall? From a macro-perspective, this question is easy to answer. Since the Han dynasty, when China's wealth reaches a certain level, there is no way to stop it (?), and it cannot give centralized consolidation to the authority.

What's the 便无法阻止 mean? Doesn't have any way to stop what? Is he just referring to the next clause about consolidation (i.e. even China's wealth can't give consolidation to the authority)? Or does he mean there's no way to stop China's wealth (if so, then why would this contribute to a cycle of rise and fall?)

Another confusing part:

小自耕农亦无力在供应一个地主。只是中国的做法通常忽视这全般情势，仍受中央集权的影响。他们倡导小自耕农而不满于地主，已半将他们自己管制的方便，混杂在人道的立场内。固然，只有均平主义而无经理上之纵深，在经济思想上不能算是圆满周到，

The peasants could not support a landlord (in addition to the government). But China's way often ignored this general situation, and (the peasants? who?) were still influenced by the central government. They(? who's they?) advocated the peasantry and were discontent with the landlords, almost(?? - I have no idea how to translate 已半) taking the ease of their own control and mixing it in with the ideas of humanism/rendao. Admittedly, only the depth(??) of egalitarianism(???) and non-managing(??? what's 无经理) that could be considered not entirely thoughtful to economics.

I'm just confused here by the ambiguity. Who was still being influenced by the central government? Who's the 他们 that were advocating the peasantry - the government? What does 已半 mean? And I don't understand that last sentence about 均平主义 or 无经理 at all. Where does that come from - are those concepts of 人道?

I'd appreciate any explanations. Thanks!

[skylee]

I have the book. Could you tell me where the quotes are from?

The book was first written in English. You might find reading the original helpful.

PS - the first quote is from Chapter 6. I think the "stop" refers to the accumulation of wealth. And the wealth could not be centralised or consolidated through the system.

PS the second quote is from Chapter 5 . I think "they" refers to the Government. I don't have time now. need to go to work.

[gato]

I think they are probably either mistranslations or typos. I've read the book in the original English. This Chinese version seems much more convoluted.. Who's the translator? I would recommend reading something originally written in Chinese instead. Translations are usually sketchy.

Or if you are interested in another translation, you could try Jacques Gernet's book. I have a copy of the Chinese translation, and it's very readable.

http://www.amazon.cn/mn/detailApp?qid=1201062232&ref=SR&sr=1-2&uid=168-6442127-7606643&prodid=zjbk355761

中国社会史

作者:（法） 谢和耐 译者:耿昇

The English version is here, and it's translated from the original French.

http://www.amazon.com/History-Chinese-Civilization-Jacques-Gernet/dp/0521497817/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201062372&sr=8-1

A History of Chinese Civilization

by Jacques Gernet (Author), J. R. Foster (Translator), Charles Hartman (Translator)

[skylee]

I've borrowed the English original (ISBN 1-56324-730-5) from a library.

For the first quote, the original is -

The above sketch makes it clear that in the second century AD the basic ingredients of the Chinese empire that were to go on for many centuries were already in place. And by then the imperial order had also stretched to the remotest frontiers that its power could make it reach. That being the case, one may wonder why so many vicissitudes were yet to come, so many cycles of collapse and regeneration. There is a preliminary answer in the vision of macrohistory: The accumulation of agricultural wealth since the rise of the Han dynasty, once reaching a plateau, could be neither checked nor institutionally consolidated. This was by no means a temporary oversight that could be promptly discovered and corrected. When we seek to explain this today, we fully realize that human history itself marks a continuous effort to supply new insight into past events. Without the records of the next 1,800 years, including the experience of the modern West, we might never be able to interpret the collapse of the Han adequately.

For the second quote, the original is -

Given the extent of political centralism, it is understandable that the bureaucrats were always concerned with the problem of tenency. Since public office derived its strength from the amount of food and manpower collected from the pool of small sel-cultivators, landlordism always meant an erosion of this tax base. As the above case illustrates, it is also obvious that the prime producer was unable to provide an extra share for the landlord. A point that Chinese writers failed to recognize, however, is that the case itself had been a product of the centralized mangement. Their argument in favor of small self-cultivaotrs as opposed to landlordism mixed administrative considerations with humanitarian concerns. While egalitarianism without organizational sophistication does not reflect clear economic thinking, in view of the need for a broad and general administration in the background, nor can he call it a simple "mistake". Suffice it to say that the tax structure was tied to land tenure, and both were dictated by the uniform control from the center. And the entanglement remained a permanent feature in the macro history of China.

There is a note at the end of the book -

The original edition of China: A Macro History has been translated into Japanese, Korean, Chinese in traditional characters (in Taiwan), and Chinese in simplified characters (in Beijing).

Hope the above helps.

[gato]

The accumulation of agricultural wealth since the rise of the Han dynasty, once reaching a plateau, could be neither checked nor institutionally consolidated.

中国自汉以来累积的财富，一旦达到某种程度，便无法阻止，也不能在制度上予以集中巩固。 is a poor translation. It's both inaccurate and hard to read （拗口 as some reviewer on joyo.com called it）.

A possible revision, though I'm not sure about the last part is:

中国自汉朝以来农业财富的累积与集中，一旦达到某种程度，既无法遏制，也无有效的社会机构来巩固。

Note that the original translation left out the "agricultural." And it's "accumulation" that is being checked or consolidated, not wealth itself.

[Pravit]

Glad to hear I'm not the only one who thinks this book is awkwardly-written! For a while there I was convinced that a requirement of formally written Chinese is to be vague and convoluted in your writing.

I'm not sure who translated it - I've looked all over my book, but they don't credit any translator. The Chinese version even has a 自序 written by Ray Huang himself. Is it possible that he wrote the Chinese version himself?

A point that Chinese writers failed to recognize, however, is that the case itself had been a product of the centralized mangement.

只是中国的做法通常忽视这全般情势，仍受中央集权的影响

Can someone explain to me how the Chinese is supposed to mean the English one, or is it another example of bad translation?

[skylee]

I'm not sure who translated it - I've looked all over my book, but they don't credit any translator. The Chinese version even has a 自序 written by Ray Huang himself. Is it possible that he wrote the Chinese version himself?

I wonder about it too.

[fireball9261]

I'm not sure who translated it - I've looked all over my book, but they don't credit any translator. The Chinese version even has a 自序 written by Ray Huang himself. Is it possible that he wrote the Chinese version himself?

It was quite possible. He was a well educated KMT military officer before he went to U.S. to study history. The Chinese writing had the kind of half modern and half classical ways of writing around his time. I really doubt he would not have a Chinese version of his English book. If I were him, I would write a Chinese version first before translating it into English because Chinese are both of our first language.

For a while there I was convinced that a requirement of formally written Chinese is to be vague and convoluted in your writing.

Pravit,

Many Chinese would not have the kind of grammatic and systematic writing training as most of the Westerners had. I studied my Chinese in 1960's and 1970's in Taiwan, and we never had any of those in Chinese studies below the College level. I am not sure they even had those at the College level outside of Chinese language or Chinese literature majors. I was trained in the U.S. College formally, so I could feel the full extend of such lacking in the writings of the old time Chinese scholars.

I have read a lot of formal research papers by Chinese scholars in Chinese published in Taiwan, mainland China, or Hong Kong, and many of them had problems in logic, supporting evidences, clear central ideas, specific usage of words and phrases, etc. Many times, I would find unsupported theories showing up all of a sudden with no lead-ins and no supporting sentences. Not to mention the very "vague and convoluted" writings that drive you crazy.

I could assure you, some of us do write clear and well organized formal Chinese essays. My father was one of them. He was a lawyer and had to support his theories, and his logic and his writing style had many Taiwan judges praised him in court and in public. I also try to write like him, but I am not sure whether I succeeded or not. In the modern days, 朱自清 and 胡適 had very clear and well organized writing styles IMO. I could not remember others at this time. I think you could find some other Chinese writers that are good also.

[Pravit]

Thanks for your insight, fireball - it's really interesting to hear I'm not the only one who gets frustrated with Chinese writing sometimes!

The interesting thing is, the book is written pretty well in English, but some parts just get so ambiguous or confusing when translated into Chinese. Maybe I just need to study more.