tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3395481176873249475.post3842429862071118205..comments2024-03-29T13:53:58.551+08:00Comments on Classical Chinese Poems in English: 杜甫 Du Fu: 絕句 2首 其2 (4- 何日是歸年) A Quatrain, II of Two (In streams so aqua ...)Andrew W.F. Wong 黃宏發http://www.blogger.com/profile/13042865467544530221noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3395481176873249475.post-79922493101463205562014-01-16T16:06:17.666+08:002014-01-16T16:06:17.666+08:00I thank "Anonymous" for pointing out my ...I thank "Anonymous" for pointing out my mistake, but is it really a mistake? I have now checked 全唐詩 (228卷 21首) on the web and the great Chinese translator 許淵冲 Xu Yuan-Zhong's personal selection of "300 Tang Poems Bilingual Edition" 漢英對照唐詩三百首 (北京: 高教 2000) p.280. They both use the word 燃 "burn" with 火 "fire" added to the left of 然. My 然 version of the poem (without the added "fire") was taken from the Filipino-Chinese translator 施穎洲's "Tang and Song Poetry: Chinese--English" 中英對照讀唐詩宋詞 (台北: 九歌 2006) p.80. I freely admit I did not check on its authenticity in 2008 when I translated the poem as I felt (and still feel) comfortable with 然 which, according to the Chinese encyclopaedic dictionary 辭源, is the "original word" 本字. I am happy to leave textual research work to experts. And may I add, "fire" is already present in 然 as the 4 dots at the bottom of the character represent 火 "fire" (just like the 3 dots on the left of a character represent 水 "water"). Is it all that unthinkable that Du Fu might have left out the redundant 火 "fire" on purpose?Andrew W.F. Wong 黃宏發https://www.blogger.com/profile/13042865467544530221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3395481176873249475.post-800664021259997572013-06-27T23:59:45.767+08:002013-06-27T23:59:45.767+08:00Shouldn't it be 欲燃 instead of 欲然?Shouldn't it be 欲燃 instead of 欲然?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com