对批评的回应

Seeking Truth Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI:10.2307/j.ctt1h64m9k.7

Wen Hai-min

{"title":"对批评的回应","authors":"Wen Hai-min","doi":"10.2307/j.ctt1h64m9k.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this short essay, I attempt to respond to the constructive critiques that Ni Peimin and Richard Stichler have directed at our recent translation and interpretation of the Zhongyong. These are two serious scholars, and I am grateful for their careful reading of our work. With Ni Peimin, our major disagreement comes with the terminology used to render the processual Chinese worldview into English. Our disagreement with Richard Stichler is, quite literally, more “substantial”.","PeriodicalId":262758,"journal":{"name":"Seeking Truth","volume":"260 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Response to the Criticisms\",\"authors\":\"Wen Hai-min\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/j.ctt1h64m9k.7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this short essay, I attempt to respond to the constructive critiques that Ni Peimin and Richard Stichler have directed at our recent translation and interpretation of the Zhongyong. These are two serious scholars, and I am grateful for their careful reading of our work. With Ni Peimin, our major disagreement comes with the terminology used to render the processual Chinese worldview into English. Our disagreement with Richard Stichler is, quite literally, more “substantial”.\",\"PeriodicalId\":262758,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Seeking Truth\",\"volume\":\"260 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Seeking Truth\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1h64m9k.7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seeking Truth","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1h64m9k.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

摘要

在这篇短文中，我试图回应倪培民和理查德·施蒂勒对我们最近对《中庸》的翻译和解释所提出的建设性批评。这是两位严肃的学者，我很感谢他们仔细阅读我们的作品。对于倪培民，我们的主要分歧在于将过程性的中国世界观翻译成英语时使用的术语。毫不夸张地说，我们与理查德•施蒂克勒(Richard Stichler)的分歧更为“实质性”。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Response to the Criticisms

In this short essay, I attempt to respond to the constructive critiques that Ni Peimin and Richard Stichler have directed at our recent translation and interpretation of the Zhongyong. These are two serious scholars, and I am grateful for their careful reading of our work. With Ni Peimin, our major disagreement comes with the terminology used to render the processual Chinese worldview into English. Our disagreement with Richard Stichler is, quite literally, more “substantial”.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Seeking Truth

自引率

0.00%

发文量