{"id":14707,"date":"2025-09-24T10:43:32","date_gmt":"2025-09-24T08:43:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=14707"},"modified":"2025-10-17T07:29:14","modified_gmt":"2025-10-17T05:29:14","slug":"atc-variations-vocabulary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/atc-variations-vocabulary\/","title":{"rendered":"ATC Two translations of the same analogy-e"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
\n

ATC<\/span><\/h1>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Variations of vocabulary<\/span>
\nbetween two translations of the same analogy<\/span><\/strong><\/h1>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

This example is taken from Mengzi’s (Mencius, Meng Ke) discussion with Gaozi (Kao Tzu) [1] as reported in Mengzi’s text.
\nThe discussion focuses on two fundamental concepts of Confucianism: human nature and righteousness. Gaozi attempts to clarify these concepts by drawing an analogy with the willow tree, which is used to make cups and bowls. Mencius strongly rejects this analogy, which he considers inadequate.
\nFor our current purposes we will limit ourselves to two translations, those of Robert Eno and Dim Cheuk Lau, namely MenciusEno<\/sub> and MenciusLau<\/sub> (our presentation and numbering).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
MengziEno<\/sub>, 6A.1<\/td>\nMenciusLau<\/sub>, VIA 1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1a Gaozi said<\/em>, \u201cHuman nature is like the willow tree, and righteousness is like cups and bowls.<\/td>\n1a Kao Tzu said<\/em>, Human nature is like the ch\u2019i willow. Dutifulness is like cups and bowls.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1b Drawing humanity and right from human nature is like making cups and bowls from willow wood.\u201d<\/td>\n1b To make morality out of human nature is like making cups and bowls out of the willow.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2a Mencius said<\/em>, \u201cCan you make cups and bowls from willow wood by following its natural grain, or is it only after you have hacked the willow wood that you can make a cup or bowl?<\/td>\n2a Can you, said Mencius<\/em>, make cups and bowls by following the nature of the willow? 2b Or must you mutilate the willow before you can make it into cups and bowls?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2c If you must hack the willow to make cups and bowls from it, must you hack people in order to make them humane and righteous?<\/td>\n2c If you have to mutilate the willow to make it into cups and bowls, must you then also mutilate a man to make him moral?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2d Your words will surely lead the people of the world to destroy humanity and right.<\/td>\n2d Surely it will be these words of yours, men in the world will follow in bringing disaster upon morality.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

This is clearly a dialectical exchange between two philosophers. Gaozi puts forward an analogy, made explicit by the construction ‘A<\/strong> is like B<\/strong>‘, to illustrate his conception of human nature.
\nBoth translations use the same expression, ‘human nature’ (1a), to refer to the topic of the debate. The problem posed by Gaozi concerns the emergence of a complex capacity, which is referred to using the following terms (the ‘>’ sign indicates that these terms are part of a chain corresponding to the same object of discourse): [4]\n

This is clearly a dialectical exchange between two philosophers. Gaozi puts forward an analogy, made explicit by the construction ‘A is like B’, to illustrate his conception of human nature.
\nBoth translations use the same expression, ‘human nature’ (1a), to refer to the topic of the debate. The problem discussed by Gaozi concerns the emergence of a complex capacity, which is referred to using the following terms. The ‘><\/strong>‘ sign indicates that these terms are part of a chain corresponding to the same object of discourse [5])<\/p>\n

Les deux traductions utilisent la m\u00eame expression, human nature<\/em> (1a) pour d\u00e9signer le th\u00e8me g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du d\u00e9bat. Le probl\u00e8me pos\u00e9 par Gaozi concerne l’\u00e9mergence d’une capacit\u00e9 complexe d\u00e9sign\u00e9e par les termes suivants. [4] e signe \u201c><\/strong>\u201d indique que les termes entrent dans la cha\u00eene dont l’ensemble correspond \u00e0 un m\u00eame objet de discours),[2]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
MengziEno<\/sub><\/td>\nMenciusLau<\/sub><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
righteousness (1a)<\/p>\n

> humanity and right (1b)<\/p>\n

> [(to make them<\/em>) humane and righteous (2b)<\/p>\n

> humanity and right (2c)<\/td>\n

dutifulness (1a)<\/p>\n

> morality (1b)<\/p>\n

> (to make him<\/em>) moral (2b)<\/p>\n

> morality (2c)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Mencius does not comment on the concept under discussion, but only on the analogy used by Gaozi. He develops the analogy by focusing on the nature of the transformation undergone by the willow to become a bowl and cup<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
MengziEno<\/sub><\/td>\nMenciusLau<\/sub><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
making cups and bowls from willow wood (1b)<\/td>\nmaking cups and bowls out of the willow (1b)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

To describe this process, Gaozi uses the abstract predicate ‘making C from\/out of W’, which has no definite argumentative orientation, in both translations. The text continues with a question from Mencius.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
MengziEno<\/sub><\/td>\nMenciusLau<\/sub><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2b hacked the willow wood<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

must you hack people in order to make them humane and righteous?<\/td>\n

mutilate the willow<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

must you then mutilate a man to make him moral?<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

In both translations, Mencius essentially adopts the willow’s point of view. MenciusLau<\/sub> uses the word ‘mutilate’, which has a negative connotation. The expression ‘mutilating the willow to make a bowl and a cup<\/em>‘ thus highlights the negative nature of the transformation undergone by the willow. This completely changes the perspective on the operation.
\nWith ‘hack’, MengziEno<\/sub> adds the sensation of a sharp instrument, which is perfectly consistent with the idea of mutilation: ‘hack<\/em> W<\/strong> into<\/em> C<\/strong>‘.
\nBased on the analogy proposed by Gaozi himself, MengziEno<\/sub> transfers the operation to humans (a process marked by ‘then<\/em>‘ in MenciusLau<\/sub>).<\/p>\n

We conclude that both translations clearly develop an argument by analogy, which is rejected by the opponent who finds fault with the analogy by pointing out a flaw in its structure.
\nConsequently, this case can be used for all practical purposes in argumentation, under either translation.
\nThe only reservation concerns the status of the concepts on which the analogy is based (righteousness<\/em>, dutifulness<\/em>, humanity<\/em> and morality<\/em>), which are beyond the scope of this discussion.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> MengziEno<\/sub> and MenciusLau<\/sub> refer respectively to Eno’s and Lau’s translation of Mengzi’s work.
\n<\/i>Mengzi is the pinyin transcription of the author’s name, Latinized as Mencius (-372, – 289).
\nMencius = Mengzi = Meng Ke (-372, – 289).
\nGaozi = Kao-tzu = Gao Buhai), circa 420-350 BCE.
\nMore information in Wikipedia.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> For the concepts of discourse object<\/em> and schematization<\/em> used here, see Plantin Chr., Dictionary of argumentation.<\/a><\/p>\n

diverging<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

ATC Variations of vocabulary between two translations of the same analogy This example is taken from Mengzi’s (Mencius, Meng Ke) discussion with Gaozi (Kao Tzu) [1] as reported in Mengzi’s text. The discussion focuses on two fundamental concepts of Confucianism: human nature and righteousness. Gaozi attempts to clarify these concepts by drawing an analogy with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14707","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-atc"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14707","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14707"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14707\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15065,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14707\/revisions\/15065"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14707"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14707"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14707"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}