There doesn’t seem to be any literal translation of the Analects out there that tracks the original grammar, which is annoying. So here I did it, in-text commentary in parentheses. Not a big fan of this text.

《學而》第一

Note: The princely scholars, sometimes translated as gentleman-scholars, are more or less the intellectual elite who assign themselves the task of defining morality and leading by example. Here, they have a rambling discussion about the desirable traits of a princely scholar (and therefore the ideal benevolent man), and how such a person participates in managing the masses, who need not understand anything but merely follow along.

1. 子曰：「學而時習之，不亦說乎？有朋自遠方來，不亦樂乎？人不知而不慍，不亦君子乎？」
Master said: “Learning and fittingly applying it, isn’t that also persuasion? Having comrades from afar be drawn, isn’t that also concordance? Others not understanding yet one not harboring resentment, isn’t that also being a princely scholar [junzi]?”

(To learn and teach through example and action, and to get resonance among peers is the mark of an elite intellectual; whether others get it is not important. Confucius is talking about his own reasons for teaching rather than going on the lobbying circuit, where he was frequently rebuffed.)
(Read the article)

Comments(0)

Lately, for good reason, there has been many advice columns telling people how to plan for personal financial goals. It always used to boggle my mind when I heard exhortations to save, where “save” is used in the sense of an action among which to choose, parallel to things like “invest” or “work”. Until I realized, some years back, that to save is a parallel action of choice to some.
(Read the article)

Comments(0)

I actually find market efficiency arguments quite appealing, but when the assumptions are not made clear, the inevitable hand-waving gets to be irritating…

Here’s some random guy’s page. He’s a big proponent of using a total market portfolio: http://homepage.mac.com/j.norstad/finance/total.html

His hand-waving is almost convincing, almost. Okay, “J. Norstad”, let’s take you point by point.
(Read the article)

Comments(0)

Wikipedia says:

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, most often in the form of posting inflammatory, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate messages

What is a troll in Chinese? I don’t think there is a term. Wikipedia’s “in other languages” sidebar offers up 小白 for troll, but that just means idiot or annoyer, someone with a thick skin or someone who doesn’t get it; so no, that’s not exactly a troll. It doesn’t capture the aspect of intention and the not infrequent subtlety of trolling. The article on 小白 itself is hilarious. It’s obvious the usage is restricted to Taiwan.

Mainland and overseas Chinese BBS are full of subtlety to begin with, for reasons not worth mentioning at this moment. Maybe every Chinese is a native troll. Certain Chinese history points to training in – ah nevermind, I’m trolling. However, a subset of more benign trolling behavior seems to elicit more condemnation on these Chinese BBS and have terms associated with them. For instance: posting off-topic messages and inappropriate messages can take the form of 刷屏 or repeated re-posting, or posting in multiple sub-forums. Posting a stream of emoticons or other useless messages (to readers) such as 顶, 批, 阅, 路过 to increase the number of posts by one is known as 灌水. The meaning of 灌水 has expanded to include, in some cases, posts that are not just useless, but specifically useless for ongoing rational discussion. Since a post that elicits 灌水 behavior is known as a 坑 and somebody who writes such is engaging in 挖坑, then 挖坑 may yet emerge as the logical equivalent of trolling (verb). It has been used in that sense already.

Still no word for troll (noun), though 坑王 is a good candidate.

Comments(0)