Section 3 is ready for PL.
Pages 47 and 48 were duplicated in the online text. I only included them in the recording once, of course.
[SOLO] The Works of Mencius (Legge ed.) - kaz
-
PaulWelford
- Posts: 881
- Joined: December 10th, 2022, 5:24 am
- Location: I bounce between NZ and Middle East
Happy to DPL the remaining English sections as noted in the companion project.
-
PaulWelford
- Posts: 881
- Joined: December 10th, 2022, 5:24 am
- Location: I bounce between NZ and Middle East
-
PaulWelford
- Posts: 881
- Joined: December 10th, 2022, 5:24 am
- Location: I bounce between NZ and Middle East
PaulWelford wrote: ↑September 17th, 2023, 1:05 pmHi Jeffrey (sorry not sure which spelling you use) Could you elaborate on this comment please? I listened yesterday and couldn’t figure it out.
It was the project summary in the first post that I revised. Previously it read along the lines of "a pronunciation combining the phonology of old Nanjing Mandarin with the sounds of contemporary Mandarin." I revised it to make it clearer and less jargony, and to weaken the claim that I'm going to follow a scientific system strictly, where the reality is that I'm dealing with words on a case-by-case basis and it won't be 100% consistent. I've also added some information about the romanization systems used in both editions, because I think it's realistic that some listeners will want to listen, to the notes especially, following along with either the first or second edition of the text.
There's nothing in this that a prooflistener needs to worry about.
There's nothing in this that a prooflistener needs to worry about.
-
PaulWelford
- Posts: 881
- Joined: December 10th, 2022, 5:24 am
- Location: I bounce between NZ and Middle East
Thanks - very clear. I thought you were referring to a summary in the passage and was confused when I didn’t come across one.Ariphron wrote: ↑September 17th, 2023, 1:38 pm It was the project summary in the first post that I revised. Previously it read along the lines of "a pronunciation combining the phonology of old Nanjing Mandarin with the sounds of contemporary Mandarin." I revised it to make it clearer and less jargony, and to weaken the claim that I'm going to follow a scientific system strictly, where the reality is that I'm dealing with words on a case-by-case basis and it won't be 100% consistent. I've also added some information about the romanization systems used in both editions, because I think it's realistic that some listeners will want to listen, to the notes especially, following along with either the first or second edition of the text.
There's nothing in this that a prooflistener needs to worry about.
-
PaulWelford
- Posts: 881
- Joined: December 10th, 2022, 5:24 am
- Location: I bounce between NZ and Middle East
Hi Jeffrey
I've listened to both 3 and 4 (actually 1-4 so that I got the context) and the reading itself is PL OK but I have a few things I would like to check/suggest/discuss please.
Actually, the very first thing to say is that you have an excellent reading style. It has such gravitas and authority I kept thinking I was listening to the author and had to disabuse myself of the notion.
Next is a query about the title. I see the full name (as mentioned in your descripton) is quite long and starts with "The Chinese Classics", with this volume being on Mencius. Would it not be more correct to give it the full title, or at least to include these three words in the LV project title? I can see how the work is effectively stand alone, and Michael has set it up as such, so am not making this a PL note, just one to discuss.
Third is an improvement suggestion to make it easier to both read and listen to. Sometimes you read quotes, especially when quoting Mencius, with a character voice and don't therefore need to say "Quote" and "Unquote". I think this works very well and it's obvious that you are quoting due to the character voice. At other times you still use a voice but also say Quote and Unquote which I think is unnecesary and disrupts the flow slightly. The third type is when you don't use a voice and then the logic seems good that you say Quote and Unquote. So the only one I'm suggesting you change (for future readngs, no need to edit the existing ones) is the middle type. Unless you have a rationale I didn't spot, in which case feel free to ignore/correct me.
Finally - and the only one which really warrants a PL note, but again, just to discuss seeing as Michael has already passed the same style, is your inclusion of the date of reading in the end note. I've never heard this and it's not sanctioned by LV to my knowledge. Do you have precedent?
Otherwise, great reading. I got very engaged with what I perceived as Legge's, at times, unfair criticism of Mencius and his lack of religiosity. But then Legge later acknowledges that this criticism is perhaps unfair as it characterises western vs eastern philosophical mindsets at the time.
Paul
I've listened to both 3 and 4 (actually 1-4 so that I got the context) and the reading itself is PL OK but I have a few things I would like to check/suggest/discuss please.
Actually, the very first thing to say is that you have an excellent reading style. It has such gravitas and authority I kept thinking I was listening to the author and had to disabuse myself of the notion.
Next is a query about the title. I see the full name (as mentioned in your descripton) is quite long and starts with "The Chinese Classics", with this volume being on Mencius. Would it not be more correct to give it the full title, or at least to include these three words in the LV project title? I can see how the work is effectively stand alone, and Michael has set it up as such, so am not making this a PL note, just one to discuss.
Third is an improvement suggestion to make it easier to both read and listen to. Sometimes you read quotes, especially when quoting Mencius, with a character voice and don't therefore need to say "Quote" and "Unquote". I think this works very well and it's obvious that you are quoting due to the character voice. At other times you still use a voice but also say Quote and Unquote which I think is unnecesary and disrupts the flow slightly. The third type is when you don't use a voice and then the logic seems good that you say Quote and Unquote. So the only one I'm suggesting you change (for future readngs, no need to edit the existing ones) is the middle type. Unless you have a rationale I didn't spot, in which case feel free to ignore/correct me.
Finally - and the only one which really warrants a PL note, but again, just to discuss seeing as Michael has already passed the same style, is your inclusion of the date of reading in the end note. I've never heard this and it's not sanctioned by LV to my knowledge. Do you have precedent?
Otherwise, great reading. I got very engaged with what I perceived as Legge's, at times, unfair criticism of Mencius and his lack of religiosity. But then Legge later acknowledges that this criticism is perhaps unfair as it characterises western vs eastern philosophical mindsets at the time.
Paul
Thanks, Paul.
I don't think I'd want a longer title to appear for catalogue purposes, but I could revise the introduction/disclaimer for each file to
It has also occurred to me that it would be better to repeat the word "Prolegomena" at the beginning of the section titles for sections 2-8, but I don't think anybody will be confused by it as it stands.
My rationale for saying "Quote ... End of Quote" around shorter quotations is that sometimes Legge strings together several quotations separated only by quotation marks. If I set off the quotation only by tone of voice, listeners will assume that it is one continuous passage, where in fact, it might be nearby passages which could be separated by an ellipsis, or it might be quotations collected from totally different parts of the book.
The date of recording shows up as an option in the Librivox template. I've noticed that many BC's edit it out, but I like to remind listeners that what they are listening to is a product of a specific time and place.
I don't think I'd want a longer title to appear for catalogue purposes, but I could revise the introduction/disclaimer for each file to
However, I don't think there's a place to put the full series title, as in "The Chinese Classics: With: A Translation, Critical and Exegetical Notes, Prolegomena, and Copious Indexes: Second Edition, Revised: Volume II: Containing: The Works of Mencius.""Section # of The Works of Mencius. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit librivox.org. The Chinese Classics, Volume II: The Works of Mencius, by Mencius and James Legge. Section Title."
It has also occurred to me that it would be better to repeat the word "Prolegomena" at the beginning of the section titles for sections 2-8, but I don't think anybody will be confused by it as it stands.
My rationale for saying "Quote ... End of Quote" around shorter quotations is that sometimes Legge strings together several quotations separated only by quotation marks. If I set off the quotation only by tone of voice, listeners will assume that it is one continuous passage, where in fact, it might be nearby passages which could be separated by an ellipsis, or it might be quotations collected from totally different parts of the book.
The date of recording shows up as an option in the Librivox template. I've noticed that many BC's edit it out, but I like to remind listeners that what they are listening to is a product of a specific time and place.
-
PaulWelford
- Posts: 881
- Joined: December 10th, 2022, 5:24 am
- Location: I bounce between NZ and Middle East
I agree the long title is too much and was only really suggesting the three words. I think your suggestion is great.Ariphron wrote: ↑September 17th, 2023, 4:39 pm Thanks, Paul.
I don't think I'd want a longer title to appear for catalogue purposes, but I could revise the introduction/disclaimer for each file toHowever, I don't think there's a place to put the full series title, as in "The Chinese Classics: With: A Translation, Critical and Exegetical Notes, Prolegomena, and Copious Indexes: Second Edition, Revised: Volume II: Containing: The Works of Mencius.""Section # of The Works of Mencius. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit librivox.org. The Chinese Classics, Volume II: The Works of Mencius, by Mencius and James Legge. Section Title."
It has also occurred to me that it would be better to repeat the word "Prolegomena" at the beginning of the section titles for sections 2-8, but I don't think anybody will be confused by it as it stands.
My rationale for saying "Quote ... End of Quote" around shorter quotations is that sometimes Legge strings together several quotations separated only by quotation marks. If I set off the quotation only by tone of voice, listeners will assume that it is one continuous passage, where in fact, it might be nearby passages which could be separated by an ellipsis, or it might be quotations collected from totally different parts of the book.
The date of recording shows up as an option in the Librivox template. I've noticed that many BC's edit it out, but I like to remind listeners that what they are listening to is a product of a specific time and place.
No need for additional prolegomena I agree.
Your quote rationale makes sense thanks. I thought I heard one that wasn’t consecutive but it’s fine.
You’re absolutely correct about the date - so I apologise.
PL ok
for 3 and 4.Look forward to the rest.
-
PaulWelford
- Posts: 881
- Joined: December 10th, 2022, 5:24 am
- Location: I bounce between NZ and Middle East
Michael I can’t update the MW for PL status. Up to you whether to give me those rights for the English DPL or for you guys to do it.
I could give you access to the MW, but since there are just 4 English sections left to PL and someone else will hopefully sign up as DPL for the Chinese sections, it may be easier for Ariphron to change the status for now.PaulWelford wrote: ↑September 17th, 2023, 4:47 pm Michael I can’t update the MW for PL status. Up to you whether to give me those rights for the English DPL or for you guys to do it.
Thanks,
Michael
Section 27 is now ready for PL.
There are three places where I corrected an incorrect tone number resulting from faulty conversion between the systems of the first and second editions:
at 13:06 (p. 240) 3rd becomes 4th (first edition: "low. 3d tone")
at 26:15 (p. 248) 3rd becomes 4th (first edition: "up. 3d tone")
at 35:25 (p. 255) 2nd becomes 4th (first edition: "read haou, low 2d tone, or kaou, up. 2d." The obsolete alternative pronunciation is thus gǎo, in third tone.)
There are three places where I corrected an incorrect tone number resulting from faulty conversion between the systems of the first and second editions:
at 13:06 (p. 240) 3rd becomes 4th (first edition: "low. 3d tone")
at 26:15 (p. 248) 3rd becomes 4th (first edition: "up. 3d tone")
at 35:25 (p. 255) 2nd becomes 4th (first edition: "read haou, low 2d tone, or kaou, up. 2d." The obsolete alternative pronunciation is thus gǎo, in third tone.)
In the end I decided to go with Legge's terminology for the English names of the book divisions, "Part I" and "Part II," rather than changing them to match modern convention, "Part A" and "Part B."
I've also added the phrase "The Chinese Classics, Volume II:" to the title in the disclaimer. It's in the new section; when I get around to adding it in Sections 1-4, I'll post a notification.
What follows repeats something posted in the companion project:
I went back and forth a couple times on how to pronounce the name of the Chinese acre, which Legge gives as mâu, corresponding to mou in Hanyu Pinyin. The modern Mandarin is mǔ; the regular reflex of the ancient pronunciation is mǒu. The first edition, using Morrison's Nanjing-based romanization, gives mow. My best guess is that when converting everything for the second edition, Legge failed to find the word in Wade or any other Beijing-based resource, and converted the spelling mechanically, so that it can be considered a misprint. I eventually decided to say mǒu in the Chinese version, since I'm going for regular reflexes there, but mǔ in the English, since listeners to the translation will want to know that the Chinese acre is called a mu.
In the notes I also said mǔ.
I've also added the phrase "The Chinese Classics, Volume II:" to the title in the disclaimer. It's in the new section; when I get around to adding it in Sections 1-4, I'll post a notification.
What follows repeats something posted in the companion project:
I went back and forth a couple times on how to pronounce the name of the Chinese acre, which Legge gives as mâu, corresponding to mou in Hanyu Pinyin. The modern Mandarin is mǔ; the regular reflex of the ancient pronunciation is mǒu. The first edition, using Morrison's Nanjing-based romanization, gives mow. My best guess is that when converting everything for the second edition, Legge failed to find the word in Wade or any other Beijing-based resource, and converted the spelling mechanically, so that it can be considered a misprint. I eventually decided to say mǒu in the Chinese version, since I'm going for regular reflexes there, but mǔ in the English, since listeners to the translation will want to know that the Chinese acre is called a mu.
In the notes I also said mǔ.