Talk:Saikei

Added references
I have added some references and worked them into the text. I hope this step will allow us to remove the "lack of notability" warning at some point. Sahara110 (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Literal" translation of saikei
I wonder whether we can present a concise, current, and correct definition of the term saikei, preferably not a "literal" translation.

First, I should clarify that I understand a "literal" translation to be a direct translation of the etymological components of the term in question. Sometimes this is a useful way of defining the term: for example, in English, the portmanteau term "matchbox" can be defined literally as as a box (container, often with a lid) for matches (small sticks of wood or paper chemically treated to create a flame). The "literal" definition is quite accurate in this case.

But a "literal" translation is all too often a poor way to understand the term being translated. "Portmanteau" itself is a good example. Literally translated from its ancestral French, its components say something like "hold overcoat", but in English the term actually means "suitcase" (another portmanteau term) or even more figuratively "a word or morpheme whose form and meaning are derived from a blending of two or more distinct forms (as smog from smoke and fog)". It is difficult in this case, as in many, to see the value of the "literal" translation. The "literal" translation of a non-English term of art often represents a sort of trivia about the term, rather than an unambiguous and useful piece of information in WP. This position may seem iconoclastic, but I think there are a couple of justifications.

First, the point I raised in the preceding paragraph is that many "literal" translations do not explain the current and idiomatic meaning of the term in question. They may in fact obfuscate it. Particularly in the case of ideogram-based Asian languages, English speakers often seize on the "literal" translation of individual ideograms in a term to illustrate or understand the composite term. This approach can be very misleading. From the WP article on kanji:


 * Because of the way they have been adopted into Japanese, a single kanji may be used to write one or more different words (or, in some cases, morphemes). From the point of view of the reader, kanji are said to have one or more different "readings". Deciding which reading is meant depends on context, intended meaning, use in compounds, and even location in the sentence. Some common kanji have ten or more possible readings. These readings are normally categorized as either on'yomi (literally, sound reading) or kun'yomi (literally, meaning reading).

Specifically for "saikei", the component "sai" appears to have many a possible meaning (sai), as does "kei" (kei). A sophisticated human translator might pick out a workable "literal" definition for the saikei art form by combining a couple of these definitions, but doing so would not improve on a clear, correct, non-literal definition. Some might argue that a "proper" definition takes up too much space, but I must question what value the brief "literal" translation had if it is not as correct as the "proper" definition. Encyclopedic content should deal with the current, idiomatic meaning of the term in question, not the sometimes-questionable "literal" translation of its etymological components.

Second, the very existence of an encyclopedia article means that the term is being defined in a careful and detailed way through the entire WP page. How do we distinguish bonsai (Japanese) from pensai or pen-tsai (Chinese) when the "literal" translation of the different terms is often portrayed as identical? We do it throughout the relevant encyclopedia articles, which relate the history of each art form, its principles, its practice, and its current status. After reading the relevant articles we have a reasonable understanding of the two art forms, one that cannot be derived from the "literal" translations of the Japanese and the Chinese terms.

I suggest putting the "literal" translation to pasture, where it can live a happy life outside WP. In its place, let's create cogent definitions that do not focus on the (presumed) etymology of the foreign term, but are instead current, correct, and clear. WP definitions end up in many places on the web: it would be good if we were able to present the best of definitions for these users. Sahara110 (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong picture
The first picture in the article does not show a saikei, but a penjin. The picture also appears in the article related to penjin. 2A02:1205:C6B4:51D0:A136:FFA6:A8D1:AA48 (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I know the file is named "penjing" in the Wikimedia source photograph. I have looked through the National Arboretum site to find photos of the same specimen to confirm its definition as a penjing, but have had no luck on the current site (September 2017). I will keep an eye out for a photo file suitably labeled or attributed as "saikei" that could take its place as an exemplar for the head of the article. Thanks for pointing this out. Sahara110 (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)