TITWOW syndrome
T.I.T.W.O.W. = Translators irritatingly translate with one word
+1 – TITWOW syndrome
all
+1.1 – Synopsis
This is a general problem with translating in general,
and is especially important when the text to be translated has precise,
technical, nuanced details that need to be conveyed.
+2 – Why do they do this?
* It makes the target translation more fluent,
concise, elegant
* It becomes a compulsive, neurotic and unhealthy addiction to find a single word to translate,
even if a single word in the target language with equivalent meaning doesn’t exist.
* peer pressure: Translators are afraid they’ll look weak or
incompetent among the community of translators who also share this compulsive addiction to single word translations.
* in short, they prioritize style over substance.
They worry about how literate and fluent and elegant their translation appears,
rather than prioritizing the transmission of precise and nuanced meaning.
+3 – How to fix this syndrome, and side effects caused by it?
all
* prioritize substance over style.
Your prime directive should be transmitting the precise and nuanced meaning of the source text,
even if the target translation ends up being bulkier,
less elegant, less fluent, less aesthetically pleasing as a literary work.
* peer pressure: don’t be swayed by peers who value style over substance
* understand you have an unhealthy compulsive tendency to find one word translations,
and stop caring about that.
+3.5 – if source vague, translate vague
* If the source text is somewhat vague and unclear,
your translation should also match the tone and express the uncertainty.
If you make the translation precise where the source was more ambiguous,
then you mislead the audience giving them a false sense of precision or worse,
just being completely wrong.
The most common offense of this is translating ‘Dhamma’ into
something specific when it actually straddles multiple meanings simultaneously.
+3.6 – if source specific, translate specific
* if the source text is precise, your target translation should also be precise.
+4 – examples of TITWOW
all
...More egregious examples from the pāḷi translation world to be added
sources: TITWOW syndrome 🔗 TITWOW syndrome example with 'sati' and 'google' 🔗 TITWOW syndrome, 'byāpāda' 🔗
+4.1 – Upekkha is not (only) equanimity
upekkha = upa + ikkhati.
Ikkhati means looking at.
Upekkha does include an important quality of 'equanimity',
but it's not a passive attitude.
Ikkhati, looking at, has vi-passana capability,
the same as passana "seeing" and diṭṭhi
"view" can do vipassana and insight.
Upekkha in 4th Jhāna, as a brahma-vihara,
as the 7th awakening factor,
is the factor that does vipassana that leads to full awakening.
It's not just an attitude of 'equanimity'.
Upekkha = equanimous-observation.
+4.2 – Peanut-butter and jelly sandwich
If you were to translate that into "peanut butter sandwich",
or
"jelly sandwich",
it would be incorrect.
It's not a PBJ unless it has both peanut butter and jelly in a sandwich.
+4.3 – google
Using 'google' to illustrate problem of 'sati' as 'mindfulness'
If I were to say, "use google", or "google that."
Imagine if I was to translate that phrase for English speakers 2000 years from now.
Maybe I would translate "search" or
"find" for 'google'.
Do you see the problem?
"find that."
leaves the questions of:
"what should I be finding?"
"where should I be looking?"
"when should I be doing this?"
It's not enough to just translate 'google' with 'find',
I need to state what key word I'm searching for,
if it's not explicitly stated near the phrase 'google that',
and I need to explain the context for the future readers
that google searches a database of world human knowledge
from 1000 CE to 2020 CE for example.
Similarly, sati is not just 'mindfulness'.
You need to explain what we're supposed to be mindful of,
what's the range of that (local, world,
mental, etc.), and when.
+4.4 – sati ("mindfulness")
Hardly anyone knows what we're suppose to be 'mindful' of, even Buddhists
'Sati' translated with the single word 'mindfulness' is one of the biggest causes
of why most people, including Buddhists,
don't have a clear and correct understanding of what 'sati' is,
as the Buddha originally defined it.
The problem is, it's not enough to just translate word for word here,
sati -> mindfulness.
With each occurence of 'sati' in the suttas,
there are unstated supporting actors and context.
Who is doing 'sati', with respect to what?
supported by and by means of what?
and when?
In the EBT (early buddhist teachings), sati defined by the Buddha means:
You remember and apply The Dhamma not just in the present moment,
but at all times.
'remember' means both memorizing and recollecting
'remember' means both the act of commiting relevant information to memory,
and recalling relevant information to mind to the present moment as needed
("keeping it in mind", "mindfulness").
'The Dhamma' means
In the more specific context of exactly how 'sati' expects 'Dhamma' to be formulated,
if no specific Dhamma instruction is stated where the 'sati' term appears in the sutta passage,
the default value of 'The Dhamma'
are the four satipaṭṭhāna formula (4sp🐘),
as stated in SN 47.2.
Other suttas state that one is to do sati all the time.
Any time you're not doing sati, you're in grave danger.
One way to avoid the TITWOW syndrome for translating 'sati'.
I translate 'sati' everywhere in the suttas as,
"remembering and applying The Dhamma".
That works everywhere.
Try it out.
+4.5 – Mudita (as one of 4 brahma-vihara)
Bodhi translates as: altruistic joy (agreeing with an earlier old PTS translator)
Thanissaro has: empathetic joy
Sujato has: rejoicing
Sujato isn't necessarily guilty of TITWOW here.
It depends on how he interprets mudita in the suttas.
If he think mudita is vague in the suttas,
then he's correct in keeping the english translation and interpretation vague.
I'm of the opinion, and many EBT passages and Vimuttimagga supports me on this,
that the joy of mudita is not vague,
is specific in that it is the joy that comes from appreciating oneself or others
doing virtuous, skillful wholesome actions of the body,
speech, or mind.
Thanissaro and Bodhi seem to agree it's not just any kind of joy,
there's a specific quality that must be met to qualify as mudita.
+4.6 – a-byāpāda
It's not one word here — (non ill will) or (good will) —
but the principle of TITWOW still applies,
because translating with something like "free of ill will"
has much clearer and accurate meaning
than something like 'good will' (for a-byāpāda).
What does this matter?
It's like the difference between the silver rule and the golden rule.
example: SN 55.7 The golden rule and silver rule 🔗 (SN 55.7)
It matters because the precise Dhamma instruction in the suttas,
if we go by some translations,
on what to do when we see "byāpāda" is unclear.
It's quite a different mental state to
1. be actively engaged with sending thoughts of good will towards specific groups of living beings,
2. Or to dwell in a mental state where one does not have to actively engage in thoughts about other living beings,
but simply dwell peaceful and free of hatred,
animosity, aversion.
Which is it?
The Thera-vāda commentaries seem to believe a-byāpada (non ill will)
and metta (friendliness) can be treated synonymously in most if not all situations.
There are about 150 sutta references to byāpada in the nikāyas,
and I'm looking through them all right now.
So far, I've seen some instances where it's definitely the silver rule
(freedom of non ill will rather than
"good will"),
and most cases either "non ill will" or
"good will" would fit the context.
Given the ambiguity, the best translation choice is the most versatile one
"Non ill will" or "freedom of ill will" is more versatile,
because both silver rule and golden rule are options.
Good will is a type of non ill will.
But if you lock yourself into translating byāpāda as
"good will",
you've restricted the interpretation to only the golden rule,
blocking the possibility of the silver rule.
One has to have good will directed toward other living beings,
one no longer has the option to dwell free of hatred,
not thinking of any living beings.
byāpāda = ill will
✅a-byāpāda = non ill will, non hatred,
or free of ill will, etc.
⛔a-byāpāda should not be translated as
"good will"
Why do some translators choose "good will" as the translation for a-byāpāda?
Not always, but often because of TITWOW Syndrome.
❧
+10 – misc.
all
+10.1 – chickadees (tits)
From the forum discussion on the 'sati' and 'google' article 🔗:
"Nice point. That's quite the well-crafted acronym, btw.
Who hasn't been pleasantly surprised seeing a member of the Paridae family
of small passerine birds which occur mainly in the Northern Hemisphere and Africa?"
Another interesting thing about chickadees (tits),
from wikipedia's Paridae 🔗 article:
The tits make a variety of calls and songs.
They are amongst the most vocal of all birds,
calling continuously in most situations,
so much so that they are only ever silent for specific reasons
such as avoiding predators or when intruding on a rival's territory.
Quiet contact calls are made while feeding
to facilitate cohesion with others in their social group.
Other calls are used for signalling alarm — a well-known example being
the "chic-a-dee-dee" of North American species in the genus Poecile,
the call which gives them their local common name, the chickadee.
The call also serves as a rallying call to summon others
to mob and harass the predator.
The number of "dee" syllables at the end of the call
increases with the level of danger the predator poses.
Similarly, my acronym TITWOW serves as a rallying cry for people
to carefully examine and question translations and interpretation of sutta passages.