Talk:Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den

Can Shi Shi mean Mr. Shi?

One anonymous editor changed the English translation of Shī Shì (施氏) to "... a poet whose surname is Shi". That may sound reasonable when looking at the Chinese term in isolation, and many translations do that. However, if that were the case, it will be incorrect to use Shì (氏) as an abbreviation of the main character in the rest of the passage. That will be analogous to use "Mr." as an abbreviation of "Mr. Shi". So in my opinion, Shī Shì (施氏) should be a proper noun, translated into "Shi Shi", not "Mr. Shi". -- Felix Wan 22:01, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Re: Can Shi Shi mean Mr. Shi?

(氏) can mean "him"/"his" in the latter context. A classic 一字多義 scenerio. By dillee1 14/04/2005

If you can quote a dictionary entry or a passage in Classical Chinese where 氏 means him/his, that will be very helpful. -- Felix Wan 22:22, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

氏 can really mean "Mr." in Classical Chinese, just as it is used in modern Japanese. But in this passage, 氏 is the given name of the poet. As in "氏視是十獅" and other sentences. If 氏 is translated into "Mr.", the sentence won't make sense. -A Chinese reader.

But if the author did intend to make up the full name of the character he could have used many other better character than "氏" with the same proununciation. "氏" is a poor choice as a name because it has little meaning, and indeed few people have this as first name. I think the author's intention was to use "氏" to mean "Mr./Ms." so as to make the passage more corformant to the conventional style of short stories in classic style (cf. 聊齋誌異).

氏 must be used as Mr. in 施氏 and as 他 when 施 is omitted in the sentences. Also the last sentence should be translated as:[ and he tried to get rid of this matter] because this sentence can not be regarded as a question since it lacks a question word. Lie-Hap-Po

Shi Shi IS "A person with the surname (last name) Shi"

The word 氏 can mean "a certain person". 施氏 would therefore be "A certain person with the surname Shi". This applies to both men and women. The reason why the original author did not give a full name could be because he wanted to make 施氏 an ambigious person. 施氏 could be a "he" or a "she", and could be anybody. It would be better just to use the word "Shi" to address 施氏, rather than Mr. Shi or Shi Shi.Atticuslai 07:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

施氏 Could only be a Mr.Shi and not be a Mrs.Shi or a Miss Shi because women AREN'T 人 person(s), human being(s). That is, according Chinese and Western standards from Prehistoric Times untill 20th century AD

Um... Actually, 氏 is more often used for "Mrs" (which, I guess supports your point a little bit)... I think the reason why we assume the poet is male is because he(?) likes to eat lions... I think you might be more insulted if we were to all assume that the poet is female? Certainly your view on this matter is a bit extreme, and I'm not really sure why it would be relevant to the article.129.97.236.47 (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)illluck

How many characters?

I counted 91 "shi" in the poem as given here. The article say "92", the first external link says "93" while containing 74 only. The second link has 104:

"Shi2 shi4 shi1shi4 Shi1 shi4 shi4 shi1, shi4 shi2 shi2 shi1. Shi4 shi2shi2 shi4 shi4 shi4 shi1. Shi2 shi2, shi4 shi4 shi4, shi4 shi2 shi* shi1 shi4 shi4. Shi4 shi2, shi4 shi4 shi4 shi2 shi1, shi3 shi2 shi2 shi3 shi4, shi3 shi4 shi2 shi1 shi4shi4. Shi4 shi2 shi4 shi2 shi1 shi1 shi4 shi2 shi4. Shi2 shi4 shi1, shi3 shi4 shi4 shi3 shi2 shi4. Shi2 shi4 shi4. Shi4 shi3 shi4 shi2 shi4 shi2 shi1 shi1. Shi2 shi2, shi3 shi4 shi4 shi2 shi* shi1 shi1 shi2 shi2 shi* shi2 shi1 shi1. Shi4 shi2, shi4 shi3 shi4 shi4 shi4shi2. Shi4 shi4 shi4 shi4.”

So, how many? `'mikka (t) 23:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That depends on the characters you use.

You can add or take many characters if you like.

There are also many Shi stories that do not use story of the lion eating poet and there are also stories that uses other sounds, so you have many zhi zhi zhi, xi xi xi or ji ji ji stories etc.Lie-Hap-Po

How many distinct characters? —Tamfang 23:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I counted 91 characters in total (not including the title), and 33 distinct characters Chunlong (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright of passage

The text of passage technically is still copyrighted, since the original author is known and the copyright is still in effect (author life plus 50 years - author died in 1982) SYSS Mouse 14:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are US copyright laws, right? Or is it the same in China? bCube.talk(contribs); 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

China copyright law is the same. Author life plus 50 years. Yao Ziyuan 23:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this thread could usefully be moved to the other copyright infringement section? Redslider (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on Shi by Lie-Hap-Po 21:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Is poet 施 male or female?

Unless context says otherwise, all persons in Classical Chinese texts are male.

2. 氏 can be a given name

氏 can mean 姓

氏 can mean 先生

3. What does 施氏 mean?

施氏 means 施先生 and when 氏 stands alone 氏 means 他.

4. Why is that?

A given name can not stand by itself in classical text and can only be used together with a surname and a title.

氏 does not mean 姓 in this text because 氏 is also used on its own in this text.

5. Can 试释是事 mean Try to explain this?

No 试释是事 means And he tried to get rid of this matter.

6. Why is that?

释 can mean to explain and to get rid of and the first is much more common than the second one, but since the sentence lacks a question particle or command particle, and given the fact that Classical Chinese texts normally does not talk to the reader directly, you cannot use 释 in the meaning to explain.

The Shi story is an artificial text, even by the standard of Classical Chinese and although it is fun, students should spend their time on learning Putonghua and not to spend to much time on learning Classical Chinese

As the commentary indicates, a plausible interpretation is that the Shi poem reveals the limitations of romanization. Incidentally, why is it that PRC folks are always interested in telling other people what to do? Huangdi (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Huangdi - I am wondering if you think my essay adds anything to the regard we should be giving this work. Granted, at best it now serves as a demonstration of translation problems; at worst, a silly little exercise which schoolchildren are made to memorize. But, if I'm correct, there is a good deal more it. Chou Yuen Ren was not only a gifted linguist, but certainly had a competent poetics skill-set at his command. His translation of Alice & Wonderland tells us that much. While music was his other vocation, it is not far from poetry, and one of his pieces was, in fact, titled "A Poetic Song Book". So I think it no stretch to assert that his skill with poetry was also at play in the construction of the work. (ps. I have no competence in Chinese language at all, so I can't speak to that, excepts for what others have written to explain that part of the work). thanx for any comment you care to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redslider (talk • contribs) 02:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Redslider: first of all, the comments you were responding to were made over 4 years ago, so don't expect a response from those editors.

Secondly, this was never an "exercise which schoolchildren are made to memorize". To the best of my knowledge this is not used in Chinese classrooms (and it has no reason to be). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Rjanag, probably not. but one never knows.

The mention of schoolchildren in my comment was gathered from more than a dozen websites where people who went through the China school system complained or mentioned that they had to memorize the thing. I didn't realize it was a statement that might be questioned (might have sourced it, otherwise). If you have facts/sources to the contrary, I'd much appreciate knowing them. It's not the main thrust of my comment, at any rate; which is that the work needs to be regarded from the standpoint of poetics as well as linguistics and translation interests (this has not been done, heretofore, as far as I can tell).

That was my reason for wanting to add a section on "Poetic Interpretation", though you indicated in that thread that sourcing/linking to my essay (the only instance I know that treats the poetics of the work, at this time) would be a violation of WP "original source" rules. I'm not certain if you are correct in this estimate, but note that such strict applications of OR rules can certainly get in the way of providing interesting adjunct material that might enrich the treatment given in the present article. Sometimes, strict applications of rules can defeat the purposes of having them in the first place. As it stands, our current version of the article pretty much makes my case; that the work is exclusively regarded as a work of linguistic/translation interest. Though it is often and widely referred to as a "poem" it is rarely discussed as a poem. Redslider (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That is because the purpose of Wikipedia is to reflect and document the current state of scholarship, not to try and promote your idea of how the scholarship should change. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing the Lion Eating Poet back as it was

Is there a copyright on Zhao Yuanren's Lion Eating Poet?

Was there such a thing as copyright at the time Zhao Yuanren wrote Lion Eating Poet?

Is it really created by him or has he learned it from an another person?

Has Zhao Yuanren used Lion Eating Poet in his own copyrighted works or did he published it in copyrighted works from others

If there is a copyright on Lion Eating Poet then who has the rights?

What is to be done to all the published material that uses Lion Eating Poet as an Example?

Untill these questions and many others are answered, I regard Lion Eating Poet as P.D. Public Domain.Lie-Hap-Po 20:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

other chinese languages

In all fairness, in many if not most Chinese "dialects", and I'll single out Cantonese and Kejia, much more of this poem would be comprehensible. Not only that, but these dialects, since not subjected to political correction, reflect a much older pronunciation system than does Mandarin.<spetz>.72.76.248.151 22:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, this poem was written with only characters that would be pronounced with the same syllable (including different tones) in only one particular spoken dialect/language. The effect is lost if read out in a different dialect/language, whether it is comprehensible or not is not the point. The same would happen to other dialects/languages, eg if a different poem is composed in characters that have same syllable (including different tones) in Cantonese, but read out in Shanghaiese, Kejia (Hakka) etc.

While it is true many southern dialects have retain certain consonant endings from older varieties of Chinese, this does not mean they are more similar to older varieties of Chinese. All modern varieties of Chinese are different from older varieties of Chinese, and it has absolutely nothing to do with "political correction". Is this somehow related to the mistaken idea that northern dialects have been "corrupted" by Mongolian or Manchu languages, and only "pure" Chinese language and culture is retained in southern China? LDHan 09:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean it like that at all. I meant "political correction" in a sterile sense, that the pronunciation is strictly controlled on a national level. I wasn't skirting the issue; nobody today really knows what classical Chinese sounded like, so who knows if this would be comprehensible if read aloud?

I brought this up for two really benign issues. The first is merely that of interest. Someone who doesn't know any Chinese reading this might find it interesting but misleading. Some awareness of other dialects' pronunciations might provide some insight into how Chinese works.

The second is that, while this vocabulary may be outdated, the fact that it is survived by old texts interprable by scholars, the fact is that most of this vocabulary isn't phased out in much of China. Mandarin's pruned out some of this, so you'd never find the sentence about poet Shi eating lion phrased like this there. But in other dialects it's an acceptable sentence. Except for the 氏, which I imagine noone uses.

I do understand that the purpose of the poem is to demonstrate that 官语 was meant to facilitate reading and understanding quickly, and was never either a proper spoken nor a natural language.

.<spetz>.72.76.248.151 03:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Lion Eating Poet text is not a Chinese text at all. All Chinese languages, Acient or Modern , have grammar words. This text has none. For example the last sentence: Try to explain this matter? is a question so the particle ma in modern chinese or in hū in classical chinese is needed to change the sentence into a question.Lie-Hap-Po 09:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any question there.88.101.76.122 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he understands it's a poem, different grammar applies. Huangdi (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this "Ten Stone Lions" ?

Is this the famous poem I heard was called "Ten Stone Lions"? If so, lovely, and I'll create a redirect. Shenme 20:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect title translation?

In the English translation part of the article, I think it would make more sense to use a more literal translation of the title. The title in the corresponding Chinese version posted does mention anything about a lion-eating poet or a stone den, but something more like "Record of Shi Eating Lions" or something along those lines. Flybane (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I personally agree with Flybane Zz61961 (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Pronounciation

1. zh:施氏食獅史 has pronounciations in classical Chinese (zh:施氏食獅史#古代漢語).
2. Also, we need various pronounciations of the vernacular version in languages other than standard Mandarin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.5.206.236 (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Stories based entirely on homophones

"Shi shi shi shi shi" is not the only one; there are a whole variety of them, I'll list a few if anyone would like to write an article on them, or expand on them. The following stories and poems are all from antiquity, and are in public domain:

homophone texts

《施氏食狮史》 - 赵元任
石室诗士施氏，嗜狮，誓食十狮。施氏时时适市视狮。十时，适十狮适市。是时，适施氏适市。氏视是十狮，恃矢势，使是十狮逝世。氏拾是十狮尸，适石室。石室湿，氏使侍拭石室。石室拭，氏始试食是十狮。食时，始识是十狮，实十石狮尸。试释是事。

《于瑜与余欲渔遇雨》 - 杨富森
于瑜欲渔，遇余于寓。语余：“余欲渔于渝淤，与余渔渝欤？”
余语于瑜：“余欲鬻玉，俞禹欲玉，余欲遇俞于俞寓。”
余与于瑜遇俞禹于俞寓，逾俞隅，欲鬻玉于俞，遇雨，雨逾俞宇。余语于瑜：“余欲渔于渝淤，遇雨俞寓，雨逾俞宇，欲渔欤？鬻玉欤？”
于瑜与余御雨于俞寓，俞鬻玉于余禹，雨愈，余与于瑜踽踽逾俞宇，渔于渝淤。

《季姬击鸡记》
季姬寂，集鸡，鸡即棘鸡。棘鸡饥叽，季姬及箕稷济鸡。鸡既济，跻姬笈，季姬忌，急咭鸡，鸡急，继圾几，季姬急，即籍箕击鸡，箕疾击几伎，伎即齑，鸡叽集几基，季姬急极屐击鸡，鸡既殛，季姬激，即记《季姬击鸡记》。

《遗镒疑医》
伊姨殪，遗亿镒。伊诣邑，意医姨疫，一医医伊姨。翌，亿镒遗，疑医，以议医。医以伊疑，缢，以移伊疑。伊倚椅以忆，忆以亿镒遗，以议伊医，亦缢。噫！亦异矣！

《熙戏犀》
西溪犀，喜嬉戏。席熙夕夕携犀徙，席熙细细习洗犀。犀吸溪，戏袭熙。席熙嘻嘻希息戏。惜犀嘶嘶喜袭熙。

《饥鸡集矶记》
唧唧鸡，鸡唧唧。几鸡挤挤集矶脊。机极疾，鸡饥极，鸡冀己技击及鲫。机既济蓟畿，鸡计疾机激几鲫。机疾极，鲫极悸，急急挤集矶级际。继即鲫迹极寂寂，继即几鸡既饥，即唧唧。

《侄治痔》
芝之稚侄郅，至智，知制纸，知织帜，芝痔炙痔，侄至芝址，知之知芷汁治痔，至芷址，执芷枝，蜘至，踯侄，执直枝掷之，蜘止，侄执芷枝至芝，芝执芷治痔，痔止。

《羿裔熠邑彝》
羿裔熠①，邑②彝，义医，艺诣。
熠姨遗一裔伊③，伊仪迤，衣旖，异奕矣。
熠意④伊矣，易衣以贻伊，伊遗衣，衣异衣以意异熠，熠抑矣。
伊驿邑，弋一翳⑤，弈毅⑥。毅仪奕，诣弈，衣异，意逸。毅诣伊，益伊，伊怡，已臆⑦毅矣，毅亦怡伊。
翌，伊亦弈毅。毅以蜴贻伊，伊亦贻衣以毅。
伊疫，呓毅，癔异矣，倚椅咿咿，毅亦咿咿。
毅诣熠，意以熠，议熠医伊，熠懿⑧毅，意役毅逸。毅以熠宜伊，翼逸。
熠驿邑以医伊，疑伊胰痍⑨，以蚁医伊，伊遗异，溢，伊咦。熠移伊，刈薏⑩以医，伊益矣。
伊忆毅，亦呓毅矣，熠意伊毅已逸，熠意役伊。伊异，噫，缢。
熠癔，亦缢。

Notes 注解：
①熠：医生，据说为后羿的后裔。
②邑：以彝为邑，指居住在一个彝族聚居的地方。
③伊：绝世佳丽，仪态万方，神采奕奕。
④意：对伊有意思，指熠爱上了伊。
⑤翳：有遮蔽的地方，指伊游弋到了一个阴凉的地方。
⑥毅：逍遥不羁的浪人，善于下棋，神情坚毅，目光飘逸。
⑦臆：主观的感觉，通“意”，指对毅有好感。
⑧懿：原意为“懿旨”，此处引申为要挟，命令。
⑨胰痍：胰脏出现了疮痍。
⑩刈：割下草或者谷物一类。薏：薏米，白色，可供食用，也可入药。

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Gwoyeu Romatzyh is totally wrong

The GR in this article is a total mess. It needs to be rewritten from scratch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmii (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, why not just remove it? Almost no one uses GR anymore. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it's applicable to the subject at hand (in that the tones are all spelt differently), and because the author, Chao Yuen Ren, was the main inventor of Gwoyeu Romatzyh.—Jchthys 03:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that nonetheless the pinyin should be listed first, because it is far more common and it also better illustrates the point of the poem. After all, the poem was to argue against continued use of Classical Chinese, not to argue for any particular romanization scheme. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Cantonese pronunciation

Would it be possible for someone to read this aloud in Cantonese? A reading of the vernacular Chinese in Mandarin might also be helpful.—Jchthys 03:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there's one on Commons. Try searching on the ZH Wiki. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

infringement of copyright

In Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den, The poem was copyrighted writed by Chao_Yuen_Ren died in 1982, So any translates about this poem are infringement of copyright.Sysywjel (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The past [heated] discussion regarding this can be read at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 5#Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den. A summary of the points made there is available here (this is actually a draft RFC from a year ago, when I suggested having an RFC but no one expressed much interest). For what it's worth, the closer of the NFCR discussion sided in favor of the copyright argument and removed the poem from this article; the poem was restored in April 2010 by an editor claiming that the PRC copyright law had not yet been established when Chao died. (I don't know the history of the law so I don't have an opinion on that, I'm just relaying what that editor said.
  I suggest that before anyone jumps into voting, we try to discuss and answer the questions outlined in the draft RFC and clarify the issues. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment:In s:Copyright_Law_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Chapter_Vl_Supplementary_Provisions:

  Article 59 The rights of copyright owners, publishers, performers, producers of sound recordings and video recordings, radio stations and television' stations as provided for in this Law, of which the term of protection specified in this Law has not yet expired on the date of this Law's entry into force, shall be protected in accordance with this Law.

  Sysywjel (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note that you're quoting the 2001 Copyright Law of the PRC. The one that would best apply would be the one from 1990, as it is only possible for the poem to fall under copyright under the current law if it fell under copyright under the previous one. That much is certain. And indeed, officially there was no concept of copyright in the PRC before the 1990 law. Thus, the work seems to be in public domain. The Berne convention would require an entity in the US, such as Wikipedia, to respect Chinese copyrights, but there is no requirement to respect a foreign copyright when none applies in the author's country in the first place. These facts were strangely mostly overlooked during the original discussion referred to in the opening comment. The situation being what it is, I see no reason to delete the bulk of this article (again). 80.248.254.68 (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • In that case, I guess the relevant law is s:Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (1990)#Chapter VI Supplementary Provisions? rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Commont The poem is doubtless copyvio--Wing (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Would you care to explain why you think so? (Like I said, this should be a discussion, not a vote. Please review the materials I linked above.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with Rjanag. Also, doubtless is a bit of an overstatement, since there is obviously a dispute. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Analysis (complicated, sorry for that) :

1. Chao Yuen Ren apparently wrote this poem in the first half of the XXth century, when he was in China or in the USA, and most probably published it either in China or in the USA. If this is indeed the case, since neither China nor USA followed the Berne convention at that time, the Berne convention is not applicable for these countries : there is no "author's right" (stricto sensu) attached to that poem (see Berne convention, article 3) that could be recognised under the Berne convention and the resulting national laws. When China joined the Berne convention (apparently in the 1990?) it put the usual "author's death + 50/70" delay for protection, but did not restore a copyright for public domain works. Thus, it remained public domain in China.
2. There may still be a US copyright attached : Chao Yuen Ren was a scholar, and this poem was probably (first?) published as a linguistic paper, to demonstrate the ambiguity of classical Chinese. If this is the case, the journal that published it (probably a US one?) held the publication rights and the copyrights attached. On the other hand, it is very unlikely that the copyright would have been renewed under US legislation. If the previous assumptions are correct, the poem is indeed public domain in China and is now public domain as well in the USA.
3. But if the journal where it has been (supposedly) published is an international one, it was published "simultaneously in a country outside the Union and in a country of the Union" (Berne convention, article 3-1-b). In that case, it is protected in Berne-Union countries as if it has been published in these countries in the first place, regardless of the legislation of China or the USA. For the rest of the Berne-Union countries, where the work was considered as protected, the situation has changed somehow since China and the USA joined the Berne convention : before that, the protection limit was determined by national legislations, after that it was limited, since "the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work" (Berne convention, article 7-8). Depending on the "country of origin", this may be the US or the Chinese limit (US, probably).

Conclusion : In the first place, determine where exactly this poem was first published. If the above assumptions are correct, the poem is public domain in the USA and in China, but for other Berne-Union countries, it remains protected by author's rights until the (USA / Chinese) present time limit is reached.

Biem (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• According to this textbook Chao Yuen Ren never actually published the poem, he simply read it out at a lecture in Toronto in the early seventies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.237.151 (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • unsigned, I don't recall (my 'viewing limit' has been exceeded so I can't go back and check) that the text says that the work was "never actually published", or even that its first appearance/date was at the Toronto reading. Only that he read it there. Am I correct? Redslider (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
    • What it says is "This story is given in Taylor and Taylor (1995), but it may have come from Chao Yuenren who used it in a lecture in Toronto in the early 1970s." It doesn't say anything about when, where, and whether it was first published. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thorny issue, I see. Very important that we can have a copy of the work and its various stages of translation/transliteration here or the article kind of falls apart. Actual Copyrights on the piece (when/where) seem to be difficult to assess and there are complex legal and transnational questions clouding the answer. Also gather that even the precise date/appearance when the poem first appears is up for question (I've seen things ranging from 1930's, to 1977, to 1995). Nobody seems to know for certain (and I'd be very interested to have someone pin that down for scholarship's and curiosity's sake alone).

  I've taken a slightly different approach. I've looked for other places where a copy of the work that closely resembles the translation here (in the English narrative part) are included in someones book or essay that has been copyrighted. Then I'm contacting the authors of that essay or book and asking them what they found out about the copyright status of 'Ten Stone Lions'. I'm guessing some of them have done the research (or their publishers did) and that it satisfied their own legal requirements. One of these is on ProZ.com website and the author specifies that they are "merciless" about copyright infingement. I've made inquiry directly to the author of that essay. I'll report here when/if I hear back from them. Redslider (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Audio Sample

I would love to hear an audio sample of how this would sound in Chinese.Dan (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The audio file was deleted at 4.th of November 2009 per request by Eusebius (Deletion request) . Sechinsic (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC for adding new section - 'Poetic Interpretation'

I wished to check here before posting the following new section. I think it a useful additional way to view the work. Clearly, if people like the addition, it should follow the existing sections on the more linguistic and orthographic features of the poem, which are first required to understand my essay or other poetic treatments of the subject.

Appreciate any comments. Also wonder if it is alright to link/reference my own essay on poetic treatment of "Ten Lions'? Not meant to be immodest or self-promotional. Only that it is the only treatment of the poetry of the work that I know of, to date. if anyone knows another, please let me know. Thank you.

--- Poetic Interpretation and the Riddle of the Narrative---

"Shi & the Ten Lions" is well-known for its demonstration of problems in transliteration and translation of Chinese writings. Othorgraphic, linguistic and other considerations nearly always overwhelm other interesting features of this work as we can see, even here on this page and in essays such as Antanaclasic Verse This is to be expected, as its author Chou Yuen Ren was a respected linguist and specialist in Chinese language studies. Indeed, "Ten Lions" was first published in his work "Dimensions of Fidelity in Translation With Special Reference to Chinese", which employed it to demonstrate various types of translation problems.

However, "Ten Lions" is also a work of poetry about which little has been seriously said. Most online treatments of the text regard it as a "tongue twister" or other type of language exercise though many google entries refer to the work as a "poem" (e.g. see here) or include it in poem anthologies (e.g. see here.) Moreover, the poem's narrative presents us with a riddle (the meaning of the narrative of the "Shi and the Ten Lions") to which comments in numerous online forums fail to give any plausible explanation of the meaning of the story or, simply dismiss it as an intractable puzzle, or nonsense (for example, these comments or or these). As one can see, most comments offer wildly improbable interpretations or simply ridicule the piece and give up on it as hopeless of any reasonable interpretation. Some just say, "WTF is this?" and let it go at that.

Only one essay of which I'm aware, "Shi and the Story of the Ten Lions" by this editor , analyzes the work as serious poetry and attempts to provide plausible solution-sets to the riddle of the narrative. The irony of course is that the use and excellence of the piece as a linguistic exercise and demonstration (it first appeared In Ren's text on the problems of Chinese language translation), is that its merit as a work of poetry has been almost entirely overlooked. In this, I personally estimate the work, en toto, as one which is not only excellent poetry, but may very well edge, someday, into being one of our "great poems" as well. Redslider (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but self-published sources are generally not admissible as references for additions on Wikipedia. Adding this to Wikipedia would be basically the same as writing up your own original research, which Wikipedia policy does not allow. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

thanx R. Is there a better way to phrase this that allows it to be linked? It really isn't a source in support of anything else in the article. It's simply an illustration that there are poetic-interpretive approaches to the riddle of the ten lions. As far as I can tell, its also the only one in existence, to date - might even encourage others to do some. If you still think it unacceptable, can you suggest a place in WP where I might go to get an exception? Redslider (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for discussing your own personal ideas or discoveries or to advocate for or promote research on a certain topic. These are both noble goals for other outlets, but are not allowed on Wikipedia. please see WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX for more information. Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Recommending Change of Title for the Article

I suggest the name of the article "Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den" be changed to "Shi and the Ten Stone Lions" or just "Ten Stone Lions" for three reasons -

1. Ease of searching. People who are searching for the article are unlikely to recall the terms 'Lion-Eating', 'Poet' or 'Stone Den' if its something they have not recently read. 'Lion' and 'Stone' might come to mind and in their searches, along with a thousand other things to which those terms might refer. But most will probably recall the term 'Shi' and 'Stone' and 'Ten Lions'. The titles I offer are much more likely to produce the hits they want.

2. As a poet, I rather like the title "Shi and the Ten Stone Lions" as it not only contains the more memorable terms of the work and includes the one that is most likely to be remembered, 'shi', but it also puts the two forms of the work into plain view, the 'shi' of the transliteration, and the rest as the properly translated narrative. There's a poetic ring to that. It's as if we are providing a view (as Chou Yuen Ren does with the whole work) of the passage between the stages of translating. Especially since it is the totality of the work, in all its translation stages at once, that is of most interest to poets and poetry (especially langpo). It's as if all the rest has gone through the process, and now it is "Shi's" turn to be morphed into "poet".

3. It is inaccurate to say "Lion-Eating", in any case. I neither speak nor read Chinese, but my understanding is that the poet did not 'eat the stone lions', rather he 'tried to eat the lions' (& if he did, I hope he had a very good dental plan!). If I recall correctly, Chou Yuen Ren's original title for the piece was something like "The Record of the Poet who Tried to Eat Ten Stone Lions" (correct me if I'm wrong.)

From a poetic standpoint it is very significant that he did not actually eat the stone lions. Some solution-sets to the meaning of the narrative depend on his attempting to do that but failing. Many of the plausible metaphors depend on that distinction (see my essay referenced in the last section, but disallowed in the article). For example, one treatment of the metaphor of the ten stone lions is a reference to the Buddha and his ten reincarnations as a lion. It would be sacrilegious for him to have done that; but very meaningful for him to have attempted and failed. Redslider (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding ease of searching, this is irrelevant; we can use redirects to make it easy for people to find this article if they type "Shi and the Ten Stone Lions".

Regarding accuracy, you are incorrect. The title does in fact describe a poet eating lions, and does not mention "ten" at all. The best literal translation would probably be "The story of Shi eating lions" (someone else can correct me if I'm wrong, my Classical Chinese is rusty). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

yes, you are right on the searching. I got a little variance on bing and some other searching on keys most likely to be recalled by people who read the story some time ago, but not enough to make a difference. Where I trip up, and wonder if others do to, is when I see our title in the search lists, it doesn't register immediately that's what I'm looking for - 'Stone den', 'lion eating' and such just doesn't match what I recall. The other sites I immediately recognize as what I'm looking for. "Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den" takes me a moment to click, and I'm not sure when I do. Maybe just me, but I wonder, though. "The Poet and the Ten Lions", or anything with "Shi" in it regesters immediately and I know its what I'm looking for. "stone lions" by itself, of course, is a wash, means something entirely different.

Again, on translation, I have to defer to you. I haven't any oriental language at all, so I don't know what/where the most accurate translation of the title might be. Did Chou even have a title on his first printing of it, or was it just mushed in as an example in his discussion? I do recall somewhere, some scholarly article had it as "The Record of the Poet... (can't recall the rest). Does something in your current copy comport with "The Record of..."? Anyway, I note that I'm inaccurate on another count (and one within my competency), that "Lion-eating" does not need to refer to the stone lions, but to the first line that indicates he was a lion eater." Anyway, I've some other things I'd like to ask about the text sometime. "addict", for example is a term I haven't seen in any other translation (usually its something like 'liked to eat lions.'). For another time, perhaps.

In my considering a new title, what I was thinking was that the title of the Wiki Article doesn't need to agree with any exact translation of the original title. In the title of our presentation of the narrative it can, probably should be as exact as it can. But, to my mind, its still better if the Wiki title agrees more closely with the majority of other titles used online. And there, i do notice "The Poet and the 10 Lions", "...10 Stone lions", or often just "The Ten Stone Lions" predominate. Ours is a bit off the usual track. Its just preference. I guess my ear, and the meter of the title we are using sounds a bit clunky. Stilted. The rest of the narrative is actually pretty lean and in motion. There are some phrasings in the narrative that strike me could use improvement. But, again, I don't have the language so I don't know how much latitude there is. Maybe we could work together on that sometime? Redslider (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'd like to hear how others feel about the Wiki title. "Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den" or "Shi and the Ten Stone Lions". Anybody? But I do thank you for taking the time. It's been very instructive. Whatever way it goes, I'm glad I brought it up. Redslider (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed above, zz61061, gave the original as "Record of Shi Eating Lions". Are they correct? I suppose that translates further to "Record of the Poet Eating Lions". But I wouldn't favor that at all as the Wiki title. As the inside title, yes - much prefer whatever is most accurate. But as a Wiki Title its way out of what people will recognize as the correct page. And that is what our titles are really supposed to accomplish, yes? Redslider (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The 史 at the end means "record of" (I translated it as "story of" in my message above; it's six of one, half-dozen of the other). The poem is not about stone lions (it's a poet in a stone den [cave], not a poet eating stone lions), and stone is not even mentioned in the title, so no, none of your suggestions about "stone lions" are usable. And I don't know what you mean by "wiki Title" and "inside title". rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The WP explanation and specifications for titles used for wiki articles is here. As you can see, precision in the title is relative to identifying the topic, rather than elements of the article's content. There is the general suggestion that "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." I think that is the principle reason for my bringing the matter up here. On general and common usage, "Ten Stone Lions", "The Poet Who Eats (or 'Ate') Lions", anything with "shi" as a term ("Shi and the Ten (Stone) Lions") and so forth, seem to get far more play, widely over the web, than our title. What I've seen of those that use our title or something similar, most seem to do so because they came across that construction in our article. Anyway, that's the difference between the overall title of the article and anything about some title being examined within the content of the article. In the five guiding ideas on title naming, I think our present title fails to some degree in all five of them. So a replacement title might be in order?

My own favorite would be "Shi and the Ten Stone Lions". "The Poet and The Ten Stone Lions" might edge it out on 'preciseness', but 'shi' is a term that almost anyone interested in this topic will immediately recognize and probably remember, even if they haven't dealt with the subject for a long time. The article also suggests that consensus is the appropriate way to decide the matter. I'm hoping others will have equally good ideas. Redslider (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Btw, Rjanag, from a poetics point of view, the narrative is very much about "Stone Lions"; about lions that turned to stone. Without that, the many referential, symbolic and transcendent aspects of the work are utterly lost to poets and readers of poetry. It would be as if we viewed the writings of John Cage, for example, only in light of its its relation to musical composition. That could be done, but hardly exposes a fraction of what the ample literary and philosophical critique of his writing has provided. Redslider (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, if you are worried about people finding the article then it is easy to create redirects. As for what title is widely used, I haven't seen you provide any evidence other than your personal impressions, and I am not familiar enough with this topic to know. Do you have any examples of scholarly publications (articles or books) that discuss the poem? That would be the way to determine what the common name is, if there is any. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Rjanag, do you really think it necessary to source common usage about the titles of articles online that refer to "The Poet and the Ten Lions"? This is not about 'search efficiency' anymore, its about conventions for crafting titles. Just do a simple google search and see how many times "Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den" (or, even "Stone Den" ) comes up in the titles and references online, other than ones which are to Wikipedia or Wikipedia-based. Again, read the WP guidelines about conventions with naming articles. "Scholarly publications" are not the appropriate concerns in crafting general titles for articles. Again, ""The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." I don't see how they could have made things any plainer about what is preferred. Redslider (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A google search is not an accurate indicator of what name is used most commonly. Like I said above, please provide evidence for what name is used most commonly. I'm not challenging your statement that one name or another is more common; I would just like to see where you got the evidence to make that statement. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not about search engines. I already conceded that search engines do well with any variant, and "Lion-eating/Stone Den" fairs well on that account - probably owing much to that title being here for awhile. What it is about is what people commonly relate to, think of and, yes, search for - but that would be satisfied by either of our preferences. The overarching criteria consideration from WP is ""The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." The question is, what does that mean in terms of titles for this article? I think that is perhaps best understood in terms of the 'Characteristics' WP describes as desirable in titles:

Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic.

Naturalness – Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.

Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.

Conciseness – Titles are concise, and not overly long.

Consistency – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions.

So, if we stack up the different choices against those criteria, we ought have a good idea of what works best.

Your choice seems to be for the status quo: "Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den"

Recognizibility. Starting off with the verb, esp. the present participle, arrests the attention and gives pause. Every time i look at it I first think, it's a about nomads in the Kalahari desert that diet on lions, or some such. It's unusual syntax catches and holds my eye, doesn't seem familiar. I add 'poet' to that, and now I'm thinking metaphor - what is 'lion-eating' for poets...? 'lion-eating' could mean all sorts of things. I'm still not clued into what is familiar to me about the article, especially if I read it somewhere, awhile ago, and I only remember a little of what the details were. Then we get to "Stone Den". Now I'm thrown a bit - on the one hand, "Stone" is familiar. It is repeated three times in the piece and I might remember that. But "Den"? That's kind of a mismatch (especially with its nearby association with 'lions'). lion's den? (now i'm prone to think, "Daniel and the Lion's Den"). I may be cued a little by 'stone house'. But if 'den' is being used that way, it doesn't comport with standard usage so I'm scrambling. The lion now associates 'den',than it does 'poet'. So, as far as all the elements being individually cued to a memory that triggers the whole of it, this choice seems to be only fair with respect to 'recognizibility';

Naturalness, WP does attach this, some, to searchability. But I think it falls mostly to what people will recall about 'the something' they are looking for. 'Lion-Eating' might if they happened to happened to see through the participle construction, because the real 'natural translation' of that is 'the guy (poet) who ate lions' - that's the way normal speech would tend to revise it - there's a double translation being called for here. The story (the real thing a searcher is going to be processing) has no "lion-eating" in it at sll. He 'resolved to eat ten lions', he looked for them, he saw them, he caused them to die, brought them, 'tried to eat them' and, finally, realizes they are stone. Nope, no "lion-eating" there except as a referenced descriptor for the things actually said in the story. The actual story doesn't re-enforce that way of thinking of it, or the memory of one who is recalling things. "Stone Den" likewise is a passing minor detail. 'stone' appears in several places in different contexts, but with 'stone den' it's a bound adjective, not likely to evoke 'stone lions' etc. 'Poet' only gets mentioned once in the story, but it is the main character, and those things stand out. Still, its rather generic and doesn't tie in with much specificity (unless, of course, it happens to get directly implicated in an interpretation of 10 lions, as in my essay). Important, yes. adds to Naturalness as a likely reference in relation to the other terms in your title. Overall, i'd give the current title a 3 or 4 rating on Naturalness. Seems pretty unnatural to me in terms of the story.

Precision. Now that's a tricky one. "Identifies the Topic unambiguously," WP says. Now I've already suggested there are a number of ambiguities in the terms used in the title. Enough, that I don't find it very precise at all. But, if we really stuck to their meaning, it utterly fails at precision. Why? Because the article isn't really about the "Lion Eating Poet in a Stone Den" at all. That's just the specimen under examination. The article is really about translating and the peculiarities of language. Sure, it starts out with a section called 'Text', but that just lays the specimen on the table. All the rest - 'Explanation' (not an explanation of the text, but of the language used), 'Poem text in vernacular Chinese' (language again), 'Classical Chinese pronunciation in antiquity', 'Related tongue-twisters' - all about the intricacies of the language, the translations. If the title were to actually be precise, it would be something like '(The linguistic and translation properties of monosyllabic homophones in...using a work by Chou Yuen Ren as the Case In Point'. Why? Because its an examination of the languages which renders the poem; not about the poem itself. When I first came to the page I was disappointed precisely because I thought it was going to discuss the work. Instead, it discussed nothing about it except the linguistics. I learned a great deal from that, but it was derivative. Not anything to do with what I expected; i.e. the title is not precise at all. But, I also think this is one of those cases where the rules defeat the purpose if applied too strictly. In fact, more precision here (because the article itself is rather specialized), would drift away from the other WP advice to have the title speak to the general rather than specialized reader. I think 'precision' is one thing, here, that can be sacrificed to some degree if we are to keep to why we have titles;

Conciseness. I don't think its overly-long. Comparable to the other choices.

Consistency. I'll have to leave this one to you. I frankly don't know what similar articles there are on WP, nor even what category they fall into. As I've said, it isn't an article about the poem, it's really about translating the poem and about language. What is similar to that?

ok, that's my take on the status quo. Now for some possible alternatives. Here, I will use my own favorite, "Shi and the Ten Stone Lions". The variants might be "Shi, the Poet who Ate Lions", "The Poet Who Ate Stone Lions", "Shi and the Ten Lions", etc.

Recognizibility"Shi and the Ten Stone Lions" has just about all the keywords that will stand out in the piece 'except eating the lions' We might put "eating the 10 Stone Lions", but I don't think the extra cue is really required. In any case, I read it, and I know what it is referring to, instantly (If I ever read the story).

Naturalness. "Ten Stone Lions" is pretty natural on its own. Primarily because of the specificity of the number of lions. Can't think of a single time in my life I've ever read about precisely 'ten lions'. I remember that from the story; it stands out. It's re-enforced because he went to the market at 10 o'clock. But its peculiar enough on its own that it sticks. The real clincher though is that the title employees the one thing that is really outstanding in the piece; that, if one has read it, they certainly know and relate to, "Shi". It's what makes the piece outstanding, peculiar and memorable in every reader's mind. We are confronted with a block of meaningless "shi shi shi shi..." and the, "WTF is this?" is what first strikes the average reader. Indeed, the work is commonly referred to as "The shi shi poem". One site in fact gives a couple of descriptive titles and then says, parenthetically, "(better known as the story that goes Shi shi…)". If I see 'shi' and one other key word, I am fairly certain we are referencing this particular work. The title might even be, "Shi shi and the Ten Lions" (Mr. Shi the Poet) to better effect.

Precision. Here, the discussion is the same as above. "Shi and the Ten Stone Lions" or "Shi shi and the Ten Stone Lions" is a little more precise, because the terms all come directly from notable elements of the story.

Conciseness. slightly shorter, but comparable to the status quo. No significant difference.

Consistency.Again, I have to leave this one to you. No idea of the categorical similarities to other articles.

So that's it. You tell me which fares better under the WP guidelines? Or even which sounds more generally euphonious and inviting. But I tell you what, it's not really important to me. If you still wish to keep it like it is, I'll stand aside. WP is not a career for me and I'm not attached to anything here. I'd still like to hear from others, see what they think. But as far as I'm concerned, you can call it hot-cockalorum if you wish (remember that story?) It's ok by me. Redslider (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask for you to paste me a big quotation from a policy page that I can read on my own, or to give me strange interpretations of them (arguing that "recognizability" is about how attention-grabbing a title is--where did you get that idea?). I asked you to provide some evidence for which name was more commonly known, since you had originally said the reason you wanted to change the title was because the current title is not the name that is commonly used to refer to this work. If you can't provide that, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't presume to tell me what I said. Among other things, I also said the title sounds clunky and stilted to me. I think we should get another one. It appears you have a personal stake in keeping the title as it is. As I also said, that's fine by me. I still would like to know what other's think, but I agree, there's no point in discussing this with you further. Redslider (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)