RE: Digest Number 952

[Guest guest]

Ken, all,

 

I have no substantiation to back this up but I believe the word " tonify "

probably made its way into the English language via the French

" tonifier " .

 

When I first became aware that tonify was not an English word, I tried

to adjust my language, using words like tone, supplement, enhance or

nourish, and inform my fellow students. But they would have nothing of

it. After all, it is in print. People argue that this is how language

changes and new words come into being, which I agree with.

 

Colleen

 

I think the tendency to misunderstand it comes

from an unfortunate equation of bu3 and

the English word " tonic, " which resulted

in the birth of a new verb in English

language Chinese medicine, " tonify. "

 

Since you don't find the word " tonify "

in English dictionaries, it's not really

possible to say what it means. It's another

" eveybody knows " kind of formulation that

suffers mainly from the fact that everybody

does not know what the Chinese term means.

[Guest guest]

Colleen,

 

> I have no substantiation to back this up but I believe the

word " tonify "

> probably made its way into the English language via the French

> " tonifier " .

 

Hard to say, as typically we investigate

the etymology of words once they're in

the dictionary. But I completely agree

with your observation that this is the

way that languages change. New words

come into being. Old words drop out

of use and disappear, except when you

come across them in old texts.

 

I think that's one of the reasons why,

if we want to be attentive to what the

old texts mean we need to pay attention

to the meanings of the words as they

were when they were written down and

as they have been continuously reinterpreted

over the intervening periods of time.

 

In other words, in order to really understand

the Chinese medical classics, you have

to know what the words meant to the

people who wrote them down and who

have continued to transmit them

for as long as they've been transmitted.

 

When modern invented words are substituted

for poorly defined sets of Chinese words

the nomenclature is diminished.

 

 

>

> When I first became aware that tonify was not an English word, I

tried

> to adjust my language, using words like tone, supplement, enhance or

> nourish, and inform my fellow students. But they would have nothing

of

> it. After all, it is in print. People argue that this is how

language

> changes and new words come into being, which I agree with.

 

Again, I agree completely. People are the

source of language, no question about that.

The point here is that we have a good

example of how this very natural and

organic process of mutation in language

can result either in clarity or confusion.

 

Data, information, knowledge, even

wisdom can be lost as well as gained.

 

What I was pointing out was not that

it's a bad idea for a new word to come

into being but that the details involved

matter. In this case, we should be concerned

with how this new word, which was not

just invented for no reason but was

developed to translate either one

or more Chinese words, fulfills the

purpose for which it came into being.

 

If you look at page 592 of the Practical

Dictionary, there's a good example there

of how a translation standard solves

at least if not more problems than

it causes. There's a whole list of

terms presented that fall under the

general heading of bu3, supplement.

 

I believe that some writers in the

past have been less careful as to the

use of the word " tonify " to render

any number of those terms into

English. I'd be curious to get your

take on how refined the sensibilities

are in the relevant classroom with

respect to the various aspects of

supplementation described.

 

I see in this an example of how a

better understanding of language

might be reasonably anticipated to

result in greater dexterity in the

clinic. And the point I started out

to make was that the mistranslation

of bu3 as " tonify " results in the

kinds of confusions that Todd was

trying to sort out. Todd's not

confused, the terminology has been

confused.

 

We are definitely in the process of

changing Chinese medical language.

And this will continue to happen

without doubt. I think it's in all of

our best interest if we make it happen

in the most well informed manner possible.

 

 

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...>

wrote:

And the point I started out

> to make was that the mistranslation

> of bu3 as " tonify " results in the

> kinds of confusions that Todd was

> trying to sort out. Todd's not

> confused, the terminology has been

> confused.

 

I need to point out that my question was about whether san qi

was used similarly to ren shen. while the discussion of tonify is

interesting, I actually used the word supplement in my posts on

this subject. However I am not always so careful inmy term

choices. with regard to tonify, I think everyone knows this is a

translation of bu, so it really doesn' tmatter what term is used.

the only purpose for standard terminology to me is to be able to

trace the character and locate dictionary definitions. this is not a

problem for bu, whatever term is used. As to the shades of

supplementation evinced in the PD, I wonder whether those

shades are more stylistic than clnically relevant. when would I

boost (yi) versus when would supplement? My copy of FCM tells

me to see supplement when I look up boost.

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

All I originally meant to say was that

the question you were asking as to whether

or not san1 qi1 moves blood or supplements

blood was the obvious result of not including

the function of moving blood as a perfectly

legitimate sense of bu3. If the blood is

suffering from not moving, then moving

it is bu3. That is to say that moving it

result in the mending and boosting of

blood.

 

 

> I need to point out that my question was about whether san qi

> was used similarly to ren shen.

 

That was an earlier question. I was responding

to the point about " move " versus " supplement. "

 

while the discussion of tonify is

> interesting, I actually used the word supplement in my posts on

> this subject. However I am not always so careful inmy term

> choices. with regard to tonify, I think everyone knows this is a

> translation of bu, so it really doesn' tmatter what term is used.

 

I don't agree. As I pointed out, the use of

" tonify " as an " everybody knows " version of

bu3 reformulates the nomenclature in a way

that I believe loses clarity.

 

> the only purpose for standard terminology to me is to be able to

> trace the character and locate dictionary definitions. this is not

a

> problem for bu, whatever term is used.

 

If it's not a problem, why was it a question?

 

It seems pretty clear to me that the nature

of your question can only follow from a

condition such as I described. The associations

of meaning that come with the " English " term

" tonfy " do not include " moving " . But in

terms of the implied dynamics of bu3 xue4,

moving blood is a perfectly good strategy

for supplementing blood, as evidenced

by this use of san1 qi1.

 

As to the shades of

> supplementation evinced in the PD, I wonder whether those

> shades are more stylistic than clnically relevant. when would I

> boost (yi) versus when would supplement? My copy of FCM tells

> me to see supplement when I look up boost.

 

No doubt some are more relevant than others.

And no doubt this relevance is variable

with circumstances. The point is whether

or not clinicans should be able to think

for themselves about such relevance or

be satisfied with being hobbled with

muddled renditions of an already complex

nomenclature?

 

The only way out of discussions like this

is for people to know what the words mean.

 

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

You are right, Colleen. Since the French 'got' acupuncture first, the

word tonification came from the French acupuncture literature.

 

You should stick to your guns, however. Incorrect language is

incorrect language. Tonification is not an accurate rendering of bu3.

 

 

On Wednesday, April 3, 2002, at 11:03 AM, Colleen Morris wrote:

 

>

> Ken, all,

>

> I have no substantiation to back this up but I believe the word " tonify "

> probably made its way into the English language via the French

> " tonifier " .

>

> When I first became aware that tonify was not an English word, I tried

> to adjust my language, using words like tone, supplement, enhance or

> nourish, and inform my fellow students. But they would have nothing of

> it. After all, it is in print. People argue that this is how language

> changes and new words come into being, which I agree with.

>

> Colleen

>

> I think the tendency to misunderstand it comes

> from an unfortunate equation of bu3 and

> the English word " tonic, " which resulted

> in the birth of a new verb in English

> language Chinese medicine, " tonify. "

>

> Since you don't find the word " tonify "

> in English dictionaries, it's not really

> possible to say what it means. It's another

> " eveybody knows " kind of formulation that

> suffers mainly from the fact that everybody

> does not know what the Chinese term means.

>

>

 

>

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed

> healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate

> academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety

> of professional services, including board approved online continuing

> education.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

An example of when the shades of meaning are clinically relevant is

run4, as in run chang wan/moisten intestine pill, or zhuang4/invigorate,

that refers specifically to kidney yang. The terms are implicit to the

understanding of how to diagnose and treat specific problems.

 

Since tonification is incorrectly associated with tonics in English, it

is helpful to have a more accurate term so we don't look at ginseng as

a'tonic' in the same way Western herbology looks at golden seal as a

tonic. In the Western understanding, the bitter element of golden seal

stimulates gastric secretion and temporarily improves digestion, so it

is considered a 'bitter tonic'.

 

As you know, we also have our problems with concepts such as 'liver

detoxification' when applied to Chinese medicine. The concept doesn't

have an exact parallel in Chinese medicinc, due to the difference is

discussing the Chinese 'liver' which is a functional system, and the

Western, more organ-based understanding.

 

To sum up, my opinion is that we need to be accurate with language

because of the confusion of concepts between Chinese medicine and other

alternative approaches.

 

 

On Wednesday, April 3, 2002, at 12:18 PM, 1 wrote:

 

> As to the shades of

> supplementation evinced in the PD, I wonder whether those

> shades are more stylistic than clnically relevant.  when would I

> boost (yi) versus when would supplement?  My copy of FCM tells

> me to see supplement when I look up boost.

[Guest guest]

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

 

The associations

> of meaning that come with the " English " term

> " tonfy " do not include " moving " . But in

> terms of the implied dynamics of bu3 xue4,

> moving blood is a perfectly good strategy

> for supplementing blood, as evidenced

> by this use of san1 qi1.

 

Ken

 

If moving the blood (huo xue) is a subset of bu (supplement), then I

am thoroughly cinfused. In the generic way you are speaking, this may

be true. But in the narrow technical use within TCM, I believe it is

incorrect. Most herbs that huo xue (move blood) can cause blood or qi

vacuity. Their net effect is not all to supplement, but the opposite,

which is to disperse. Their use may result in less qi, not more. By

your logic, all treatment strategies can be construed as supplemental.

when we clear dampheat,the spleen is disencumbered, thus its function

is improved, but I wouldn't call the strategy supplementation. I

think your description of the relationship between these terms

obscures their use in clinic.

 

[Guest guest]

, " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> An example of when the shades of meaning are clinically relevant is

> run4, as in run chang wan/moisten intestine pill, or

zhuang4/invigorate,

> that refers specifically to kidney yang. The terms are implicit to the

> understanding of how to diagnose and treat specific problems.

 

But the phrase used always includes the other clues, such as naming

the intestines or the kidney yang. I have not experienced confusion

in this area.

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

> The associations

> > of meaning that come with the " English " term

> > " tonfy " do not include " moving " . But in

> > terms of the implied dynamics of bu3 xue4,

> > moving blood is a perfectly good strategy

> > for supplementing blood, as evidenced

> > by this use of san1 qi1.

>

> If moving the blood (huo xue) is a subset of bu (supplement), then I

> am thoroughly cinfused. In the generic way you are speaking, this

may

> be true. But in the narrow technical use within TCM, I believe it

is

> incorrect.

 

I don't follow the distinction you're

drawing between the " generic way " of

speaking and the " narrow technical "

sense. I'm talking about the use of

the terms in Chinese medicine, not

as general descriptive terms. I'm

also not attempting to redefine existing

categories for classifying medicinals,

only pointing out that the interpretation

of the meaning of these categories can

be carried out in a somewhat more

flexible way when the arbitrary restrictions

imposed by the associations with the

English word, " tonify " are removed from

the equation.

 

And in contradistinction to those who

insist that rigorous treatment of definitions

is impertinent or detrimental to the development

of clinical skills, I'm suggesting that clearly

and completely defining the Chinese word bu3

provides the clinician with tools to conceptualize

a wide range of interactions with the patient.

 

Remember that we started with your posing of

what seemed to you to be a conflict between

the functional properties of san1 qi1 of

both moving and supplementing the blood.

 

All I have said is that as evidenced by the

instance of san1 qi1, there is not necessarily

a categorical distinction to be drawn between

these two functions. That doesn't somehow make

moving a subset of supplementation. And I think

for you to draw that conclusion indicates an

incorrect application of something even more

fundamental about these theoretical notions,

namely the mode of thinking that should be

employed in their application. They are

not primarily intended or constructed

as statements of natural law into which

phenomena are somehow supposed to be

fit. They're handles that can be applied

to data to move it around and create

associations and patterns. When the

right images are combined, the puzzle

reveals its meaning...at least enough

to permit the clinician to move forward

on a treatment strategy.

 

The concern about whether or not san1

qi1 somehow violates the categorical

definitions reflects a sense of the

status of those distinctions that I

am suggesting is not in keeping with

their traditional nature. And of course

this is all just a reflection of the

way that these traditions have been

passed on to me by my teachers.

 

Most herbs that huo xue (move blood) can cause blood or qi

> vacuity. Their net effect is not all to supplement, but the

opposite,

> which is to disperse. Their use may result in less qi, not more.

 

Speaking very generally, the misuse of any

medicinal can result in a wide range of

unintended consequences. That's why I

mentioned the mode of thinking issues,

since it is one of the mechanisms present

in the subject that tends to limit the

extent in which the pendulum can be

swung in any direction and therefore

reduce the likelihood of such misuse.

 

By

> your logic, all treatment strategies can be construed as

supplemental.

 

I hope I've clarified what I mean so

that this inference is no longer possible

to draw.

 

 

> when we clear dampheat,the spleen is disencumbered, thus its

function

> is improved, but I wouldn't call the strategy supplementation.

 

Agreed. Although it is certainly worth

noticing that a supplementation results.

 

I

> think your description of the relationship between these terms

> obscures their use in clinic.

>

Let me know if what I'm saying still

seems to have this effect, as clearly

it's not what I'm aiming for.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

I ditto the thanks for the 21 things to remember, I used it as inspiration

for some writing.

 

Love & light,

Sue

 

--

mail2web - Check your email from the web at

http://mail2web.com/ .