Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 I'm looking for a cross reference of different TCM terminology. I'm reading a book by Bob Flaws and he is using terms I don't understand. I am able to get " vacuity " is " deficiency " , but he is using terms like " depression " in a context I don't understand. Thanks in advance for any help. Christopher Vedeler L.Ac., C.Ht. Oasis Acupuncture http://www.oasisacupuncture.com 8233 N. Via Paseo del Norte Suite D-35 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Phone: (480) 991-3650 Fax: (480) 247-4472 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Hi Christopher Bob Flaws uses the Wiseman-language. The Practical Dictionary of is a very, very good book to understand these concepts and word-choices Alwin Chinese Medicine , " Christopher Vedeler L.Ac. " <ckvedeler wrote: > > I'm looking for a cross reference of different TCM terminology. I'm > reading a book by Bob Flaws and he is using terms I don't understand. I > am able to get " vacuity " is " deficiency " , but he is using terms like > " depression " in a context I don't understand. > > Thanks in advance for any help. > > Christopher Vedeler L.Ac., C.Ht. > Oasis Acupuncture > http://www.oasisacupuncture.com > 8233 N. Via Paseo del Norte > Suite D-35 > Scottsdale, AZ 85258 > Phone: (480) 991-3650 > Fax: (480) 247-4472 > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Hi You may want to purchase the Practical Dictionary of by Nigel Wiseman and Feng Ye. You can find it at Redwing or Amazon.com Gabe --- " Christopher Vedeler L.Ac. " <ckvedeler wrote: > I'm looking for a cross reference of different TCM > terminology. I'm > reading a book by Bob Flaws and he is using terms I > don't understand. I > am able to get " vacuity " is " deficiency " , but he is > using terms like > " depression " in a context I don't understand. > > Thanks in advance for any help. > > Christopher Vedeler L.Ac., C.Ht. > Oasis Acupuncture > http://www.oasisacupuncture.com > 8233 N. Via Paseo del Norte > Suite D-35 > Scottsdale, AZ 85258 > Phone: (480) 991-3650 > Fax: (480) 247-4472 > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Hi, See the paper on why Wiseman terminology shouldn't be used: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=A bstract & list_uids=16417785 & query_hl=1 & itool=pubmed_docsum> & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=16417785 & query_hl=1 & itool=pubmed_docsum Warm regards, Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of (Beijing, China) B.Sc. (Hons) T.C.M. M.A.T.C.M. Editor Times +44 (0) 208 367 8378 enquiries <http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/> www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of gabe gabe 31 March 2006 08:37 Chinese Medicine Re: TCM terminology cross reference Hi You may want to purchase the Practical Dictionary of by Nigel Wiseman and Feng Ye. You can find it at Redwing or Amazon.com Gabe --- " Christopher Vedeler L.Ac. " <ckvedeler wrote: > I'm looking for a cross reference of different TCM > terminology. I'm > reading a book by Bob Flaws and he is using terms I > don't understand. I > am able to get " vacuity " is " deficiency " , but he is > using terms like > " depression " in a context I don't understand. > > Thanks in advance for any help. > > Christopher Vedeler L.Ac., C.Ht. > Oasis Acupuncture > http://www.oasisacupuncture.com > 8233 N. Via Paseo del Norte > Suite D-35 > Scottsdale, AZ 85258 > Phone: (480) 991-3650 > Fax: (480) 247-4472 > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click, http://toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145 and adjust accordingly. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Hi Attilio I don't know why you want to stir all this up again with this flawed article that, as you also know by now, doesn't represent the opinions from Nigel Wiseman and attributes to him an approach that is utterly ridiculous and false. We have just gone through this discussion on the CHA-list, of which you are also a member, for the whole month of februari and march. I cannot see any benefits in this approach of you regarding this discussion. It is a waste of energy and time. Not so best wishes Alwin Chinese Medicine , " Attilio D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto wrote: > > Hi, > > See the paper on why Wiseman terminology shouldn't be used: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Hi Alwin, I'm a bit shocked and taken back by your hostile 'not so best wishes' reply. The issue of terminology in TCM is a tricky, hot and current issue we all need to address. I have been having a series of off list discussions with Subhuti on this very topic, since I initially imposed the idea of using only Wiseman terminology for my new journal, Times. Due to the strong negative feedback I received from a number of leading peers and authors, I rejected the idea. I first heard of the Xie and White article from Bob Felt but never read it. Subsequently, Subhuti discussed it with me and gave me the article's title and details. I've only read the abstract and am waiting for the full article. A recent thread discussed the issue of terminology and I felt it was piquant to discuss the Xie and White article. Even though I am a member of the CHA list, I am far too busy to read their messages and so was unaware of the current topic of debate on that forum. But many thanks for bringing it to my attention. It just illustrates how important this topic is at the moment. I disagree with you when you say discussing this topic is a waste of time and energy. We have to have a standard terminology, so we need to reach an agreement on which one to use. Warm regards, Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of (Beijing, China) B.Sc. (Hons) T.C.M. M.A.T.C.M. Editor Times +44 (0) 208 367 8378 enquiries <http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/> www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Alwin van Egmond 31 March 2006 11:48 Chinese Medicine Re: TCM terminology cross reference Hi Attilio I don't know why you want to stir all this up again with this flawed article that, as you also know by now, doesn't represent the opinions from Nigel Wiseman and attributes to him an approach that is utterly ridiculous and false. We have just gone through this discussion on the CHA-list, of which you are also a member, for the whole month of februari and march. I cannot see any benefits in this approach of you regarding this discussion. It is a waste of energy and time. Not so best wishes Alwin Chinese Medicine , " Attilio D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto wrote: > > Hi, > > See the paper on why Wiseman terminology shouldn't be used: Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click, http://toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145 and adjust accordingly. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Attilio D'Alberto wrote: > We have to have a > standard terminology, so we need to reach an agreement on which one to use. Hi Attilio! Not to rain on your parade, but this is the sort of thing that a lot of people like to pride themselves on being the only true believers. We had a similar discussion on a programmers list over tabs vs spaces. There was never any consensus. I would be truly surprised if this issue is ever resolved. Regards, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 May I suggest the book " On the standard nomenclature of traditional chinese medicine " by Prof. Xie Zhufan (autor of the paper on the Wiseman terminology) It will meet his critics I suppose but may not give an answer to all Christopher questions. I'm often bewildered too about the many different terms used e.g. for the types of qi used in different publications. Best regards Bernhard Decubber -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine Namens Attilio D'Alberto Verzonden: vrijdag 31 maart 2006 11:05 Aan: Chinese Medicine Onderwerp: RE: TCM terminology cross reference Hi, See the paper on why Wiseman terminology shouldn't be used: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=A > & db=pubmed & dopt=A bstract & list_uids=16417785 & query_hl=1 & itool=pubmed_docsum> & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=16417785 & query_hl=1 & itool=pubmed_docsum Warm regards, Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of (Beijing, China) B.Sc. (Hons) T.C.M. M.A.T.C.M. Editor Times +44 (0) 208 367 8378 enquiries <http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/> www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of gabe gabe 31 March 2006 08:37 Chinese Medicine Re: TCM terminology cross reference Hi You may want to purchase the Practical Dictionary of by Nigel Wiseman and Feng Ye. You can find it at Redwing or Amazon.com Gabe --- " Christopher Vedeler L.Ac. " <ckvedeler wrote: > I'm looking for a cross reference of different TCM > terminology. I'm > reading a book by Bob Flaws and he is using terms I > don't understand. I > am able to get " vacuity " is " deficiency " , but he is > using terms like > " depression " in a context I don't understand. > > Thanks in advance for any help. > > Christopher Vedeler L.Ac., C.Ht. > Oasis Acupuncture > http://www.oasisacupuncture.com > 8233 N. Via Paseo del Norte > Suite D-35 > Scottsdale, AZ 85258 > Phone: (480) 991-3650 > Fax: (480) 247-4472 > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click, http://toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145 and adjust accordingly. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Hi Attilio Don't be too shocked it's nothing personal, just a bit of good physiological irritation coming out of my fingers. If it has offended you, or anybody else for that matter, I offer you my sincere apologies. It was not intended to be offending, just letting off some steam. I don't say that discussing this subject in it self, is a waste of time, but starting it again from this specific article and 'repeating' the same arguments again which just have been exchanged on the CHA-list is, IMHO, at least for me having seen this discussion for the last 6 weeks already. I would advise you to take the time to go through this discussion on the CHA-list because it would give you a lot of insight on the arguments and reasoning of the 'inner circle' of Nigel and from the critics of several other 'camps' as well. In my personal opinion there is no need for a single english CM vocabulary for all purposes. I think that if people are interested or active in the field of integrated medicine (WM & TCM) it could be well worth to have a more biomedicalised TCM-vocabulary, like the Xie one appears to be. For educational purposes, I am strongly in favour of using a vocabulary that tries to give the western reader access to the same level of detail and nuance as the chinese have. That requires, still in my opinion, firstly a vocubulary that at least translates all the different terms in chinese to also different terms in english. To do so may require that one uses less frequently used english words. Secondly the english terms should as much as possible convey the same cultural meaning or undertone as they do in chinese. This is especially difficult as one is trying to bridge a cultural gap. And it might result in the use of even less common english words when one is looking for similarity in undertone. All of these 'negative' consequences of word choices, are in my opinion of less concern then providing an as best as possible transfer of concepts and ideas. And if that means that one gets a TCM jargon consisting of less commonly used english terms, that's fine with me. I am in favour of choosing/creating a vocabulary that satisfies my needs than (continue) to use a vocabulary that just happens to be in place and that was created to keep things 'easy'. For use of communication with lay-people I think that one should refrain from using a TCM-vocabulary solely. If one uses terms from the TCM-vocabulary one should explain each of the terms in such a way that it becomes a little bit comprehensible to a lay person and that is absolutely clear for the lay-person that the term definitely doesn't mean what he is familiar with in a western medicine context. Furthermore I am not against the use of different words for the same chinese term (i.e. the 'deficiency' vs 'vacuity' issue) as long as one can relate each term back to the original chinese term (or to the synonimous word from the other vocabulary) and one can have access to a dictionary/glossary explaining the term. IMHO it is only in the chinese language unequivocally clear what the meaning of a term is supposed to be, for a person having mastery of the chinese language. And the argument I often hear that the Wiseman-language is to difficult for students is no argument in my opinion. A study is not supposed to be easy, it is OK to need to work hard on understanding a type of medicine that comes from another culture, especially because you are going to work with people's health. I personaly would have no problem of setting TCM-education at the university level and apply strict entry-level testing to those who want to apply. Still all in my (humble) opinon. Best wishes (for all :-)) Alwin Chinese Medicine , " Attilio D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto wrote: > > Hi Alwin, > > I'm a bit shocked and taken back by your hostile 'not so best wishes' reply. > > > The issue of terminology in TCM is a tricky, hot and current issue we all > need to address. I have been having a series of off list discussions with > Subhuti on this very topic, since I initially imposed the idea of using only > Wiseman terminology for my new journal, Times. Due to the > strong negative feedback I received from a number of leading peers and > authors, I rejected the idea. I first heard of the Xie and White article > from Bob Felt but never read it. Subsequently, Subhuti discussed it with me > and gave me the article's title and details. I've only read the abstract and > am waiting for the full article. A recent thread discussed the issue of > terminology and I felt it was piquant to discuss the Xie and White article. > > Even though I am a member of the CHA list, I am far too busy to read their > messages and so was unaware of the current topic of debate on that forum. > But many thanks for bringing it to my attention. It just illustrates how > important this topic is at the moment. I disagree with you when you say > discussing this topic is a waste of time and energy. We have to have a > standard terminology, so we need to reach an agreement on which one to use. > > Warm regards, > > Attilio D'Alberto > Doctor of (Beijing, China) > B.Sc. (Hons) T.C.M. M.A.T.C.M. > Editor > Times > +44 (0) 208 367 8378 > enquiries > <http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/> www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Attilio, I think at this point having only Wiseman terminology for your journal would be unreasonable, seeing that many of the veterans in our field, as you have pointed out, reject it. What you could have is a standard for translation and terms that is professional. In other words, require authors to explain technical term choices, reference English terms to pinyin and/or Chinese, and give sources or explanations for those choices. This for me is the strongest suit for texts that employ " Wiseman terminology " . They list and explain, in most cases, all technical terms, are footnoted to source texts and have internal consistency. For a prime example, check out Jiao Shu- de's " Ten Lectures on Formulas " . I don't think, however, that Xie Zhu-fan's terminology can substitute for Wiseman. The English translations are highly biomedicalized, and few if any Western authors use his dictionary as an authoritative source. In China, of course, his ideas are very influential, as the idea of a Westerner translating Chinese medical texts for non-M.D.'s seems far-fetched. Apparently it is still believed that most Western practitioners of acupuncture and Chinese medicine want a simplified, biomedicalized version of Chinese medicine. However, one of the essential rules of translation is that you need a translator who is steeped in the target language, i.e. English or other European languages. If you want an example of how Wiseman terminology can potentially advance the field to new horizons, check out the first in a series of books on pathomechanisms/bing ji, an important 'missing link' in our field and an essential one. Its title is " Pathomechanisms of the Heart " by Yan Shi-Lin and Li Zheng-Hua, edited by Eric Brand and Zhang Yuhuan, translated by Sabine Wilms and Wang Ying, published by Paradigm Press. This series will revolutionize the field, by revealing in English for the first time the mechanisms behind disease patterns with all sources carefully reference, and with the Chinese text as well. What I found interesting was the inclusion in this series of such misunderstood patterns as " spleen yin vacuity " , " liver qi vacuity " , and kidney repletion patterns. It restores many of the nuances to Chinese medicine sometimes ignored or lost in many of the over-simplified TCM texts, even many of them in Chinese. It also provides a bridge to understanding many of the patterns discussed in Japanese acupuncture texts. On Mar 31, 2006, at 3:06 AM, Attilio D'Alberto wrote: > The issue of terminology in TCM is a tricky, hot and current issue > we all > need to address. I have been having a series of off list > discussions with > Subhuti on this very topic, since I initially imposed the idea of > using only > Wiseman terminology for my new journal, Times. Due > to the > strong negative feedback I received from a number of leading peers and > authors, I rejected the idea. I first heard of the Xie and White > article > from Bob Felt but never read it. Subsequently, Subhuti discussed it > with me > and gave me the article's title and details. I've only read the > abstract and > am waiting for the full article. A recent thread discussed the > issue of > terminology and I felt it was piquant to discuss the Xie and White > article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Attilio D'Alberto wrote: > Hi Pete, > > Thanks for your post, but programming is not quite the same as > Chinese medicine. > > Firstly, WM has a standard terminology that's used worldwide (apart > from the slight UK versus US Latin differences ). Chinese medicine > has a number of different terminologies. This inhibits our > discussions; just look at this forum for that. It also doesn't allow > us to maximise the very little amount of translated texts from > Chinese to English. I can only see negatives for having so many > different terminologies and so many positives for having just one! Hi Attilio! I don't disagree, I merely attempted to point out the human investment all the experts have at stake. You might encounter less resistance if you started smaller than presuming to anoint an official version. A catalogue of the differences would probably be acceptable to all. In this scenario there would not be one huge winner and everyone else in the field being declared essentially irrelevant. Regards, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Pete, I'm not anointing anything. It just makes good sense to use one standard language. How do you think human's managed to progress? It's by the use of language as a standard means of communication that enables humans to exchange ideas and better their understanding of the world around them. If we all speak the same lingo, then of course, we'll all benefit from it. It's just common sense. I'm not saying which lingo we should all use, but I am saying that we definitely need one. Warm regards, Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of (Beijing, China) B.Sc. (Hons) T.C.M. M.A.T.C.M. +44 (0) 208 367 8378 enquiries www.attiliodalberto.com <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of petetheisen 01 April 2006 10:35 Chinese Medicine Re: TCM terminology cross reference Attilio D'Alberto wrote: > Hi Pete, > > Thanks for your post, but programming is not quite the same as > Chinese medicine. > > Firstly, WM has a standard terminology that's used worldwide (apart > from the slight UK versus US Latin differences ). Chinese medicine > has a number of different terminologies. This inhibits our > discussions; just look at this forum for that. It also doesn't allow > us to maximise the very little amount of translated texts from > Chinese to English. I can only see negatives for having so many > different terminologies and so many positives for having just one! Hi Attilio! I don't disagree, I merely attempted to point out the human investment all the experts have at stake. You might encounter less resistance if you started smaller than presuming to anoint an official version. A catalogue of the differences would probably be acceptable to all. In this scenario there would not be one huge winner and everyone else in the field being declared essentially irrelevant. Regards, Pete Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click, http://toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145 and adjust accordingly. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Attilio D'Alberto wrote: > Pete, > > I'm not anointing anything. It just makes good sense to use one > standard language. How do you think human's managed to progress? It's > by the use of language as a standard means of communication that > enables humans to exchange ideas and better their understanding of > the world around them. If we all speak the same lingo, then of > course, we'll all benefit from it. It's just common sense. I'm not > saying which lingo we should all use, but I am saying that we > definitely need one. Hi Attilio! You will be seen as creating an endorsement, even if it doesn't amount to an anointing, even if all you do is tabulate the votes and report the results. This is what happened with the programmers, people who had a lifetime of work and, well, ego, invested in the one point of view were up in arms and the other side was as well. How many differences are there between the various authorities? Compile a list of these differences and you will have performed a vital service. We will even name the list after you. Regards, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Compile a list and name it after me? I don't think that is necessarily a good idea. I for one, don't know enough about the various terminologies to compile such a list. I'll leave it to the experts and have them name it. Warm regards, Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of (Beijing, China) B.Sc. (Hons) T.C.M. M.A.T.C.M. +44 (0) 208 367 8378 enquiries www.attiliodalberto.com <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of petetheisen 01 April 2006 12:22 Chinese Medicine Re: TCM terminology cross reference Attilio D'Alberto wrote: > Pete, > > I'm not anointing anything. It just makes good sense to use one > standard language. How do you think human's managed to progress? It's > by the use of language as a standard means of communication that > enables humans to exchange ideas and better their understanding of > the world around them. If we all speak the same lingo, then of > course, we'll all benefit from it. It's just common sense. I'm not > saying which lingo we should all use, but I am saying that we > definitely need one. Hi Attilio! You will be seen as creating an endorsement, even if it doesn't amount to an anointing, even if all you do is tabulate the votes and report the results. This is what happened with the programmers, people who had a lifetime of work and, well, ego, invested in the one point of view were up in arms and the other side was as well. How many differences are there between the various authorities? Compile a list of these differences and you will have performed a vital service. We will even name the list after you. Regards, Pete Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click, http://toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145 and adjust accordingly. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 Attilio D'Alberto wrote: > Compile a list and name it after me? I don't think that is necessarily a > good idea. I for one, don't know enough about the various terminologies to > compile such a list. I'll leave it to the experts and have them name it. Hi Attilio! You are too modest. You HOST the list, on your server, and get the expert persons to compile it. OK, name it something else, just so it gets done. Regards, Pete >>I'm not anointing anything. It just makes good sense to use one >>standard language. How do you think human's managed to progress? It's >>by the use of language as a standard means of communication that >>enables humans to exchange ideas and better their understanding of >>the world around them. If we all speak the same lingo, then of >>course, we'll all benefit from it. It's just common sense. I'm not >>saying which lingo we should all use, but I am saying that we >>definitely need one. > > > Hi Attilio! > > You will be seen as creating an endorsement, even if it doesn't amount > to an anointing, even if all you do is tabulate the votes and report the > results. This is what happened with the programmers, people who had a > lifetime of work and, well, ego, invested in the one point of view were > up in arms and the other side was as well. > > How many differences are there between the various authorities? Compile > a list of these differences and you will have performed a vital service. > We will even name the list after you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 Hi all, I, for one, find the discussions surrounding the translation issues, e.g. the Wiseman system, pro and contra, continually interesting. My own thoughts on the matter are evolving as I look at the matter from differenet perspectives. Understanding and developing the issues of intrepretation back and forth -- Chinese <--> English -- in terms of both classical texts and contemporary " integrative medicine " I think must continually evolve. I can't see that there can be a satisfactory static standard or system for translation. Granted some degree of knowledge and grounding in the source language and its cultural vagaries is prerequisite, one's own interpretation is bound to be changing with time and experience, and hence the exact wording (terminology including larger structures than just one-to-one words/characters and phrases/idioms) will also be changing with one's understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2006 Report Share Posted April 2, 2006 Chris, The Wiseman system itself is an evolving one. Look at books published using this terminology in 1985, and look at books now, over 20 years later. There have been many changes, and much input from different sources. A 'standard terminology' simply means a source that anyone can reference and apply to translation, writing of textbooks, or to simply understanding medical Chinese language. It also allows easier communication between practitioners, researchers and professors of Chinese medicine. We are handicapped by the lack of a standard terminology, as it is almost impossible to develop data bases or perform google-type searches unless we understand Chinese language from the get-go. The significance of standard terminology is simply that any author or translator must list sources, explain term choices, and avoid confusion. It does not 'force' anyone to choose a specific English term, simply explain one's own choices. There is simply no other competition for a 'standard terminology' than Wiseman terminology, because no one has developed a Chinese- English medical dictionary of this caliber and complexity. While such speakers as Jeffrey Yuen do explain their own translations of medical Chinese, it is always on their own terms, and one has to be fluent in the language to reach the level of such teachers. The Wiseman terminology allows anyone to access the Chinese source terms and ultimately source texts, so that one is not dependent solely on the explanations of individual teachers. On Apr 2, 2006, at 3:30 AM, wrote: > Hi all, > > I, for one, find the discussions surrounding the translation issues, > e.g. the Wiseman system, pro and contra, continually interesting. My > own thoughts on the matter are evolving as I look at the matter from > differenet perspectives. > > Understanding and developing the issues of intrepretation back and > forth -- Chinese <--> English -- in terms of both classical texts and > contemporary " integrative medicine " I think must continually evolve. > I can't see that there can be a satisfactory static standard or > system for translation. Granted some degree of knowledge and > grounding in the source language and its cultural vagaries is > prerequisite, one's own interpretation is bound to be changing with > time and experience, and hence the exact wording (terminology > including larger structures than just one-to-one words/characters and > phrases/idioms) will also be changing with one's understanding. > > > > > > Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Chinese > Medicine Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > > Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click, http:// > toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145 > > http:// > and adjust > accordingly. > > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside > the group requires prior permission from the author. > > Please consider the environment and only print this message if > absolutely necessary. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2006 Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 Attilio D'Alberto wrote: <snip> > Also, we don't have enough experts on this forum to produce such a list. Hi Attilio! Interesting point, how many experts would we need? How many experts are there? Could non-experts *start* the list, and just publish what we have with a front note that the list is a work in progress? I was thinking of your journal when I said server. You could publish an on-going project there, could you not? Regards, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.