More on translation

May 12, 2000

Good afternoon,

I have participated in several of these discussions. For me they emphasize the need to discuss how people believe their ideas have been validated. There are many useful types of literature and it is important to make the assumptions behind them known so everyone can freely and knowingly choose what they need. For example, see the principles expressed by the Council of Oriental Medical Publishers in the references section at www.paradigm-pubs.com. There is no reason why every book and every author needs to pursue the same goal. Indeed, if I didn't believe the field was richer for variety, I wouldn't do what I do.

In this discussion there has been very little distinction between interpretation and translation, authenticity and clinical validity. Neither is the same nor are the claims of one properly validated by the methods used to validate the other. Because we have established ``official'' texts and terminologies via our license exams, people tend to argue as if this were the only genre. That, of course, is not the case.

Practically, every writer is making claims and the key issue is whether those claims can be validated by some appropriate and public means. For example, Jim Ramhotz's assertions regarding shan4 and hernia depend on his clinical observations. He is claiming that his observations are accurate, germane, and can be a foundation for guiding others toward clinical success. We can accept or reject his claims fairly by testing them clinically. The fact that someone is comfortable with the words Jim uses does not validate his ideas. His treatments do not validate his words. To someone deciding whether to follow Jim's advice, liking his words is much less important than knowing how many cases he has seen.

Luke is claiming that there is a practical identity between kidney vacuity and adrenal insuffiency. We can accept or reject his claim when we know whether or not there is a reliable relation between the traditional pattern, adrenal hormone levels and the physiological events that occur when these are less than biochemical norms. Until such evidence exists, there is not much sense in arguing about the truth of Luke's claim. What is more productive is assembling the evidence needed to accomplish a useful investigation. For example, unless we can show that different clinicians can reliably identify kidney vacuity in an patient population, no collection of adrenal hormone numbers can tell us anything about Luke's speculation.

I see nothing wrong in speculation, but it cannot tell us what Chinese traditional doctors know when they see the character shan4. For that, we must turn to the Chinese themselves -- to history, philology and translation.

Translation is a claim to represent in the language translated to (the `target' or `arrival' language) what was meant in the language translated from (the `departure; or `source' language). In translation (and regardless of whether the translator's personal observations might otherwise suggest) it is the meaning of the source that must be preserved. If a source actually makes the claim and it has not been added or modified by the writer; if the source is historically representative, not idiosyncratic or personal; if any alterations or expurgations of the source are known, and the target language words can be shown to transmit the germane elements of meaning in the source; then we can say the translation tells us something about the original concept.

History tells us of human social, economic and political events in time. Philology informs us of where texts fit, whether they are mainstream or anomalous. Togther these arts allow us to know where a Chinese medical concept fits. The concepts offered as translations must fit the time and place of the source. If T.C.M. is not based on Western logic, how can common English words rooted in that logic be equivalent? How can one person represent a tradition. I know how to use a few formulas. If I write a book and call it ``Stuff Bob Knows,'' even a first-day acupuncture student will not be confused. Yet, if I call it ``How to Practice T.C.M.'' a naive reader might think that was all there was. Labels are important, whether they label books, ideas, or concepts that are 2,000 years old.

Because translation is a literary endeavor, its value is not judged by whether it conforms to the view of a particular audience (e.g.: acupuncture students) or validates the decisions of an important elite (e.g. examination writers). Instead, translations are judged by how well they transmit what the source had to say. This is conceptually more difficult to ``prove'' than, for example, whether an acupuncture protocol positively effects the outcomes for hernia patients. Yet, the key issue is the same, can the claim be validated by some appropriate and public means?

For example, people complain about `vacuity.' Wiseman and others note that there is no perfect English equivalent for xu1,

(See: www.paradigm-pubs.com/Xu1-Shi2.htm)

and that the choice is thus determined by the use of xu1 in its many contexts. For example, using `vacuity' makes the translation of pulse terms more rational (See: www.paradigm-pubs.com/Maiming2.htm). Because others can access his logic, they have been able to contribute relevant information. For example, in a similar discussion on a different list service, Ken Rose explained how well `vacuity' reflects the the use of xu1 in tai4 xu1, the void before the beginning in Chinese cosmology. Any prospective translator can examine the assembled information and decide for themself.

Rather than repeat what has already been said, here are some references you can examine. The references materials at www.paradigm-pubs.com offer some relevant papers: Edward Schafer, ``Non-Translation and Functional Translation -- Two Sinological Maladies.' Nigel Wiseman's ``The Rationale for the Funtamental's Terminology' as well as the Introductions to both the Glossary of Chinese Medical Terms, and the Practical Dictionary of Traditional , are also there available. Paul Unschuld's notes on `Editing a Commented Nan Jing Translation' are also there. Peter Deadman did not print either of my replies to his assertions about shan4. The first, lengthly piece is at www.paradigm-pubs.com/JCM.htm. The second rejected response is at: www.paradigm-pubs.com/JCM2.htm.

Thank you for your attention.

bob (AT) paradigm-pubs (DOT) com Paradigm Publications

www.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden Street

Robert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445

617-738-4664