Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 Well put. This is certainly a moot point with some of the more > commonly used terms, such as vacuity versus empty, since we all know > this is a translation of the chinese character, shi. You mean, xu1. But if there are > 6,000 technical terms in TCM, The complete Chinese dictionaries include some 60,000 terms. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 , " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote: since we all know > > this is a translation of the chinese character, shi. > > You mean, xu1. oops. a bit of dyslexia there. I should have said " everyone but me knows this. " Guess I was feeling a little replete when I wrote that. Or did I do that to drive my point home even further? If so, it was unconscious. > > But if there are > > 6,000 technical terms in TCM, > > The complete Chinese dictionaries include > some 60,000 terms. well, I suppose that only underscores my point even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 It is this tyranny of individual authors that really prevents the pursuit of deeper personal understanding, not standard term choices >>>>Tood, I do not follow this. Since terms by definition have different meanings in context. If a standard such as free flow for teng is used than it would not help if one is to speak of connection. Anyway in looking at Wiseman's dictionary luckily the vast majority of "terms" are easy to follow and the few that are not just cause a lot of entertainment in discussions such as this one. It has been argued that the solution is to provide pinyin and/or characters whenever a term is translated. Thereby translation terminology remains free, yet there is a way to track the source term >>>>That is by far my preference. Pin yin should not add to cost. And a good example is fluid physiology and pathology Alon - cha Sunday, January 13, 2002 1:30 PM terms choices vs. definitions It seems to me much of the heated debate over term choices stems from a confusion between terms and definitions. For me, the only reason to have a standard english term choice is to be able to track a term rendered in English to its source character in the chinese language. The reason to have terms that may be obscure, such as vacuity, is to prevent English readers from drawing connotations that may be incorrect and forcing them to consult a glossary when learning the technical vocabulary. IMO, vacuity is arguably no better than empty or deficient. But it forces me to learn the definition of the term rather than just draw conclusions based on my use of any of these terms in English. When people talk about rendering a term as whatever the contextual meaning is in a given situation, using different renderings in different situations, they are really talking about definitions, not term choices. This is certainly a moot point with some of the more commonly used terms, such as vacuity versus empty, since we all know this is a translation of the chinese character, shi. But if there are 6,000 technical terms in TCM, there are no doubt quite a few that are not so well known. If only the contextual definition is used by an author, then I am at the mercy of the author and have no basis for exploring any deeper on my own. It is this tyranny of individual authors that really prevents the pursuit of deeper personal understanding, not standard term choices. It has been argued that the solution is to provide pinyin and/or characters whenever a term is translated. Thereby translation terminology remains free, yet there is a way to track the source term. However, as has been explained by the Bobs (Flaws and Felt), this is economically prohibitive. The profit margin on TCM books is low and additional costs would put a halt to most publishing. The only cost effective way to do this is to use standard english terms. If we agree that tracking the source is important, there is no other feasible solution. A moment's reflection will reveal that it would be far easier for the average american to look up the term in Wiseman, then use either a pinyin/english or stroke-order dictionary. None of this has anything to do with definitions, though. I want to trace the source term AND hear any individual author's interpretation. In fact, COMP standards allow any author to use any term he pleases as long as once in a text, he footnotes why the choice was made, thus preserving freedom and standards all at once. As for the term tong that has been debated (for too long now?), clearly it means both to restore freeflow AND connection. There is no mutual exclusion here and it is really a matter of definition, not term choice. If we know free flow translates tong AND we have access to a dictionary that fully explains the character, we are all set. -- Chinese Herbs FAX: 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 , " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: Pin yin should not add to cost. And a good example is fluid physiology and pathology It certainly would in a book that is a direct translation, wherein every word would have to have the pinyin provided, not occasional terms at the writer's discretion. A book such as the pi wei lun would effectively double in size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2002 Report Share Posted January 13, 2002 Perhaps the original Chinese could be published on their respective websites---especially if faithfulness and connection to the original material is important? Jim Ramholz , " 1 " <@i...> wrote: > , " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > Pin yin should not add to cost. And a good example is fluid physiology and pathology > > It certainly would in a book that is a direct translation, wherein > every word would have to have the pinyin provided, not occasional terms at the writer's discretion. A book such as the pi wei lun would > effectively double in size. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2002 Report Share Posted January 14, 2002 It certainly would in a book that is a direct translation, wherein every word would have to have the pinyin provided, not occasional terms at the writer's discretion. A book such as the pi wei lun would effectively double in size >>>Most terms are repeated so that not every word need to be in pin yin. A book such as pi wei lun would cost an additional 50 cents to print. Alon - 1 Sunday, January 13, 2002 8:00 PM Re: terms choices vs. definitions , "Alon Marcus" <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:Pin yin should not add to cost. And a good example is fluid physiology and pathologyIt certainly would in a book that is a direct translation, wherein every word would have to have the pinyin provided, not occasional terms at the writer's discretion. A book such as the pi wei lun would effectively double in size.ToddChinese 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. 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.