terms choices vs. definitions

[Guest guest]

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.

-- ,

 

 

FAX: