Guest guest Posted August 2, 2002 Report Share Posted August 2, 2002 , BKirschb@a... wrote: > In einer eMail vom 31.07.02 02:19:33 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt > yulong@m...: > >Hi ken, Ihope my answers will be of help to you: > Did you learn to read the classical > language? > the modern language Ken There seems to be a tacit implication in your query to Barbara. Please correct me if I am wrong. You seem to be driving at the fact that Barbara's studies focused on modern chinese and modern texts. The tacit implication is that if the focus had been on classical chinese and ancient texts, her experience would have been different. Be that as it may (and I believe it may), this begs a question in my mind: Are you suggesting that the study of modern medical chinese is not sufficient, that in order to really grok CM it is necessary to take the full plunge, so to speak. The reason I ask is because it is my understanding that most Chinese docs do not read the classical language and most that I have met also do not make regular study of the classics as part of their practice. I think its unlikely that majority of TCM practitioners will ever read modern chinese, much less classical. For those who only dip their toes in the pool, can they only expect to get information and not nuance. I think it is important for people to have realistic goals. If one goes into the study of chinese language for this more ephemeral quality, then one needs to choose the right approach. Certainly the study of the classical language and classical texts is far more difficult than the modern in several ways (grammar, context, definitional changes over time). Now if the study of the modern texts and modern language only yields information, then standardized translations will do for that segment of the population. I guess this gets back to the volume of work that is untranslated. An idea Jim Ramholz has mentioned several times resurfaced in my mind. While even translating into a standardized english terminology is laborious work that requires the high skills and concentration of indiviudal human beings, it would seem to me that translation into pinyin could be done automatically (Bob Felt, am I right?). With the cheap printing facilities in the PRC, a 1000 books could be available in no time and a cross section of journals could easily be so " translated " as well. I originally argued against this idea, not because it was without merit, but because I was making the case at the time that learning a terminology like Wiseman's, as difficult as it may be was still easier than reading pinyin. But that is really besides the point. No editing would be necessary for such a pinyin translation and all that would be necessary for readers would be several pinyin-english dictionaries (standard, western med and TCM). there are already standard pinyin dictionaries and the PD can be used to access terms by pinyin. It also occurred to me that I am already familiar with hundreds of pinyin medical terms, even if I can't read most of the characters (herb names, many points, organs, diseases, syndromes, body parts and substances, pathogens, classical texts, famous physicians, etc.). Texts created along these lines would ideally be published with characters and pinyin side by side. This would provide easy access for english readers plus an opportunity to learn chinese along the way. The pinyin would convey at least as much meaning as wiseman terminology. But the main benefit is the sheer volume of material that could be made available overnight. I know it is still not " easy " to read pinyin. One must stillbe familiar enough with the structure of chinese to know how to identify when characters are being used singly or in combination terms, but this also the burden of the chinese character reader. I can't remember. What were the cogent objections to this idea. Are these people out there who are unlikely to master reading chinese, but who would access books of this nature? Is there something I am overlooking here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2002 Report Share Posted August 3, 2002 Ken I think you have in mind that not all classical texts were writtent on ancient language. Medical texts of 16-19 centuries were written on wenyan which is rather different from ancient (at least different from the language of Huang Di Nei Jing, for example). As for translations in China, they translate classical text into baihua, not into pinyin ( " pinyin " is just a name of latin trascribtion of Chinese characters). there is a whole series " Baihua Zhongyi Guji congshu " edited by Song Quanhe who is one of the translators. they started the work as early as in 1980. Yuri --- 1 < wrote: > , BKirschb@a... wrote: > > In einer eMail vom 31.07.02 02:19:33 (MEZ) - > Mitteleurop. > Sommerzeit schreibt > > yulong@m...: > > > >Hi ken, Ihope my answers will be of help to you: > > > Did you learn to read the classical > > language? > > the modern language > > Ken > > There seems to be a tacit implication in your query > to Barbara. > Please correct me if I am wrong. You seem to be > driving at the > fact that Barbara's studies focused on modern > chinese and > modern texts. The tacit implication is that if the > focus had been > on classical chinese and ancient texts, her > experience would > have been different. Be that as it may (and I > believe it may), this > begs a question in my mind: Are you suggesting that > the study > of modern medical chinese is not sufficient, that in > order to really > grok CM it is necessary to take the full plunge, so > to speak. The > reason I ask is because it is my understanding that > most > Chinese docs do not read the classical language and > most that > I have met also do not make regular study of the > classics as part > of their practice. > > I think its unlikely that majority of TCM > practitioners will ever read > modern chinese, much less classical. For those who > only dip > their toes in the pool, can they only expect to get > information and > not nuance. I think it is important for people to > have realistic > goals. If one goes into the study of chinese > language for this > more ephemeral quality, then one needs to choose the > right > approach. Certainly the study of the classical > language and > classical texts is far more difficult than the > modern in several > ways (grammar, context, definitional changes over > time). Now if > the study of the modern texts and modern language > only yields > information, then standardized translations will do > for that > segment of the population. > > I guess this gets back to the volume of work that is > untranslated. > An idea Jim Ramholz has mentioned several times > resurfaced > in my mind. While even translating into a > standardized english > terminology is laborious work that requires the high > skills and > concentration of indiviudal human beings, it would > seem to me > that translation into pinyin could be done > automatically (Bob > Felt, am I right?). With the cheap printing > facilities in the PRC, a > 1000 books could be available in no time and a cross > section of > journals could easily be so " translated " as well. > > I originally argued against this idea, not because > it was without > merit, but because I was making the case at the time > that > learning a terminology like Wiseman's, as difficult > as it may be > was still easier than reading pinyin. But that is > really besides > the point. No editing would be necessary for such a > pinyin > translation and all that would be necessary for > readers would be > several pinyin-english dictionaries (standard, > western med and > TCM). there are already standard pinyin > dictionaries and the PD > can be used to access terms by pinyin. It also > occurred to me > that I am already familiar with hundreds of pinyin > medical terms, > even if I can't read most of the characters (herb > names, many > points, organs, diseases, syndromes, body parts and > substances, pathogens, classical texts, famous > physicians, > etc.). > > Texts created along these lines would ideally be > published with > characters and pinyin side by side. This would > provide easy > access for english readers plus an opportunity to > learn chinese > along the way. The pinyin would convey at least as > much > meaning as wiseman terminology. But the main > benefit is the > sheer volume of material that could be made > available overnight. > I know it is still not " easy " to read pinyin. One > must stillbe > familiar enough with the structure of chinese to > know how to > identify when characters are being used singly or in > combination > terms, but this also the burden of the chinese > character reader. > > I can't remember. What were the cogent objections > to this idea. > Are these people out there who are unlikely to > master reading > chinese, but who would access books of this nature? > Is there > something I am overlooking here? > > > Health - Feel better, live better http://health. 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.