Should TCM students/practitioners try to become fluent in Chinese?

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

 

Re: Should TCM students/practitioners try to become fluent in

Chinese

 

Bob Flaws wrote:

> … I agree that teaching Chinese language the way most schools go

> about it is a waste of time at worst and an expensive luxury at

> best. However, in my experience, there is another way to go about

> it.

 

Effective teaching is a great skill. It MUST be student-oriented, i.e.

address the MAIN priorities/needs of, and motivate/stimulate, the

STUDENTS. Anything else is a turn-off and waste of everybody's

time. I will discuss this further below.

 

Ken wrote:

> When words come to mean whatever anybody wants them to mean, they

> tend to mean less and less; and finally they mean nothing at all. But

> the words have meanings, and these meanings can all be known,

> grasped, understood, and appreciated for what there changing

> meanings have been for centuries. Ken

 

Agreed, though Alice and the Mad Hatter might disagree. We will

come back to the MEANINGS of the terms later; one MUST study

the MEANINGS intended in the Chinese terms.

 

Greg Livingston wrote:

> I agree that time in Master's programs is limited and must be used

> wisely. … I feel time spent studying Chinese is more valuable for

> clinical practice than doing Qi Gong…

 

Everything is relative. If one is NOT going to study Chinese properly

(i.e. to fluency in reading and writing), would the time spent

studying half-baked Chinese not be better spent studying (say)

logic, statistics, philosophy, or homeopathy?

 

Was it Todd who wrote:

> … we have more than enough good English language work to keep

> someone busy for 20 years … I doubt I will ever exhaust the

> resources available to me in English …

 

My point, exactly! Each of us has limited time and Qi for study.

Why not study the more accessible material and leave it to the

expert scholars to translate the difficult texts into our own

languages?

 

This is also why we all need expert teachers. IMO, there IS a case

for insisting that at least SOME teachers on formal AP/TCM

courses SHOULD be fluent in Chinese. These colleagues can help

to explain new or controversial concepts in the Chinese material to

their students AND to their faculty colleagues who are NOT fluent

in Chinese.

 

Greg again:

> I just study hard and feel it's paid off. One of the differences

> between those who read Chinese and those who don't is that we have

> more giants to stand on. :-)

 

Anyone who studies hard is learning from a teacher - the author(s)

of the texts, or the lecturer(s). In that sense, EVERY student

stands on the shoulders of giants, whatever language the teachers

know or speak.

 

Ken again:

> … if we continue to ignore the language we simply reduce our

> effectiveness in limit our own knowledge and influence.

 

It ai’nt necessarily so! We can know an enormous amount about a

people, culture, or their philosophy without ever knowing their

language. How? By learning from those scholars who have made it

a priority to know the language and immerse themselves in that

culture.

again:

> … to learn TCM in Chinese, one must be able to read it as well as

> one reads English. Otherwise, there is not enough time in 4

> years to read everything one needs to read. You just can't take

> 12 times longer to do your homework.

 

Agreed 100% The extra time spent struggling with half-baked

Chinese would be MUCH better spent studying good translations!

 

Ken again:

> … Words are tools, but like any tools they are useless...or worse

> if you don't know what they mean and how to use them.

 

Agreed. LANGUAGE is only the vehicle (means) of conveying an

IDEA/CONCEPT from one brain to another. A good teacher should

be able to convey his/her ideas to the student in terms that the

STUDENT understands.

 

> … help students become familiar with the integral MEANINGS of the

> Chinese medical terms that inform the theories and methods they are

> learning in all of their other courses.

 

I agree with Ken that AP/TCM students should be taught the key

TERMS and DEFINITIONS used in their courses. It is not too

difficult to learn Chinese word-SOUNDS of the key terms and

concepts used in TCM, and be able to write the Pinyin words side-

by-side with the English meanings. However, that is a far cry from

being able to read and write the ideograms fluently. IMO, the former

is most helpful (if not essential), whereas the latter is probably a

huge waste of time and effort for most western students of TCM.

 

Ken again:

> Do you see any relationship between the theoretical

> principles/practical applications of TCM and the modes of thought

> and expression that are embedded in the langauge?

 

C'mon Ken! Of course! But we can learn these via teachers rather

than spending our lives trying to master a language that most of us

will never use outside of the study area.

 

For >60 years, the Irish Government has made it COMPULSORY

for all students to learn the Gaelic language in our primary- and

secondary- schools. It is still compulsory today, and our students

MUST take Gaelic as a subject in their pre-university exams.

 

Thus, Irish children have “been taught” Gaelic for c. 1 hour/day for

13-14 consecutive years! In spite of that, the attempt to resurrect

Gaelic as a spoken language here has failed miserably. Though

many of us know a few Gaelic words and phrases, <15000 people

from a population of c. 4 million can speak it fluently.

 

We are proud of our culture, our music and our history and the

“English” that is spoken here has clear overtone- and syntactical-

differences from “Oxford Exglish” that trace back to direct

translation from Gaelic to English. However, we do not speak it and

most of us could not do so if our lives depended on it. Why?

 

IMO, the reason is twofold. (1) Most people, especially the Irish,

detest compulsion. (2), and more importantly, we lack the

MOTIVATION to speak it. Like it or not, English is the language of

science, art, business and politics, etc. in this neck of the woods.

 

While I see great value (and heart and emotion etc) in Gaelic, I

believe that our students would be better educated if compulsory

Gaelic were abolished and the extra time were devoted to studying

maths, science and “living languages” instead. I have no problem

with OPTIONAL Gaelic (or optional Chinese) and I would argue that

I can know my people, history and culture WITHOUT knowing

Gaelic.

 

I had written:

> IMO, CHM and AP schools would be better to teach the Pinyin terms

> alongside the English (or local-language) terms but FORGET about

> teaching the Chinese language as part of the medical course.

 

Ken asked:

> If the handling of Chinese language is limited to pinyin, what

> benefit do students get? After all, pinyin simply provides a

> pronounciation guide. It would be equivalent to spelling out

> English words with Chinese characters that produce roughly

> equivalent sounds when spoken. It would help anyone understand

> either the meanings of the words of the structure of the thought

> and logic of the theories.

 

Maybe I did not express myself well, but THAT is what I meant!

IMO, it is enough to learn the Pinyin (AND its meaning) side-by-

side with the English terms. It is the MEANING that is important,

not the LANGUAGE.

 

> When I came to China >10 years ago, it was very rare to find

> foreigners who were fluent in Chinese. Today the picture is

> completely different. In Beijing I run into non-Chinese who are

> fluent speakers, readers, writers of the language nearly every day.

> And most of these people are here holding down well paid jobs.

 

Yes, but presumably not in TCM! Of course many western

professionals learn Asian languages! But their motivation usually is

business-oriented; if one wants to do business with Martians, one

better learn the Martian language.

 

> Mastery of any subject is usually a matter of the evaluation of

> others. Study and self-growth is something that is more or less up

> to ourselves. My message to all of my colleagues and fellow

> students of the subject is that we should all be concerned with

> continual self-improvement. In nature, things are either expanding

> or contracting. While we have life and consciousness, it's never

> too late or too difficult to " master " anything we set our minds

> to.

 

Precisely! But we MUST prioritise the areas for work/study. IMO,

LIMITED time is better spent on studying CONCEPTS and

PRACTICE rather than on studying LANGUAGE.

 

> Have you ever read Richard Feynmann's What Do You Really Care What

> Other People Think?

 

No, but I like the title! What other people think is not of great

interest to me unless my gut and experience are in accord with

their thoughts! Of course I listen and learn, and often change my

views (and practices) as a consequence.

 

> Did you ask Tao about Chinese medicine per se? The most common

> response I have always gotten from Chinese people when they find

> out that I study Chinese medicine is, " How can that be? Chinese

> medicine is so difficult even for us Chinese to study? How can a

> foreigner possibly understand it? "

 

On the contrary, he was most supportive, even delighted, that I was

studying his people’s medicine.

 

> If you haven't already joined the ChineseMedicine.net list, I urge

> you to do so. Bob Felt has just posted a long reply to many of the

> recent topics that have been occupying our attention here at CHA.

> Ken

 

Thanks for the tip. I d today.

 

 

Best regards,

 

 

WORK : Teagasc Staff Development Unit, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

WWW :

Email: <

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

 

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

Email: <

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

[Guest guest]

It ai’nt necessarily so! We can know an enormous amount about a people, culture, or their philosophy without ever knowing their language. How? By learning from those scholars who have made it a priority to know the language and immerse themselves in that culture. >>>>>Even then, the question how relevant is it to practice of Chinese medicine has not been answered.

Alon

[Guest guest]

I agree with Ken that AP/TCM students should be taught the key TERMS and DEFINITIONS used in their courses. It is not too difficult to learn Chinese word-SOUNDS of the key terms and concepts used in TCM, and be able to write the Pinyin words side-by-side with the English meanings. However, that is a far cry from being able to read and write the ideograms fluently. IMO, the former is most helpful (if not essential), whereas the latter is probably a huge waste of time and effort for most western students of TCM.

>>>The question is why is it nesessary to spend brain space on these sounds except that it may allow one to go to China to study.In that case it is very helpful, but you can also hire a full time translator for very cheap

Alon

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> It ai'nt necessarily so! We can know an enormous amount about a

> people, culture, or their philosophy without ever knowing their

> language. How? By learning from those scholars who have made it

> a priority to know the language and immerse themselves in that

> culture.

> >>>>>Even then, the question how relevant is it to practice of Chinese

medicine has not been answered.

> Alon

 

ALon, How relevant to the practice of CM is ONE testing, western nutrition,

clinical counseling, History of China, Taiji, Neuroanatomy? For actually

treating patients I can get much more information with my chinese than all the

classes above put together. (but that is just me)- If I follow alon's argument

out , Chinese medicine language is a waste of time, we should not study it... It

is NOT RELEVANT, Then I ask , where will the information come from for ALon to

read? Without Bob, where is Alon?

 

-

[Guest guest]

Hello List,

 

If a high level of proficiency in Chinese was required for entry-level practitioners I think enrollment would plummet. I can't see the vast majority of the people I went to school with mustering the energy for a task like that. I have studied outside school for a couple years off and on, got exempted from the 30 hour class, and have really gotten into it since I graduated, but I don't see real fluency on the horizon, and I don't know that I really need it as a practitioner.

 

When I was in school at St John's in New Mexico there was required reading in Greek and French. One could work with translations to get through the stuff, but reading the material in the original language, even with crutches, offers an insight that one doesn't get from translations alone. These texts were used to teach geometry calculus and chemistry. I don't feel like I can translate the Su Wen, but I can read translations critically, compare them to the source text, and see what redactions have been made. I don't suppose it makes me a scholar, but it makes me a careful consumer of information. Without the availability of texts in translation with parallel source text one is subject to the choices of an interpreter who may have all sorts of agendas. A limited ability in the source language frees you from some of those restrictions. If we had something like the Leob’s classic library [parallel text classic Greek and Latin literature] available for Chinese material I'd be in hog heaven.

 

A big part of what loused up my educational experience was the loose use of terminology. I have difficulty the readability of Wiseman terminology, but if it keeps people from making the bizarre gaffs that I see in the herb class I TA for, I'll suck up and deal with it. I was thinking about rewriting a basic textbook and sticking in characters for certain words, cumulatively through the text, glossing them for the first two or three times they get used and having some nice indices in the back. It would be fairly painless, and I suspect you could get people recognizing 500-1000 characters in a year or two (though I admit, a third year student did recently ask me what the character "qi" meant, and it's part of the school logo, so maybe I'm wrong). It wouldn't be fluency, but it would allow them to bang there way through simple texts, herb references and case studies with the help of a couple of good dictionaries. It would also lock these terms down, they would hear vacuity or deficiency and they would think xu, and might have a better sense of the term.

 

I admit to being a pedantic weenie and an aesthete, but if we don't have this core vocabulary in common we're going to spend more time on definitions then we do on sharing information and we're going to have difficulty advancing beyond some logical positivist point and grunt system. If it's going to be English, fair enough, but I don't see why we can't expand the grace that has been extended to yin yang and qi, which we understand in pinyin, and generally ascribe a consistent meaning to. If translating terminology into English ends up with phrases like mouthfulls like "pnuema vacuity" why not just use the damned pinyin and/or make people choke down a couple of hundred Chinese characters in the course of there basic TCM education. That which does not kill us makes us stronger.

 

End of rant,

 

Par Scott

[Guest guest]

, " Par Scott " <parufus@e...>

wrote:

> > A big part of what loused up my educational experience was the

loose use of terminology. I have difficulty the readability of

Wiseman terminology, but if it keeps people from making the bizarre

gaffs that I see in the herb class I TA for, I'll suck up and deal

with it

>

> If translating terminology into English ends up with phrases like

mouthfulls like " pnuema vacuity " why not just use the damned pinyin

and/or make people choke down a couple of hundred Chinese characters

in the course of there basic TCM education. That which does not kill

us makes us stronger.

>

>

>

 

Through this whole debate I'm wondering why nobody but Bob Felt has

mentioned mandating the Wiseman gloss and being done with it. You

can say all you want about why shouldn't we just go with the Pinyin

but the fact is that most people can't deal with the four tones

(instructors -- how many times have you gotten the question whether

wei4/atony has anything to do with wei4 qi?). No matter how many

people bitch about the anachronistic terminology I submit that it is

much easier to remember wilting vs defense for most students than the

differences in tones between wei3 and wei4. Not to mention wei3

defense versus wei3 stomach. or wei3 flavor, for that matter.

 

As for the characters, I can recognize them more easily than the

pinyin, but others who are at least as learned as I, such as

apparently cannot. But we can all look it up in the Practical

Dictionary. Or the latest edition of the Wiseman /Ellis Fundamentals

(which is as complete an introductory text for TCM as can be found in

English, with the glossary and appendices). I think there is no way

that masters programs will include Chinese language, desirable though

it may be, and that the best we can do is to at least put in a class

in terminology equivalents so that we can coordinate the range of

standard textbooks (CAM, Fundamentals, Maciocia, Bensky, Kaptchuk,

etc, etc) and tie them to a term set (of which Wiseman is the most

comprehensive -- none of the critics has come up with anything nearly

as exhaustive) to settle the confusion that I see every day in the

classroom and school clinic.

 

Lastly, can we put to rest the prevailing " wisdom " the " the boards

are based on CAM " so we should teach to the test? Teaching out of

CAM was fine for 1993 maybe, but in 2003 there are quite a lot of

better alternatives.

 

BTW, Par, many thanks for those links --- real gold mine there....

 

Robert Hayden

http://jabinet.net

[Guest guest]

, " kampo36 <kampo36> "

<kampo36> wrote:

 

> >

> >

> (instructors -- how many times have you gotten the question whether

> wei4/atony has anything to do with wei4 qi?). No matter how many

> people bitch about the anachronistic terminology I submit that it

is

> much easier to remember wilting vs defense for most students than

the

> differences in tones between wei3 and wei4. Not to mention wei3

> defense versus wei3 stomach. or wei3 flavor, for that matter.

>

 

sorry, that should be wei3 atony, wei4 defense, wei4 stomach, wei4

flavor... i can recognize the characters but i still can't get the

tones straight -- and i'm at this stuff every day....

 

rh

[Guest guest]

Robert,

>

> Through this whole debate I'm wondering why nobody but Bob Felt

has

> mentioned mandating the Wiseman gloss and being done with it.

 

I'm not sure what mandating means here,

but in so far as working to see the practical

dictionary and related materials become

established as the translation standards

for the subject, I am continuing my

support of such initiatives.

 

My wife and I successfully arranged

for the Practical Dictionary to be

published by the largest publishing

house in the PRC, People's Medical

Publishing House. The book was just

released here this month and is now

being distributed to those members

of the TCM community here who are

interested and involved in the westward

transmission of Chinese medicine.

 

And like in the West, the book is

rapidly gaining recognition and

acceptance for exactly what it is:

the most advanced bilingual gloss

to appear to date.

 

Not only that, but due to Nigel and

Bob's diligence, it is the only 100%

open source work on the subject.

 

Anyone can go to the Paradigm website

and download the documents that detail

the principles and methodology employed

in the compilation of the Practical

Dictionary. And I can tell you that

an enormous amount of time, money,

and sweat has been invested in development

of additional tools to make the Practical

Dictionary and related materials

such as the new Chinese Medical Chinese

series even more applicable.

 

So it's not accurate to say that no one

but Bob Felt is working on this front.

 

The team is growing, but we need more

hands. And I'm working on a plan right

now to help develop such resources.

 

I'll make the details public as soon

as it's appropriate.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, " dragon90405

<yulong@m...> " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> Robert,

> >

> > Through this whole debate I'm wondering why nobody but Bob Felt

> has

> > mentioned mandating the Wiseman gloss and being done with it.

>

> I'm not sure what mandating means here,

> but in so far as working to see the practical

> dictionary and related materials become

> established as the translation standards

> for the subject, I am continuing my

> support of such initiatives.

>

 

No question of that.

 

>

> So it's not accurate to say that no one

> but Bob Felt is working on this front.

>

 

What I meant to say is that nobody but Bob has (at least recently)

proposed the acceptance of the Wiseman standard as a middle ground

between the " we need Chinese language " camp (of which you are the

most vocal proponent on the list) and the " not enough time/space to

put it into the program " camp (various voices, notably Todd and

Alon). What I mean by mandating is a general acceptance that 1)

standard terminology is important, and 2) Wiseman is the only one who

has been consistntly working on the issue for the last decade, and

that that acceptance results in adopting the standard terminology in

US OM schools, for example. Seems pretty easy to require one class in

terminology equivalents no matter what the textbook each school uses

so at least students can be introduced to the idea that the

terminology taught is ridiculously fragmented... I recently spent at

least half an hour explaining to third year students why their

Chinese instructor wouldn't accept " false heat " as a common feature

of Yin vacuity. To them False Heat was equivalent to Vacuity Heat

and to the instructor False Heat was a presentation of certain

Vacuity Cold patterns... I'm sure we could all cite numerous examples

of this type of confusion...

 

rh

[Guest guest]

Robert,

Don't feel too bad about this. In one group, I once had to spend

three hours explaining the difference between wei4 qi4 on one hand and

the wei4 fen4 and qi4 fen4 on the other (as in wei qi ying xue bian

zheng/defense qi construction blood pattern differentiation). The

students couldn't comprehend the difference between defense qi and

defense aspect and qi aspect as being different concepts with the same

words/characters in different contexts.

 

However, the effort was worth it, and the confusion on the students'

part sincere. Just more confirmation for what Ken says about the

importance of teaching the essential terminology in a coherent manner.

Without this, I am sure such theories as wen bing xue/warm disease

theory just go right through the ears like water off a duck's back.

 

Anyone have similar or different experiences as teachers?

 

 

On Saturday, January 25, 2003, at 07:52 PM, kampo36 <kampo36

wrote:

 

>> (instructors -- how many times have you gotten the question whether

>> wei4/atony has anything to do with wei4 qi?). No matter how many

>> people bitch about the anachronistic terminology I submit that it

> is

>> much easier to remember wilting vs defense for most students than

> the

>> differences in tones between wei3 and wei4. Not to mention wei3

>> defense versus wei3 stomach. or wei3 flavor, for that matter.

>>

>

> sorry, that should be wei3 atony, wei4 defense, wei4 stomach, wei4

> flavor... i can recognize the characters but i still can't get the

> tones straight -- and i'm at this stuff every day....

[Guest guest]

At 3:44 AM +0000 1/26/03, kampo36 <kampo36 wrote:

>Through this whole debate I'm wondering why nobody but Bob Felt has

>mentioned mandating the Wiseman gloss and being done with it.

--

 

Who would do the mandating, and in what context?

 

I wonder how Eastland Press would feel about this?

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

, Rory Kerr <rorykerr@w...>

wrote:

> At 3:44 AM +0000 1/26/03, kampo36 <kampo36> wrote:

> >Through this whole debate I'm wondering why nobody but Bob Felt has

> >mentioned mandating the Wiseman gloss and being done with it.

> --

>

> Who would do the mandating, and in what context?

>

> I wonder how Eastland Press would feel about this?

>

> Rory

> --

 

Eastland Press or whoever else can continue to use whatever term set

they want. It is up to the schools to inform the students of the

term equivalencies in order to eliminate the confusion over standard

terminology. I realize Bob has an economic stake in this suggestion,

though I have no doubt Eastland will continue to keep its market

share with the CHM books, if that's what you mean.

 

As I said before, schools can and should be able to teach out of any

book that they want -- but the problem that is being put forward here

is that we have no common language to describe Chinese medicine other

Chinese. And I hear everybody rehashing the same arguments over

again about roi and meaning and we're getting nowhere. There are

certain requirements accredited schools need to meet in order to be

accredited, no? Why not make one class in terminology equivalents

required to at least partially satisfy the " we don't know what we're

saying to each other " argument without adding the burden on students

(and schools) of making them study Chinese in order to graduate.

This would require -- what -- dropping one class in the curriculum

and getting students to drop 30 bucks on Wisemans Intro to Chinese

Medical Terminology? I may be wrong, but I think this suggestion

would not cause Eastland to fold, Bob Felt to monopolize CM

publishing, or the schools to go broke.

 

Robert Hayden

[Guest guest]

ALon, How relevant to the practice of CM is ONE testing, western nutrition, clinical counseling, History of China, Taiji, Neuroanatomy? For actually treating patients I can get much more information with my chinese than all the classes above put together.

>>You get more from the culture how? As far as the rest that depends on how you define CM. Many of us (including in china) have been able to integrate the thinking so that it improves our usage of herbs and acupuncture

Alon

[Guest guest]

The students couldn't comprehend the difference between defense qi and defense aspect and qi aspect as being different concepts with the same words/characters in different contexts.>>>No that is sad

Alon

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

>

> ALon, How relevant to the practice of CM is ONE testing, western nutrition,

clinical counseling, History of China, Taiji, Neuroanatomy? For actually

treating patients I can get much more information with my chinese than all the

classes above put together.

> >>You get more from the culture how?

 

 

I never meant culture... I meant more with the CHinese (language)...

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " kampo36 <kampo36> "

<kampo36> wrote:

 

>

> Eastland Press or whoever else can continue to use whatever term set

> they want. It is up to the schools to inform the students of the

> term equivalencies in order to eliminate the confusion over standard

> terminology.

 

 

It isn't really an accurate comparison. Eastland has never published a

comprehenisve gloss of its term choices. Wiseman has to be the standard

because there are no other options that have any semblance of

completeness.

 

[Guest guest]

, "

<@i...> " <@i...> wrote:

> It isn't really an accurate comparison. Eastland has never

published a comprehenisve gloss of its term choices. Wiseman has to

be the standard because there are no other options that have any

semblance of completeness.

 

 

:

 

Won't mandating Wiseman as a language standard raise immense

eithical and financial issues?

 

If Wiseman is mandated as a standard, that gives one publisher a

monopoly and makes the inventories of the other publishers virtually

worthless since school sales are one of the largest markets. Having

to retool will create an undo financial burden for other publishers.

 

Plus, there will be no texts immediately available for classes.

Macioca, Deadman, and Bensky will need to rewrite their texts along

the lines of the new standard.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " <@i...> "

<@i...> wrote:

>

>

> It isn't really an accurate comparison. Eastland has never

published a

> comprehenisve gloss of its term choices. Wiseman has to be the

standard

> because there are no other options that have any semblance of

> completeness.

>

 

 

Yes, again, it is easy for people to sit back and give the Bronx

cheer to some of the term choices but it has been over a decade and

nobody's come up with anything nearly as comprehensive. I think

Fundamentals is the best option for a first year (even through the

third year) textbook, but if schools want to use Maciocia because it

has pictures and diagrams or CAM because of this " boards are based on

CAM " business, fine. But IMO we need to have a point of reference

and begin to connect up the various term choices because what we have

now is a scattershot approach that just confuses students.

 

Certainly no one is expecting Bensky et al to conform to the Wiseman

term set, but since he and Maciocia and some others have written what

have become widely-used textbooks we should take a look at trying to

coordinate the terms used in each and reference them to a larger

master term set -- and Wiseman's is the only one that fits the bill

for this purpose.

 

Robert Hayden

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz

<jramholz> " <jramholz> wrote:

 

>

> If Wiseman is mandated as a standard, that gives one publisher a

> monopoly and makes the inventories of the other publishers

virtually

> worthless since school sales are one of the largest markets. Having

> to retool will create an undo financial burden for other publishers.

>

> Plus, there will be no texts immediately available for classes.

> Macioca, Deadman, and Bensky will need to rewrite their texts along

> the lines of the new standard.

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

 

IMO that wouldn't be necessary as long as the schools include a cross-

reference between terms in whatever textbooks they use and the

Practical Dictionary. This could be done faily quickly and stored as

a database that some non-interested party maintains, if necessary. I

think some of the arguments put forward in favor of flexibility and

diversity in term choices are worth considering, and people should be

able to use whichever word they like, as long as everyone knows the

reference standard. You can call an animal a canine, cur, mutt, or

whatever you like, as long as everyone else in the conversation knows

you're talking about a dog.

 

robert

[Guest guest]

I don't see any official standard coming, or one that is mandated by

any body in any way.

 

It is more a standard by default; the lack of dictionaries and

glossaries from any other source. The Wiseman dictionary is so well

done that it will take a massive effort to match or top it, and I doubt

that there would be any great divergence from term definitions. There

may be, of course, some divergence with a minority of term choices.

 

Over time, more specialized glossaries and dictionaries will be

released. Paul Unschuld plans one just for his Huang Di Nei Jing Su

Wen text.

 

I should point out that the Giovanni texts and Eastland texts were and

are standards as a result of licensing boards and national commissions

universally recommending them as such for exams. Wiseman-related texts

are still largely excluded from required texts to study for state and

national exams. So, in that sense, they are a more influential

standard at this point

 

At the present time, my experience as a teacher is that the Eastland

Press books are easy to use with the Wiseman dictionary and related

texts. There are few conflicts and little confusion. That is because

the Eastland texts are largely well translated.

 

 

On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 01:43 PM, James Ramholz

<jramholz wrote:

 

> , "

> <@i...> " <@i...> wrote:

>> It isn't really an accurate comparison. Eastland has never

> published a comprehenisve gloss of its term choices. Wiseman has to

> be the standard because there are no other options that have any

> semblance of completeness.

>

>

>

:

>

> Won't mandating Wiseman as a language standard raise immense

> eithical and financial issues?

>

> If Wiseman is mandated as a standard, that gives one publisher a

> monopoly and makes the inventories of the other publishers virtually

> worthless since school sales are one of the largest markets. Having

> to retool will create an undo financial burden for other publishers.

>

> Plus, there will be no texts immediately available for classes.

> Macioca, Deadman, and Bensky will need to rewrite their texts along

> the lines of the new standard.

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

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.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Xu Li's new " Chinese Materia Medica " , from Danica Publications and with

introduction by Giovanni Maccioca, does just that. It blends the

Wiseman terminology with terms from authors such as Bensky and

Giovanni. Other authors such as Henry Lu and Zhu Ming have also

partially adapted Wiseman terminology in their new Nei Jing

translations.

 

 

On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 01:50 PM, kampo36 <kampo36

wrote:

 

> Certainly no one is expecting Bensky et al to conform to the Wiseman

> term set, but since he and Maciocia and some others have written what

> have become widely-used textbooks we should take a look at trying to

> coordinate the terms used in each and reference them to a larger

> master term set -- and Wiseman's is the only one that fits the bill

> for this purpose.

[Guest guest]

, " kampo36 <kampo36> "

<kampo36> wrote:

 

> > Plus, there will be no texts immediately available for classes.

> > Macioca, Deadman, and Bensky will need to rewrite their texts along

> > the lines of the new standard.

> >

> >

> > Jim Ramholz

>

> IMO that wouldn't be necessary as long as the schools include a cross-

> reference between terms in whatever textbooks they use and the

> Practical Dictionary.

 

The COMP standard is that one must begin with a standard glossary of a

broad range of technical terms typically contained in the most comprehensive

chinese medical dictionaries. Those translation terms must be transparently

cross referenced with their source characters. Any author is free to use ANY

translation term he wants. The COMP guidelines state this explicitly. All that

must be done to meet the COMP standard is to explain that a nonstandard

term was chosen for whatever reason. this protects the ability of the reader to

trace any translated term back to its source. Alternately, other publishers who

do not use wiseman at all could publish a glossary of their terms which could

easily be linked via pinyin and or characters to wiseman terms. No one has to

change anything. In addition, this should be the gold standard for direct

translations from the chinese. On the other hand, I have no qualms about

original english language commentary being written in less strict terms. But

if

it was written in chinese originally, I want the option to know what the

character was if I am unclear about what an unfamiliar translation term

means.

 

[Guest guest]

, " kampo36 <kampo36> "

<kampo36> wrote:

This could be done faily quickly and stored as a database that some

non-interested party maintains, if necessary. >>>

 

 

Robert:

 

It sounds like a workable solution. How soon can you have the

database done and ready?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz

<jramholz> " <jramholz> wrote:

 

>

> Robert:

>

> It sounds like a workable solution. How soon can you have the

> database done and ready?

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

 

Hard to say exactly, but working alone I'm sure I could get it done

by the time my son goes off to college, say, eighteen years from

now ....

 

You're basically talking to a guy who has rudimentary computing

skills and zero database experience...

 

rh

[Guest guest]

wrote:

 

> Robert,

> Don't feel too bad about this. In one group, I once had to spend

> three hours explaining the difference between wei4 qi4 on one hand and

> the wei4 fen4 and qi4 fen4 on the other (as in wei qi ying xue bian

> zheng/defense qi construction blood pattern differentiation). The

> students couldn't comprehend the difference between defense qi and

> defense aspect and qi aspect as being different concepts with the same

> words/characters in different contexts.

>

> Anyone have similar or different experiences as teachers?

 

Yes, quite often, but I suppose that's part of teaching introductory

courses. You're going to have to clarify the difference between the San

Jiao as a vehicle to distribute Yuan Source Qi, a location for

pathology, organ system partnerships, and whatever other way we use the

" term " Jiao.

 

I make it a point to differentiate two kinds of dampness. I call them

" edema " and " fog " . That's not something that any books I know of really

differentiate, but it helps the students understand the difference

between herbs that drain damp (for edema) and those that dry damp (for fog).

 

If Bob Flaws' long term relationship with TCM is a constant

demystification, mine is a constant clarification of ambiguously taught

concepts.

 

--

Al Stone L.Ac.

<AlStone

http://www.BeyondWellBeing.com

 

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.