Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Robert > Through this whole debate I'm wondering why nobody but Bob Felt has > mentioned mandating the Wiseman gloss and being done with it. What I actually propose, most recently stated: For example, a significant part of language learning could be accomplish by accepting the traditional western conclusion that glossing concepts in professional literature avoids confusion. That is, English teaching materials and examinations could identify where every Chinese-based concept came from by reference to the original Chinese term. This would accomplish an early but important step toward learning Chinese (identifying and labelling the concepts) while at least partially resolving the confusion that arrises when students cannot tell whether one writer's usage is the same as another's. This is not impossible, or even unusual, or even terribly expensive. It is a practical resolution that asks the proponents of Chinese language learning to accept that the next step may come later or in a venue outside the schools. It asks those who oppose language learning only to accept that the learning is inherently Chinese. It certainly would not impair clinical expertise. This, in my opinion, offers several advantages. Importantly, it mandates nothing. The field needs to claim stewardship for a body of knowledge that is sourced in Chinese, not declare one or another writer as the one and only icon of truth. Mandating textsbooks takes small presses out of the text book business and arrests develoment in many ways. > 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. Take a look at http://www.paradigm-pubs.com/paradigm/refs/wiseman/Reply.htm for more about the problems with pinyin. Bob bob Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden Street Robert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445 617-738-4664 --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 , " Robert L. Felt " <bob@p...> wrote: > This, in my opinion, offers several advantages. Importantly, it mandates > nothing. The field needs to claim stewardship for a body of knowledge that > is sourced in Chinese, not declare one or another writer as the one and only > icon of truth. Mandating textsbooks takes small presses out of the text > book business and arrests develoment in many ways. Mandating was a poor word choice, then. What I actually said in subsequent posts is that the textbooks should be chosen by the schools, but there should be reference to a standard gloss. Since the only comprehensive gloss we have is Wiseman/Feng/et al, that is the winner by default. Not that Nigel is the icon of truth, but that he was the one who did the " heavy lifting " as Ken puts it. So while you're not explicitly holding up Wiseman as the keeper of the gloss, nobody else has delivered the goods. Maybe Wiseman shouldn't be referred to by name, we'll say the COMP gloss or whatever. Again, just to clarify, my feeling is that (as Maciocia points out in his reply to Wiseman), plurality and diversity of opinions and translated terms is a good thing, helps us understand the range and depth of concepts in CM. I _want_ to know what terms Bensky and Maciocia et al choose and why. But we need to know what the equivalent character is to avoid confusion and the perception that there are more (or less) terms there than really exist. The only ways I can see in which to do this are 1) everybody learns Chinese or 2) everybody accepts a standard reference point in English (or whatever the local target language happens to be). Since it happens that a large percentage of students and practitioners are loath to learn Chinese, for whatever reasons, I suggested using some process of instructing students in terminology equivalents between authors to clear up confusion that I see on a regular basis with students. This process might actually increase student awareness of other texts and make them more likely to invest in multiple texts as they discover different facets to the term choices in their particular textbook, and increase comprehension and clinical utility of the concepts, rather than decreasing their learning options, as everyone who's replied seems to feel . At the school where I teach now, students learn out of CAM for all their basic theory. I show up with my dogeared copy of Fundamentals, and students get very excited to read it -- they had no idea it even existed. If you expose students to a range of terminology choices, from the standard gloss to a variety of other opinions, those " other voices " , no matter to whom they belong, will be heard. Robert Hayden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 , " kampo36 wrote: Not that Nigel is the icon of truth, but that he was the one who did the " heavy lifting " as Ken puts it. So while you're not explicitly holding up Wiseman as the keeper of the gloss, nobody else has delivered the goods. >>> Robert: Like many others, you have hit the nail on the head. If other publishers included glossaries of the characters of essential terms, it would not be an issue. Various translations could easily be compared and the lack of standardization in the Chinese language itself would no longer be a problem. It should be mandated that publishers print the original Chinese of their translations---either along with the text or on the web. Even if using the Wiseman dictionary, if you cannot read the Chinese characters in context, the translation is not guarenteed to be precise---reconsider the previous arguments by Maciocia and Deadman. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 , " James Ramholz <jramholz> " <jramholz> wrote: > > It should be mandated that publishers print the original Chinese of > their translations---either along with the text or on the web. Even > if using the Wiseman dictionary, if you cannot read the Chinese > characters in context, the translation is not guarenteed to be > precise---reconsider the previous arguments by Maciocia and Deadman. > > > Jim Ramholz Wouldn't this harm small publishers, though? Isn't it more expensive to typeset in Chinese or other character languages? The reasoning behind a gloss would be that if reference was made to the standard gloss term choice in the footnotes (no matter what the term choice used in the text proper), then one only needs to look it up in the gloss to find the character. rh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Jim, What do you mean by mandated? Do you mean legally required? If so, you've been hitting the houkah a bit too hard. Bob , " James Ramholz <jramholz> " <jramholz> wrote: > , " kampo36 wrote: > Not that Nigel is the icon of truth, but that he was the one who did > the " heavy lifting " as Ken puts it. So while you're not explicitly > holding up Wiseman as the keeper of the gloss, nobody else has > delivered the goods. >>> > > > Robert: > > Like many others, you have hit the nail on the head. If other > publishers included glossaries of the characters of essential terms, > it would not be an issue. Various translations could easily be > compared and the lack of standardization in the Chinese language > itself would no longer be a problem. > > It should be mandated that publishers print the original Chinese of > their translations---either along with the text or on the web. Even > if using the Wiseman dictionary, if you cannot read the Chinese > characters in context, the translation is not guarenteed to be > precise---reconsider the previous arguments by Maciocia and Deadman. > > > Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 , " kampo36 <kampo36> " <kampo36> wrote: > Wouldn't this harm small publishers, though? Isn't it more expensive > to typeset in Chinese or other character languages? The reasoning > behind a gloss would be that if reference was made to the standard > gloss term choice in the footnotes (no matter what the term choice > used in the text proper), then one only needs to look it up in the > gloss to find the character. Robert: Chinese books can easily be scanned and publsihed in Adobe PDF or another format. The costs are managable for small presses. And it provide greater access to the Chinese literature. Consider The Manual of Acupuncture published in PDF format on a CD-rom by Eastland Press. For some of my older, fading or degrading Chinese books I scan them into Scansoft's Passport program. Passport can also do OCR for English. The Scansoft program puts it into a format that is like an photocopy of the book with electronic pages you can turn. Or the file can be saved in an executable file format to run independently of the main program. I've uploaded a sample of my out of print Shaolin & Taoist Formulas book in the executable format. It will run on a PC. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 > , " kampo36 <kampo36> " <kampo36> wrote: Isn't it more expensive to typeset in Chinese or other character languages? The reasoning behind a gloss would be that if reference was made to the standard gloss term choice in the footnotes (no matter what the term choice used in the text proper), then one only needs to look it up in the gloss to find the character. That would be useful for basic textbooks. I was thinking differently for translations. Instead of starting with the English alone, if publishers included the original Chinese with their translation (either accompaning the translation or on the web), it would greatly facilitate access to the literature. The conversations on the forums could shift from arguing about the sociological value of Wiseman's terms to the actual Chinese---its meaning, context, and clinical nuances. Wiseman may simplify translation but his terms do not always guarentee precise meaning. And in a particular context, meaning may shift. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 Jim, Scanning pages from Chinese books and then republishing them is ILLEGAL. It is a breech of international copyright laws. Don't think the Chinese are not extremely aware of what we're doing here in the U.S. We hear from Chinese who have seen our publications all the time. I know of one American translator of a qigong book who returned to China and had his exit visa taken away so that he was forced to remain in the country until he could be brought to trial for copyright infringement. He had to be smuggled out via Hong Kong with phoney papers. Bob , " James Ramholz <jramholz> " <jramholz> wrote: > , " kampo36 <kampo36> " > <kampo36> wrote: > > Wouldn't this harm small publishers, though? Isn't it more > expensive > > to typeset in Chinese or other character languages? The reasoning > > behind a gloss would be that if reference was made to the standard > > gloss term choice in the footnotes (no matter what the term choice > > used in the text proper), then one only needs to look it up in the > > gloss to find the character. > > > Robert: > > Chinese books can easily be scanned and publsihed in Adobe PDF or > another format. The costs are managable for small presses. And it > provide greater access to the Chinese literature. Consider The > Manual of Acupuncture published in PDF format on a CD-rom by > Eastland Press. > > For some of my older, fading or degrading Chinese books I scan them > into Scansoft's Passport program. Passport can also do OCR for > English. The Scansoft program puts it into a format that is like an > photocopy of the book with electronic pages you can turn. Or the > file can be saved in an executable file format to run independently > of the main program. I've uploaded a sample of my out of print > Shaolin & Taoist Formulas book in the executable format. It will run > on a PC. > > > Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 , " Bob Flaws < pemachophel2001> " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > Jim, > > Scanning pages from Chinese books and then republishing them is > ILLEGAL. It is a breech of international copyright laws. Not that I would do something so tedious myself. But I do not believe copyright laws apply to original versions of premodern texts. As an example, I think one could photocopy a 17th century copy of romeo and juliet all one wanted regardless if there are copyrighted modern versions. Is this correct? If so, the same would apply to books like the pi wei lun, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 , " Bob Flaws <pemachophel2001> " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > Scanning pages from Chinese books and then republishing them is > ILLEGAL. It is a breech of international copyright laws. Don't think the Chinese are not extremely aware of what we're doing here in the U.S. We hear from Chinese who have seen our publications all the time. Bob: When translating a book under copyright, don't you first need to secure the rights from the author? My point is simply that a book doesn't have to be typeset in Chinese again if its already in print. Scanning the book into Adobe PDF or another format is simple and inexpensive. It makes the Chinese immediately accessible, and rare and difficult to find texts can have a new life. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 , " <@i...> " <@i...> wrote: > Not that I would do something so tedious myself. But I do not believe copyright laws apply to original versions of premodern texts. As an example, I think one could photocopy a 17th century copy of romeo and juliet all one wanted regardless if there are copyrighted modern versions. Is this correct? > If so, the same would apply to books like the pi wei lun, etc. : In fact at http://helios.unive.it/~pregadio/ikei.html, the Suwen, Lingshu, Nanjing, Shanghan lun, Jingui yaolüe, Shennong bencao jing, and the Bian Que Canggong liezhuan are available on line for free download in the original Chinese. It helps promote access to the literature, translation, and discussion. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 If you can find a copy that is more than 100 years old, yes, that is in the public domain and can be reprinted without problem by anyone. Except that the pages may be very difficult to read at that age. I have some 100 year-old Chinese books. Hardly suitable for most modern readers. That's why even the Chinese reissue them. In that case, even though a text is in the public domain, a particular edition published and typset in the last 20-30 years is not in the public domain. The layout (page design), typeface, and editing plus any footnotes or commentaries are all protected by copyright. Bob , " <@i...> " <@i...> wrote: > , " Bob Flaws < > pemachophel2001> " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > > Jim, > > > > Scanning pages from Chinese books and then republishing them is > > ILLEGAL. It is a breech of international copyright laws. > > Not that I would do something so tedious myself. But I do not believe > copyright laws apply to original versions of premodern texts. As an example, I > think one could photocopy a 17th century copy of romeo and juliet all one > wanted regardless if there are copyrighted modern versions. Is this correct? > If so, the same would apply to books like the pi wei lun, etc. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 Jim, As I responded to the only thing that is in the public domain is the words themselves. You cannot scan in a modern edition of an ancient text and republish that publisher's page design, typeface, editing, etc. It's simply not legal. You have to re-enter the text word by bloody word if you want to do it legally. Bob , " James Ramholz <jramholz> " <jramholz> wrote: > , " Bob Flaws > <pemachophel2001> " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > > Scanning pages from Chinese books and then republishing them is > > ILLEGAL. It is a breech of international copyright laws. Don't > think the Chinese are not extremely aware of what we're doing here > in the U.S. We hear from Chinese who have seen our publications all > the time. > > > Bob: > > When translating a book under copyright, don't you first need to > secure the rights from the author? > > My point is simply that a book doesn't have to be typeset in Chinese > again if its already in print. Scanning the book into Adobe PDF or > another format is simple and inexpensive. It makes the Chinese > immediately accessible, and rare and difficult to find texts can > have a new life. > > > Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 Bob: Have you considered buying the rights to a previous edition? Jim Ramholz , " Bob Flaws <pemachophel2001> " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > Jim, > > As I responded to the only thing that is in the public domain is > the words themselves. You cannot scan in a modern edition of an > ancient text and republish that publisher's page design, typeface, > editing, etc. It's simply not legal. You have to re-enter the text > word by bloody word if you want to do it legally. > > Bob > > , " James Ramholz > <jramholz> " <jramholz> wrote: > > , " Bob Flaws > > <pemachophel2001> " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > > > Scanning pages from Chinese books and then republishing them is > > > ILLEGAL. It is a breech of international copyright laws. Don't > > think the Chinese are not extremely aware of what we're doing here > > in the U.S. We hear from Chinese who have seen our publications all > > the time. > > > > > > Bob: > > > > When translating a book under copyright, don't you first need to > > secure the rights from the author? > > > > My point is simply that a book doesn't have to be typeset in Chinese > > again if its already in print. Scanning the book into Adobe PDF or > > another format is simple and inexpensive. It makes the Chinese > > immediately accessible, and rare and difficult to find texts can > > have a new life. > > > > > > Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 Jim this web page address does not work. They say the page was not found. Are you sure the address is correct? Yuri --- " James Ramholz <jramholz " <jramholz wrote: > > In fact at > http://helios.unive.it/~pregadio/ikei.html, the > Suwen, > Lingshu, Nanjing, Shanghan lun, Jingui yaolüe, > Shennong bencao jing, > and the Bian Que Canggong liezhuan are available on > line for free > download in the original Chinese. It helps promote > access to the > literature, translation, and discussion. > > > Jim Ramholz > > Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 , leah tynkova <leahhome> wrote: > Jim > this web page address does not work. They say the page > was not found. Are you sure the address is correct? > Yuri > --- " James Ramholz <jramholz> " > <jramholz> wrote: > > > > > In fact at > > http://helios.unive.it/~pregadio/ikei.html, the > > Suwen, > > remove the comma from the link. rh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 It works when the comma at the end isn't included http://helios.unive.it/~pregadio/ikei.html Jim Ramholz , leah tynkova <leahhome> wrote: > Jim > this web page address does not work. They say the page > was not found. Are you sure the address is correct? > Yuri > --- " James Ramholz <jramholz> " > <jramholz> wrote: > > > > > In fact at > > http://helios.unive.it/~pregadio/ikei.html, the > > Suwen, > > Lingshu, Nanjing, Shanghan lun, Jingui yaolüe, > > Shennong bencao jing, > > and the Bian Que Canggong liezhuan are available on > > line for free > > download in the original Chinese. It helps promote > > access to the > > literature, translation, and discussion. > > > > > > Jim Ramholz > > > > > > > > > Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus. 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.