Guest guest Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 Doug, Yes, sometimes these words get my dander up, too. But I hope we as an English-speaking profession can agree to settle on some set of translated words that become the default terminology for CM. It is irritating for professionals to have to deal with multiple translations fighting it out for supremacy, but it is even more irritating for students. Joseph Garner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 Oops, all, I forgot to include the post I was answering. Here is the intended post. Doug, Yes, sometimes these words get my dander up, too. But I hope we as an English-speaking profession can agree to settle on some set of translated words that become the default terminology for CM. It is irritating for professionals to have to deal with multiple translations fighting it out for supremacy, but it is even more irritating for students. Joseph Garner >>>Joseph, yes I guess it's a tangent but ever so once in awhile, repletion, vacuity and depression gets my dander up. Also I admit that my posting about Pi as aggregation was wrong, I had mixed up the two similar characters. I went back and re- read the files about translation and although I hope the discussion continues I see how much as already been said. doug<<< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 You guys seem to forget something. . . .practitioners of Chinese medicine and students should have feedback and a say in what determines the 'default' terminology for CM, but one needs specialist skills in language and translation to choose translation terms and standards. Few individuals in our field have those abilities. Nigel Wiseman is one of a few who does. If we leave it to what is 'easy', we will continue to 'dumb down' the medicine. Before the terms 'get your dander up', try to understand why Nigel chose those terms. He has written several articles on the subject, available for download at www.paradigm-pubs.com. He has always been open to input, and, in fact, has made changes in choices of English terms in response to feedback from the profession. The dictionary is an evolving concern, and will reflect those changes over time. But these changes need to be informed ones. On Monday, June 23, 2003, at 03:18 PM, acugrpaz wrote: > Doug, > Yes, sometimes these words get my dander up, too. But I hope we as an > English-speaking profession can agree to settle on some set of > translated words that become the default terminology for CM. It is > irritating for professionals to have to deal with multiple > translations fighting it out for supremacy, but it is even more > irritating for students. > Joseph Garner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 Nigel Wiseman is one of a few who does. If we leave it to what is 'easy', we will continue to 'dumb down' the medicine. Before the terms 'get your dander up', try to understand why Nigel chose those terms. He has written several articles on the subject, available for download >>>Except that the choices he makes often only create a lingo instead of user friendly choices. May this is good but I am not convinced yet (even though I really like his dictionary). Dr CS Cheung for example translate with high quality and uses a much more user friendly (transparent) words. So does much of Eastland publications. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 I do respect the Eastland Press material and translation as high quality, especially the new Warm Diseases text. Dr. Cheung's material I also like, but it is relatively out of date since he retired years ago. And neither provide glossaries or dictionaries, so there you go. By the way, Dan Bensky gave a wonderful presentation at the CHA conference. On Monday, June 23, 2003, at 05:14 PM, ALON MARCUS wrote: > >>>Except that the choices he makes often only create a lingo instead > of user friendly choices. May this is good but I am not convinced yet > (even though I really like his dictionary). Dr CS Cheung for example > translate with high quality and uses a much more user friendly > (transparent) words. So does much of Eastland publications. > Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 By the way, Dan Bensky gave a wonderful presentation at the CHA conference.>>>And actually said he thinks standerdation of terms is a bad idea alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 I think Z'ev hits upon an important note here that is less often discussed. As much as anyone (including myself) likes or finds impractical the Wiseman translations of Chinese terms, Wiseman does a great service by providing a dictionary or glossary to compare the Chinese characters against the English. >>>Agreed, as well as good explanation of their meaning Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 , " " wrote: > I do respect the Eastland Press material and translation as high > quality, especially the new Warm Diseases text. Dr. Cheung's material I also like, but it is relatively out of date since he retired years ago. And neither provide glossaries or dictionaries, so there you go. >>> I think Z'ev hits upon an important note here that is less often discussed. As much as anyone (including myself) likes or finds impractical the Wiseman translations of Chinese terms, Wiseman does a great service by providing a dictionary or glossary to compare the Chinese characters against the English. If an author wishes to support it as their standard, a reader can easily compare and contrast other meanings of the text, having a reliable sense of what the Chinese characters actually are, or might be, if the orginal Chinese is not provided. I think a better and the more scholarly solution is to publish the Chinese characters with the English translation; or, that not being economical to the publisher, at least post the original Chinese to both Jason's and the CHA files sections. In either case, discussions of the translation will, then, not be limited to what is liked or not liked by the Wiseman terminology. Alternative explanations and meanings can be developed in light of the original literature. I hope COMP will set the lead in this manner. For example, during my seminars, I've heard several Worsley people--- not to necessarily single them out---proselytize about their ideas; but sometimes I was not able to follow what they mean by " aggressive energy " or K4 being able to change the " Karma " of the fetus. All because they didn't know the Chinese language or literature those interpretations were based on---perhaps Worsley or his teachers did. It would have been a better discussion if they could point to the characters in the original Chinese or the terms in Wiseman's dictionary. Discussions are often too abstract without being able to see the terms in their proper context---the original Chinese or contemporary clinical practice. If anyone wants to change a definition to suit a new style of thought [an historic inevitability for many terms and ideas], they could point to the term's history and demonstrate clinically the need for the change. All this reminds me of a joke I heard during my seminar this last weekend: " How many Chinese medical practitioners does it take to change a light bulb? " The answer is 10. One to actually change the bulb, and 9 to tell how they would have done it differently. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 "aggressive energy" or K4 being able to change the "Karma" of the fetus. All because they didn't know the Chinese language or literature those interpretations were based on---perhaps Worsley or his teachers did. >>>Are these even direct Chinese ideas or his development of them? Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 , " Alon Marcus " wrote: > " aggressive energy " or K4 being able to change the " Karma " of the fetus. All because they didn't know the Chinese language or literature those interpretations were based on---perhaps Worsley or his teachers did. > >Are these even direct Chinese ideas or his development of them?>> Alon: From what I could tell [a Worsley practitioner would know for sure and correct me if I'm wrong] " aggressive energy " is xie/evil; their treatment of it focuses on needling the shu back points. What " Karma " is I cannot tell. Perhaps someone on the list knows and can relate its historical use. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 Hi All, & Hi Joe, Z'ev, Ken & Jim, Joe Garner wrote: > Doug, Yes, sometimes these words get my dander up, too. But I hope > we as an English-speaking profession can agree to settle on some > set of translated words that become the default terminology for > CM. It is irritating for professionals to have to deal with > multiple translations fighting it out for supremacy, but it is > even more irritating for students. Joseph Garner Ze'v wrote: > As a professor at PCOM, I see continuously that the clarity of the > terms is paramount to understanding everything else from pattern > differentiation to prescription writing. In order for our > profession to progress, we must grab this issue by the horns. Ken wrote: > ... the real problem is that [the Chinese] ... have not yet really > come up with a comprehensive understanding of the Chinese medical > terms themselves let alone their English equivalents. Jim Ramholz wrote: > I think a better and the more scholarly solution is to publish the > Chinese characters with the English translation; or... at least > post the original Chinese to both Jason's and the CHA files > sections. In either case, discussions of the translation will, > then, not be limited to what is liked or not liked by the Wiseman > terminology. Alternative explanations and meanings can be developed > in light of the original literature. I hope COMP will set the lead > in this manner. [Jim] We MUST indeed aim to find/agree on a " standard terminology " in TCM, if only to make databases more easily searchable. Multiple terminology for the same concept in a database poses problems of data retrieval unless the database ALSO has a powerful Thesaurus that automatically links [and searches for] the relevant synonyms. Yes, all clinicians and translators are individuals, therefore will (and need to) express our creativity and individuality. But for the future of TCM in a digital revolution, we MUST put serious thought and action into standardisation of TCM terminology, and/or building a hyperlinked Thesaurus. As many have said, Nigel Wiseman's terminology is probably the most comprehensive and influential now. Can he be persuaded to develop his Dictionary to the digital stage, AND to make it more user-friendly, AND to also develop a digital TCM Thesaurus? IMO, inclusion of the Chinese characters and the Pinyin, as well as the translation and synonyms is the best way forward. Best regards, Phil 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] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 >>>You guys seem to forget something. . . .practitioners of Chinese medicine and students should have feedback and a say in what determines the 'default' terminology for CM, but one needs specialist skills in language and translation to choose translation terms and standards. Few individuals in our field have those abilities. Nigel Wiseman is one of a few who does. If we leave it to what is 'easy', we will continue to 'dumb down' the medicine. Before the terms 'get your dander up', try to understand why Nigel chose those terms. He has written several articles on the subject, available for download at www.paradigm-pubs.com. He has always been open to input, and, in fact, has made changes in choices of English terms in response to feedback from the profession. The dictionary is an evolving concern, and will reflect those changes over time. But these changes need to be informed ones. On Monday, June 23, 2003, at 03:18 PM, acugrpaz wrote: > Doug, > Yes, sometimes these words get my dander up, too. But I hope we as an > English-speaking profession can agree to settle on some set of > translated words that become the default terminology for CM. It is > irritating for professionals to have to deal with multiple > translations fighting it out for supremacy, but it is even more > irritating for students. > Joseph Garner<<< Z'ev, Thanks for your feedback. I do not mean to forget that most of us have no translation skills. I for one have never really had much of a problem with Wiseman's terminology because I know I don't know enough to really have an opinion one way or the other. The only feedback I can give is how well it works in practical usage. The one problem I see with words like vacuity and repletion is it makes it hard for us to use them in explaining things to patients (besides the fact that we have to alter what we have already taught students). But patients don't need to get nuances. I am comfortable using one set of words with patients and another with each other. I do not want to create a terminology that completely leaves patients in the dark, as modern medicine has done, so if we use the "old" set of words for patients and the "new" set for each other, that is OK with me. I vote we go with the Wiseman terminology, teach that to students, let the translator community hassle over the occasional change, and be happy campers. As long as we are precise in terminology with each other, we can use any words we want to talk to patients. Joseph Garner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 I'd be hard pressed to accept a Wiseman thesaurus. The development of a thesaurus for a field of study should be done with input and buy-in from OM professors, researchers, and clinicians in concert with information science folks. While an OM thesaurus will certainly solve literature access problems arising from ambiguous language while one is searching/retrieving information, it will take some time for this to spill over into the classroom and clinical settings. But it will. We will need to continue to work on the language used in publishing materials in our field in parallel to developing an OM thesaurus. I believe there will need to be numerous authority sources to develop an OM thesaurus. Remember too that thesauri must also be maintained -- updated, revised and expanded. And we need to consider who will be assigning the terms from the thesaurus to the yet to published periodical index... I do not want to see us waste money developing a thesaurus that will not meet ISO standards for thesauri. There are clear documented ways to develop thesauri and we should do so. Would an individual do this? Further, we do not want to abdicate issues of language and access to OM literature to a small cadre or worse an individual. I'll also mention that there's profit made by whatever group develops a thesaurus. Whenever someone uses your terms by adding them into a bibliographic record in a database, they have to pay the owner of the thesaurus. For this reason and reasons of professional ownership, development of thesauri is done by a coalition of interest groups within a profession. Osteopaths have made similar efforts: see http://ostmed.hsc.unt.edu/ostmed/ Best, Della Della Lawhon, MAOM, Lic AC, Dipl CH, Kelly Library New England School of Acupuncture 40 Belmont Street Boston, Mass 02472 617-926-3969 dlawhon www.nesa.edu/library.html [] Tuesday, June 24, 2003 7:27 AM Re: Definitely Feet in my Dictionary Hi All, & Hi Joe, Z'ev, Ken & Jim, Joe Garner wrote: > Doug, Yes, sometimes these words get my dander up, too. But I hope > we as an English-speaking profession can agree to settle on some > set of translated words that become the default terminology for > CM. It is irritating for professionals to have to deal with > multiple translations fighting it out for supremacy, but it is > even more irritating for students. Joseph Garner Ze'v wrote: > As a professor at PCOM, I see continuously that the clarity of the > terms is paramount to understanding everything else from pattern > differentiation to prescription writing. In order for our > profession to progress, we must grab this issue by the horns. Ken wrote: > ... the real problem is that [the Chinese] ... have not yet really > come up with a comprehensive understanding of the Chinese medical > terms themselves let alone their English equivalents. Jim Ramholz wrote: > I think a better and the more scholarly solution is to publish the > Chinese characters with the English translation; or... at least > post the original Chinese to both Jason's and the CHA files > sections. In either case, discussions of the translation will, > then, not be limited to what is liked or not liked by the Wiseman > terminology. Alternative explanations and meanings can be developed > in light of the original literature. I hope COMP will set the lead > in this manner. [Jim] We MUST indeed aim to find/agree on a " standard terminology " in TCM, if only to make databases more easily searchable. Multiple terminology for the same concept in a database poses problems of data retrieval unless the database ALSO has a powerful Thesaurus that automatically links [and searches for] the relevant synonyms. Yes, all clinicians and translators are individuals, therefore will (and need to) express our creativity and individuality. But for the future of TCM in a digital revolution, we MUST put serious thought and action into standardisation of TCM terminology, and/or building a hyperlinked Thesaurus. As many have said, Nigel Wiseman's terminology is probably the most comprehensive and influential now. Can he be persuaded to develop his Dictionary to the digital stage, AND to make it more user-friendly, AND to also develop a digital TCM Thesaurus? IMO, inclusion of the Chinese characters and the Pinyin, as well as the translation and synonyms is the best way forward. Best regards, Phil 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] 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 June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 [a Worsley practitioner would know for sure and correct me if I'm wrong] >>>>>I have no idea. I never studied or seriously interacted with worsley practitioners Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 I agree that a standardized terminology is necessary for the purpose of on-line search engines, which will be more and more necessary in the future. The dictionary is being developed for digital use as we speak. On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 04:26 AM, wrote: > As many have said, Nigel Wiseman's terminology is probably the > most comprehensive and influential now. Can he be persuaded to > develop his Dictionary to the digital stage, AND to make it more > user-friendly, AND to also develop a digital TCM Thesaurus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 But for the future of TCM in a digital revolution, we MUST put serious thought and action into standardisation of TCM terminology, and/or building a hyperlinked Thesaurus. >>>That is a very good point. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 Zev, Do you know anything about the technology for the dictionary or how it will be made available? A dictionary defines terms but not the hierarchical links and more development will need to be made to make this appropriate for indexing periodical literature. Having Wiseman' Dictionary available electronically is a major step forward! Zev, you wrote, ....a standardized terminology is necessary for the purpose of on-line search engines... I'd say that it's not so much the online search engine as it is the bibliographic records that the search engines search which are in need of the thesaurus. Search engines will retrieve based on what appears in a record so we've got to get subject terms loaded into bibliographic records which cite OM literature. I'd like to talk to whoever is digitizing the information. Can you send me contact information? Della Lawhon, MAOM, Lic AC, Dipl CH, Kelly Library New England School of Acupuncture 40 Belmont Street Boston, Mass 02472 617-926-3969 dlawhon www.nesa.edu/library.html [zrosenbe] Tuesday, June 24, 2003 11:01 AM Re: Re: Definitely Feet in my Dictionary I agree that a standardized terminology is necessary for the purpose of on-line search engines, which will be more and more necessary in the future. The dictionary is being developed for digital use as we speak. On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 04:26 AM, wrote: > As many have said, Nigel Wiseman's terminology is probably the > most comprehensive and influential now. Can he be persuaded to > develop his Dictionary to the digital stage, AND to make it more > user-friendly, AND to also develop a digital TCM Thesaurus? 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 June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 Osteopaths have made similar efforts: seehttp://ostmed.hsc.unt.edu/ostmed/>>>>Thank so much for this reference. I should have known about this site. Also, this is what Dan Bensky has proposed for some time Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 Della, I've forwarded your essential, thought-provoking questions on to Bob Felt at Paradigm Press, who should be getting back to us about this. Paradigm has the publishing rights to the Dictionary, and is working on a digital version. On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 08:19 AM, Della Lawhon wrote: > Zev, > > Do you know anything about the technology for the dictionary or how it > will be made available? A dictionary defines terms but not the > hierarchical links and more development will need to be made to make > this appropriate for indexing periodical literature. Having Wiseman' > Dictionary available electronically is a major step forward! > > Zev, you wrote, > ...a standardized terminology is necessary for the purpose of > on-line search engines... > I'd say that it's not so much the online search engine as it is the > bibliographic records that the search engines search which are in need > of the thesaurus. Search engines will retrieve based on what appears > in > a record so we've got to get subject terms loaded into bibliographic > records which cite OM literature. > > I'd like to talk to whoever is digitizing the information. Can you > send > me contact information? > > Della Lawhon, MAOM, Lic AC, Dipl CH > Director, Kelly Library > New England School of Acupuncture > 40 Belmont Street > Boston, Mass 02472 > 617-926-3969 > dlawhon > www.nesa.edu/library.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 Tuesday, June 24, 2003 4:27 AM > We MUST indeed aim to find/agree on a " standard terminology " in >TCM, if only to make databases more easily searchable. --Snip-- >IMO, inclusion of the Chinese characters and the Pinyin, as well as >the translation and synonyms is the best way forward. I completely agree Phil. This is another reason why I believe that standardized translation should be pegged to the intended concept, not to the actual character per my previous post (included below). This will positively impact the hit rate on the search term for a given topic. Additionally, your idea to include searchable pinyin and characters will allow those with knowledge of Chinese to take their search to a deeper level It will also mitigate some of the disagreement regarding standardization allowing advanced users to bypass the translation altogether. -Tim Sharpe , Todd Luger wrote: I do not want somebody else's connotation imposed upon me. I want a dictionary with every possible definition and I will decide for myself which one is correct. I assume you would also want this autonomy. , Tim Sharpe wrote: I am highly impressed that your level of knowledge in Chinese linguistic history is high enough to be able to comprehend the subtleties in Chinese, and to distinguish between the language patterns of different dynasties. Having spent a year and a half intensively studying Chinese I have to admit that I am at least 15 years from hoping to approach that level. For instance, I don’t know the names and time periods of all the dynasties, and their respective rulers. That doesn’t seem like much, but in Chinese history people were not allowed to use the name of an emperor for other things. If an herb contained a character from an emperor’s name then it was changed – at least during his reign. I am glad that there are translators more educated than me who can make those distinctions for me. How would I know which meaning to choose when faced with such a character? How am I to know that the character zuo (left) can actually represent an older term (and character) meaning to assist? Just given the choice in a dictionary how would I know which to choose? A sinologist would use their knowledge of linguistic history to place the term in a timeline and make their decision. I have no such experience, and would be at a loss for a term choice were I to be left with every possible option. If every author had to explain such term choices to us, the publishing process would slow to a crawl and we would be mired in redundancy. Long ago I remember a verbal “dueling” between Lonny and Ken on TraditionalChineseMedicine.Net regarding translations in Nourishing Destiny. It reinforced for me that clinicians excel in the clinic, and translators excel at translating. I’ve heard many times on this list that “so and so” is not a clinician so how can they tell me. Well, most of us aren’t sinologists, so how can we tell them? If Marnae, or Chip Chace, or Dan Bensky makes an interpretation, I am more likely to believe it than I would be to believe my own stab. Myself, given the scarcity of translated literature, and the ignorance of nearly all our clinicians, I happily bequeath my autonomy to the more learned than me. If we get to the point where authors have the time to fully gloss their translations, then I will gladly accept the burden of scrutinizing terminology choices. As it is, I know who I trust, and I read their translations recognizing that their mistakes will be less copious than my own would be. I realize that all of my points are arguable, but in the end I see two choices: 1) Accept character pegged standardized translation where the burden is put on me – complete with my own ignorance. 2) Allow those who are trained in the field of translating to do their job, requesting only that they agree on some consistency in their work. When the field becomes more populated with capable translators then I think we should ask for more glossing and translational commentary. At this point such a request would slow the pace of translation to a crawl. Tim Sharpe 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.