From Ken Rose (with note to Todd)

[Guest guest]

Another in a series of messages the laureate Ken Rose.

Emmanuel Segmen

 

(P.S. to Todd. Dear note Ken's email address below. As I recall, Ken originally posted to CHA using a different email address. Is it possible that he can no longer post to CHA because he is not using that original email address? I've noticed that I can not post to CHA when using my work email address.

E.S.)

 

-

"Ken Rose" <editor_caom

> > Jason,> >> >My guess is that these are the same thing, but you would have to check with > >Wiseman... or more importantly in the context of the Chinese usage! BUT, > >the one thing that I have learned from my limited Chinese translating is > >that a) different authors use different phrases to explain the same thing. > >b) even the same author will use different phrases to mean the same thing.> >c) Time periods which something is written also influence usages. but > >finally d) No matter how much we try to pin down what these things mean, in > >Chinese, they seem to have a much more liberal use of words... (Maybe ken > >could comments on this) Meaning, we might make fine distinctions (somehow?) > >between supplement, nourish, enrich etc... but it seems to me, that all > >Chinese authors do not follow these (Wiseman or whosever's distinctions)... > > Meaning we must stay open and it is more important to get the idea vs. > >trying to pin down something.. Chinese is much more poetic that English > >(medical writing); therefore, authors take more liberties in medical > >writing to supply us with color. but this color does not ALWAYS translate > >into intended nuance. "One the fish is caught the bait is forgotten" , > >"Once the idea is grasped, the words are forgotten"> >> >-> > I can comment, but keep in mind that> as you've suggested if only obliquely,> when we are talking about translation from> Chinese into English we are talking about an> art more than a science. The bilingual> glosses and dictionaries, as I've said> dozens of times, are merely the necessary> starting places. That they have been ignored> for so long in the developmental period of> TCM in the English language is a great> and enduring problem. But their appearance> does not solve all problems related to> translation. Wiseman's dictionary, for> example, merely gives us a common language> and an open and available methodology> by which it was obtained, to permit us> collectively to rationally approach> these problems.> > Chinese doctors use terms ambivalently,> oppositely, correctly, incorrectly,> figuratively, literally, and in many> other ways that adverbs may not even> adequately describe. Imagine that there> are hundreds of thousands of practitioners> of traditional Chinese medicine in China.> There are, so even if you can't imagine> it, they exist. Now imagine that each> of them is talking to dozens of patients> every day. Get the idea of the number of> conversations that occur about these subjects> in the Chinese language every day? Every month?> Every year?> > This is the factory in which Chinese medical> language is constantly made, updated, created,> exported, imported, etc. etc. etc.> > It's a living thing, like all language.> > The terms xu and bu zu do not mean the> same thing, as far as I'm concerned.> There is a huge conceptual difference> and clinically speaking, there are vast> differences between the two.> > Bu zu means insufficient, inadequate,> not up to par, not enough to meet> threshold requirements, etc. If you> think of the jing luo/zang fu systems> as patterns of distribution of forces> throughout the body, then bu zu can> be considered as a condition that obtains> where locally or globally, the threshold> values required to propagate various> forces over, under, around and through> various locks, gates, passages, valleys,> etc. that exist in the corporeal terrain> are not being met. This is bu zu.> > Inadequate. Deficient.> > Xu is something quite different. It is> empty. When you see it, it is quite striking.> You feel and there is nothing there. Xu.> > Vacuous.> > Because I work primarily with my hands,> the differences between these two are> quite clear to me. They are two different> feelings. They require two different> types and strategies of response.> > I have heard doctors here and elsewhere use the terms> interchangably, and sometimes in the clinic> this is entirely appropriate. After all, there> is a kind of gradient of conditions that can> be conceptualized that leads from bu zu to> xu, although not necessarily. Some doctors> understand things in different ways and> thus use terms in different ways. Again,> there is virtually no limit when it comes> to the variations that are both imaginable> and experiencable on such questions.> > I remember a comment made to me by the> famous translator Ma Kan Wen (the fellow> who gave us the term "Traditional Chinese> Medicine"). He was talking about the> current efforts in the China Academy of> TCM to produce a comprehensive bilingual> gloss of TCM terms. And he pointed out> that the real problem is that the people> working on the project have not yet really> come up with a comprehensive understanding> of the Chinese medical terms themselves> let alone their English equivalents.> > This is really difficult and complex work.> As the community begins to wake up to its> importance, it is important that we bring> the scope of such efforts into clear focus.> > > Chinese language and Chinese thought, therefore> Chinese medical terms and Chinese medical> theories, tend to be situationally defined.> There are certain standard meanings and> concepts, but it is the application in> particular circumstances that produces> pragmatic...and therefore accurate meanings> and usages of both words and the concepts> and related methods and substances to> which the words become associated.> > There. I guess I can comment on this.> Although I fear that I may have raised> more questions than I have answered.> > Oh well...> > Ken> > _______________> Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963>

[Guest guest]

" Ken Rose "

 

> Chinese doctors use terms

ambivalently,

> oppositely, correctly, incorrectly,

> figuratively, literally, and in many

> other ways that adverbs may not even

> adequately describe.

 

I get pretty confused by the arguments

over terminology. It seems simple to me that we should have a terminology

standardized by concept. If the translator determines that the Chinese

author wrote “bu zu”, and their intent (as determined by the translator) was

vacuity, then the translated word should be vacuity. If the original

Chinese word was xu1, and again their intent was vacuity, then the translated

word should be vacuity. This should be consistent every time. The

target language should be pegged to the author’s intent, not to the source

character (though I suspect the character peg will often be on target).

This method takes Ken’s comments into account, and I believe is a reasonable

bridge between the Eastland Press method and the Wiseman method. If the

translator feels that there is no word in the existing standardized lexicon to

cover the nuance of a particular passage, then he/she should have the option of

creative interpretation – providing they document their “deviation”. This

is how the standardized lexicon will grow. When it’s all said and done

though, if we all mean the same thing, we should say the same thing – every time.

The poetry in our medicine should be in our treatments, not in our words.

 

One additional note, I used vacuity above

just as an example. We can use “bereftness” for all I care, just as long

as we agree on some terminology that neither confines nor confuses.

 

Er - one more “one additional note”:

Kudos to the editors at Eastland Press for helping my herb instructor Guohui

Liu create one of the most sophisticated and readable texts I’ve ever read.

If you haven’t read Warm Diseases a Clinical Guide then you haven’t lived!

… OK, maybe I’m a little overzealous, but it truly is a fabulous book – and I’m

only a little biased.

 

Tim Sharpe

[Guest guest]

This should be consistent every time

>>>I thought the problem is that the same term (chinese character) is used very differently by 1. different authors, 2. at different times all dependent on context. Therefore using the same word in translation can be misleading as well shallow.

Alon

[Guest guest]

This method takes Ken’s comments into account, and I believe is a reasonable bridge between the Eastland Press method and the Wiseman method. If the translator feels that there is no word in the existing standardized lexicon to cover the nuance of a particular passage, then he/she should have the option of creative interpretation – providing they document their “deviation”. This is how the standardized lexicon will grow. When it’s all said and done though, if we all mean the same thing, we should say the same thing – every time. The poetry in our medicine should be in our treatments, not in our words.

>>>>That seems to be Dan's opinion

Alon

[Guest guest]

Kudos to the editors at Eastland Press for helping my herb instructor Guohui Liu create one of the most sophisticated and readable texts I’ve ever read.

>>>Agreed

Alon

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <

alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> This should be consistent every time

> >>>I thought the problem is that the same term (chinese character) is used

very differently by 1. different authors, 2. at different times all dependent on

context. Therefore using the same word in translation can be misleading as

well shallow.

> Alon

 

I haven't chimed in on this in a while, but I can't hold my pen. This entirely

misses the point of consistent term choice. You are talking about connotative

translation where the term used in any context is the one meant to have the

most transparent meaning to the average reader. This is fine for poetry, but

should hardly satisfy you when it comes to medicine, an area where you

demand rigor on every other level. Denotative translation, which is the

standard in every professional and technical field where translation is

involved, on the other hand, uses a single term for each character.

 

The meaning of the translation term is not necessarily meant to be transparent

to either the lay reader or even the medical professional who has not yet been

exposed to the concept. Because it is a technical term, one can only know the

meaning by learning the definition, not through connotation. 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.

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <

alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Kudos to the editors at Eastland Press for helping my herb instructor Guohui

Liu create one of the most sophisticated and readable texts I've ever read.

> >>>Agreed

> Alon

 

Indeed it is immensely readable and clinically useful. However, I would still

rather be able to identify the chinese terms for many of the symptoms which I

could do if they were standard term choices. It is one thing for commentary to

written in connotative, descriptive, contextual english. I prefer this myself.

the commentary is appended to the actual text, so there is no question about

the author's actual words. But when it comes to direct translation from chinese

texts over which there may be scholarly disagreement, I want to know what

each chinese character was. Sure, you could include the characters in every

text, but it would be easier to just use consistent terminology.

 

[Guest guest]

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. >>>That would be fine. But still i think the choice of the word in the translated langue is better if it is more descriptive of the term. I dislike elitism in all forms of medicine. For example, i cant stand orthopedic test with names of their so-called inventors. Names that just describe the test directly are much more useful, and are used by many very educated practitioners.

Alon

[Guest guest]

, 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.

 

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

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, June

24, 2003 8:33 AM

To:

 

Re:

From Ken Rose (with note to Todd)

 

, " Alon

Marcus " <

alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> This should be consistent every time

> >>>I thought the problem is that the

same term (chinese character) is used

very differently by 1. different authors, 2. at

different times all dependent on

context. Therefore using the same word in

translation can be misleading as

well shallow.

> Alon

 

I haven't chimed in on this in a while, but I

can't hold my pen. This entirely

misses the point of consistent term choice.

You are talking about connotative

translation where the term used in any context is

the one meant to have the

most transparent meaning to the average

reader. This is fine for poetry, but

should hardly satisfy you when it comes to

medicine, an area where you

demand rigor on every other level.

Denotative translation, which is the

standard in every professional and technical field

where translation is

involved, on the other hand, uses a single term

for each character.

 

The meaning of the translation term is not

necessarily meant to be transparent

to either the lay reader or even the medical

professional who has not yet been

exposed to the concept. Because it is a

technical term, one can only know the

meaning by learning the definition, not through

connotation. 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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

At 03:56 PM 6/24/2003 +0000, you wrote:

--- In

, " Alon Marcus " <

alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Kudos to the editors at Eastland Press for helping my herb

instructor Guohui

Liu create one of the most sophisticated and readable texts I've ever

read.

> >>>Agreed

> Alon

Indeed it is immensely readable and clinically useful. However, I

would still

rather be able to identify the chinese terms for many of the symptoms

which I

could do if they were standard term choices. It is one thing for

commentary to

written in connotative, descriptive, contextual english. I prefer

this myself.

the commentary is appended to the actual text, so there is no question

about

the author's actual words. But when it comes to direct translation from

chinese

texts over which there may be scholarly disagreement, I want to know what

 

each chinese character was. Sure, you could include the characters

in every

text, but it would be easier to just use consistent terminology.AMEN to that. marnae