Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 --- " Bob Flaws " wrote: > 2. The reader's/listener's knowledge of Chinese > > What I'm getting at is that Nigel-speak is not sixth grade English (what popular magazines consider the common denominator). It > makes full use of the power, complexity, and subtlety of the wonderfully unique English language. --------- I must say that I fully agree with this point. Though I am not a native English speaker, I am always thrilled by the nuances and subtleties possible with english words. And I find this aspect of the english language well reflected in the choice of terms by Wiseman. I have to admit though that in the beginning I had to get my dictionary from the shelf quite often, because the terms he uses aren't those most commonly used in daily life. But now I got used to them I really do like them and it makes reading books using his terms much faster to grasp, instead of each time figuring out what is meant. Alwin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Uhhh, Bob, I'll just point some things out. When I worked with a rather obscure film journal we argued over whether the articles were readable. The senior editors said that the academic readership (their colleagues) said that they read " all the articles " . This was proof to them that indeed the articles were readable. I pointed out that no academic would admit that they couldn't understand what the heck was being said. Indeed their may be two types of CM readers out there. But I can't imagine that the Jiao Shu-de books would be used by virtually every Chinese practitioner I know if it were written as badly as some of the translations we have. (The Craig Mitchell translation is very good, by the way). Again, I point out the Qin Bo Wei book as an accesible and simple book that is obscured by the translation. Somehow I don't see being familiar with German, French, Greek and Latin as a viable prerequisite for reading a book in ones native language. I'll leave a side the suggestion of less intelligence but you must admit that you have a facility for languages beyond most people. If I remember correctly you also know Sanskrit. Talking about my slower CPU, these discussions remind me of a back and forth my two computer friend were having. They install systems for big businesses and prefer the UNIX system (or something). Their bosses who had Microsoft before were always asking for a back up system (redundancy) should the system crash. A which point my friends would crack-up in laughter. Their system don't crash. That's how I feel with the books written with the Wiseman standard. Yes, I'm always consulting the dictionary, in fact, over and over, because I'm still trying to figure out what the author is saying. With these books I need the back-up system. The Liu book is a great example of where it isn't. Face it, we have thousands of practitioners out there who need more information. Let's not dumb down the writing but let's make it readable. doug , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > > Furthermore, we need to ask the question, 'user-friendly' for whom? > > Excellent question. After 10 years of working with Wiseman's terminology, I personally find comfort with it is directly proportional to > two things: > > 1. The reader's/listener's knowledge of the English language > > In my experience as a teacher and writer, the higher the knowledge/ skill/ fluency in English, the less problems Nigel-speak presents. > English comes from three sources, German, French, and Latin. If one is familiar with those three sources, then adds a little Greek > (since this is medicine after all), and is comfortable with words with more than one syllable, then there should be little/less problem > with this terminology. Part of the problem is that the schools hire teachers who are not very literate in English (whether native or > foreign born) and enroll students whose English is often not any better. > > 2. The reader's/listener's knowledge of Chinese > > Given a higher than average knowledge/fluency in English, if one is able to read Chinese, one sees the dead-on quality of most of > Nigel's term choices, e.g., quicken for huo, network vessels for luo, impediment for bi, and limp for ruan. But, in order to understand > Nigel's choice of quicken, one has to be familiar with Shakespeare and the King James Bible, while to grok his choice of impediment, > one probably had to read Ceasar's Gallic Wars in Latin. Even a less felicitous term, such as glomus, is, I think, brilliant. It is related to > the same Latin root as the colloquial word " glom, " as in to glom up. > > What I'm getting at is that Nigel-speak is not sixth grade English (what popular magazines consider the common denominator). It > makes full use of the power, complexity, and subtlety of the wonderfully unique English language. English has more words than any > other language in the world. To master English is no easy feat. Yet, it is my experience that a truly Master's level of education > provided in English requires Master's level English. One of our problems has been that, all too often, our education has been > conducted in second and third grade English. > > It is my experience as a teacher that students with better education and higher intelligence have less problems with Wiseman's > terminology, while students with less education and slower CPUs have more problems with Wiseman's terminology. However, that > same second class of listeners, including not a few teachers at ACOM schools, have just as much problem when I use English > medical and scientific terminology. As a profession, we really do need to decide what level of intelligence and education are > necessary to enter this profession. Unfortunately, some of the people making those decisions are themselves not the best and the > brightest. > > IMO. > > Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Amen! Marnae At 05:39 PM 11/13/2003 +0000, you wrote: > > Furthermore, we need to ask the question, 'user-friendly' for whom? > >Excellent question. After 10 years of working with Wiseman's terminology, >I personally find comfort with it is directly proportional to >two things: > >1. The reader's/listener's knowledge of the English language > >In my experience as a teacher and writer, the higher the knowledge/ skill/ >fluency in English, the less problems Nigel-speak presents. >English comes from three sources, German, French, and Latin. If one is >familiar with those three sources, then adds a little Greek >(since this is medicine after all), and is comfortable with words with >more than one syllable, then there should be little/less problem >with this terminology. Part of the problem is that the schools hire >teachers who are not very literate in English (whether native or >foreign born) and enroll students whose English is often not any better. > >2. The reader's/listener's knowledge of Chinese > >Given a higher than average knowledge/fluency in English, if one is able >to read Chinese, one sees the dead-on quality of most of >Nigel's term choices, e.g., quicken for huo, network vessels for luo, >impediment for bi, and limp for ruan. But, in order to understand >Nigel's choice of quicken, one has to be familiar with Shakespeare and the >King James Bible, while to grok his choice of impediment, >one probably had to read Ceasar's Gallic Wars in Latin. Even a less >felicitous term, such as glomus, is, I think, brilliant. It is related to >the same Latin root as the colloquial word " glom, " as in to glom up. > >What I'm getting at is that Nigel-speak is not sixth grade English (what >popular magazines consider the common denominator). It >makes full use of the power, complexity, and subtlety of the wonderfully >unique English language. English has more words than any >other language in the world. To master English is no easy feat. Yet, it is >my experience that a truly Master's level of education >provided in English requires Master's level English. One of our problems >has been that, all too often, our education has been >conducted in second and third grade English. > >It is my experience as a teacher that students with better education and >higher intelligence have less problems with Wiseman's >terminology, while students with less education and slower CPUs have more >problems with Wiseman's terminology. However, that >same second class of listeners, including not a few teachers at ACOM >schools, have just as much problem when I use English >medical and scientific terminology. As a profession, we really do need to >decide what level of intelligence and education are >necessary to enter this profession. Unfortunately, some of the people >making those decisions are themselves not the best and the >brightest. > >IMO. > >Bob > > > >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 November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 " Again, I point out the Qin Bo Wei book as an accesible and simple book that is obscured by the translation. " Doug, Sorry, I haven't read your other postings on " the Qin Bo-wei " book. I assume you mean " A Qin Bowei Anthology. " If that's the translation you are referring to, let me respond by saying that the translator, who I have known very well for many years and whom I have edited on other projects, is not a well educated person with a high command of English even though he is a great clinician and possesses above average intelligence. Frankly, in my professional opinion, he is not a very good English writer. Further, that material was translated early on in his career. Any new translations would, hopefully, be better. (We'll see how he handles Li Shi-zhen in the not too distant future.) Bottom line, I do believe that you can produce both well written, intelligible translations and original works using Wiseman's terminology. The problem is not with the tool (i.e., Wiseman's terminology), it's with the translator/writer using it. Not all of us have the same facility with the English language. As you also and even further point out, not all of us have the same facility with language in general as a modus operandi. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Bob, It was the Chip Chase book which I only called a " missed opportunity " . Perhaps, and I think it's been said before, that the closer to translation the writing is, the more appropriate it is to adhere to the Practical Dictionary. If an author, trying to express their own ideas, is uncomfortable with that language nothing will be successfully explained. Increasingly, I'm having less of a problem with the idea of the Wiseman standard but still disagree, as others do, with some of the actual terminology. Forcing the terminology onto the thoughts/ writing is where I see authors struggle (and sometimes fail). doug P.S. I'll going to join the other terminology group/list and not to burden CHA with my rants. , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > " Again, I point out the Qin Bo Wei book as an accesible and simple book that is obscured by the translation. " > > Doug, > > Sorry, I haven't read your other postings on " the Qin Bo-wei " book. I assume you mean " A Qin Bowei Anthology. " If that's the > translation you are referring to, let me respond by saying that the translator, who I have known very well for many years and whom I > have edited on other projects, is not a well educated person with a high command of English even though he is a great clinician and > possesses above average intelligence. Frankly, in my professional opinion, he is not a very good English writer. Further, that material > was translated early on in his career. Any new translations would, hopefully, be better. (We'll see how he handles Li Shi-zhen in the > not too distant future.) > > Bottom line, I do believe that you can produce both well written, intelligible translations and original works using Wiseman's > terminology. The problem is not with the tool (i.e., Wiseman's terminology), it's with the translator/writer using it. Not all of us have the > same facility with the English language. As you also and even further point out, not all of us have the same facility with language in > general as a modus operandi. > > Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Bob ( & others) How can you argue with what you say... Wiseman is for the elite... You must be well educated and have the patience to put up with words such as depurative and vacuity, as technical as they may be...I personally have no problem with it because I have spent hours with the dictionary and another dictionary to make sense of the words in the dictionary. I am finally comfortable. But what about the average acu student. This type of elitism is only shutting people out... I do say we need to raise the bar in our education, but I am not sure if the average student is ready for it. I would rather raise the bar in conceptual ideas. This is why Bensky's books is so great… They explain things so people understand them, is this wrong? Finally I think it is well known that the Chinese terms in Chinese are not obscure words, but common words of the common man, which makes things different than the western medical analogy. I am not saying don't use wiseman, but this started when numerous people poo pooed Chen for his attempt to step out of the wiseman-box. - , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > > Furthermore, we need to ask the question, 'user-friendly' for whom? > > Excellent question. After 10 years of working with Wiseman's terminology, I personally find comfort with it is directly proportional to > two things: > > 1. The reader's/listener's knowledge of the English language > > In my experience as a teacher and writer, the higher the knowledge/ skill/ fluency in English, the less problems Nigel-speak presents. > English comes from three sources, German, French, and Latin. If one is familiar with those three sources, then adds a little Greek > (since this is medicine after all), and is comfortable with words with more than one syllable, then there should be little/less problem > with this terminology. Part of the problem is that the schools hire teachers who are not very literate in English (whether native or > foreign born) and enroll students whose English is often not any better. > > 2. The reader's/listener's knowledge of Chinese > > Given a higher than average knowledge/fluency in English, if one is able to read Chinese, one sees the dead-on quality of most of > Nigel's term choices, e.g., quicken for huo, network vessels for luo, impediment for bi, and limp for ruan. But, in order to understand > Nigel's choice of quicken, one has to be familiar with Shakespeare and the King James Bible, while to grok his choice of impediment, > one probably had to read Ceasar's Gallic Wars in Latin. Even a less felicitous term, such as glomus, is, I think, brilliant. It is related to > the same Latin root as the colloquial word " glom, " as in to glom up. > > What I'm getting at is that Nigel-speak is not sixth grade English (what popular magazines consider the common denominator). It > makes full use of the power, complexity, and subtlety of the wonderfully unique English language. English has more words than any > other language in the world. To master English is no easy feat. Yet, it is my experience that a truly Master's level of education > provided in English requires Master's level English. One of our problems has been that, all too often, our education has been > conducted in second and third grade English. > > It is my experience as a teacher that students with better education and higher intelligence have less problems with Wiseman's > terminology, while students with less education and slower CPUs have more problems with Wiseman's terminology. However, that > same second class of listeners, including not a few teachers at ACOM schools, have just as much problem when I use English > medical and scientific terminology. As a profession, we really do need to decide what level of intelligence and education are > necessary to enter this profession. Unfortunately, some of the people making those decisions are themselves not the best and the > brightest. > > IMO. > > Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Jason, When I read Bensky and then compare what I've read to Bensky's Chinese language sources, I seems to me that I am missing a very important level of technical precision. This is not because of Bensky's term choices so much as the fact that many important terms are simply missing. Bensky is understandable but does not accurately convey the technical precision of the Chinese. In my experience, this precision is clinically useful and desirable. > Finally I think it is well known that the Chinese terms in Chinese > are not obscure words, but common words of the common man Yes, but the common Chinese person does not understand these words as they are used technically within professional Chinese medicine. This meaning and application of these common terms still has to be taught and then learned. One of the ways Chinese medical students in China learn to " speak " the lingo of Chinese medicine is to write up case histories in a certain format and to work as their mentors' scribes in clinic. If one reads the Chinese journal literature, you can come across many instances of younger practitioners using the technical terminology poorly and inaccurately. I will say this yet one more time. When it comes to the practice of specifically tui na and acupuncture, I'm ok with the current level of students. However, when it comes to the practice of internal medicine, I'd also be more than ok with half the current students being expelled as well as half the current teachers fired. One of our big problems is the conflation of these two modalities into a signle profession. The intelligence and education to do acupuncture safely and successfully is, IMO, quite different from that necessary to do internal medicine safely and effectively. I don't think we will ever solve our main academic problems as long as we continue trying to teach these two allied but different modalities to a single group of students in a single curriculum. Nor is this what is done in China. For example, yesterday I received a book proposal from a Chinese doctor from Tianjin. They had only studied acupuncture and tui na in China. It was only after they came to the U.S. that they studied Chiense herbal medicine as a response to what we do here SOP. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 , " Bob Flaws " wrote: > When I read Bensky and then compare what I've read to Bensky's Chinese language sources, I seems to me that I am missing a very important level of technical precision. This is not because of Bensky's term choices so much as the fact that many important terms are simply missing. Bensky is understandable but does not accurately convey the technical precision of the Chinese. In my experience, this precision is clinically useful and desirable. >>> Bob: Please give some concrete examples. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2003 Report Share Posted November 14, 2003 Jason, I hardly think Wiseman 'is for the elite'. No one before Nigel produced a tool where students could actually understand and access the terminology of Chinese medicine. No translator ever produced a gloss of their terms, or explained decisions such as capitalizing the names of the wu zang (Liver, Spleen, etc.), but not body parts like nose, mouth or eyes. During the Unschuld workshop, we examined earlier attempts at translating the Su Wen, and came up with such term choices in one translation as " liver rheumatism " for gan bi (liver impediment). I've been using the dictionary in classes now for almost five years, and haven't had anyone complain in the last few. In fact, students tell me all the time how much easier it is to understand the material with this tool, even if a small number of terms such as 'glomus' are unwieldy at times (we joke about that term a lot). I can't really complain about the Eastland Press books, they've done a pretty good job, I think, but I still need to use the Wiseman dictionary to explain terminology in those texts. It would be nice for them to publish glosses, so we could compare term choices. It would be fun and interesting. Although I've reevaluated the Chen text somewhat (more positively) based on seeing the actual text and discussions with Bob Felt, I don't see the body of the text as 'stepping out of the Wiseman box'. In my opinion, the terminological choices in the text are confusing, and a step backwards in terms of accurately conveying the original Chinese concepts. You see, what many people still don't realize is that before the Wiseman dictionary, and such texts as Wiseman/Ellis/Boss's " Fundamentals of " , no translator or text bit the bullet and explained term choices so that students and practitioners could understand clearly what the translator/author's intentions were. The profession, whether native English-speaking or native-Chinese, were left to use an imprecise, muddled, and poorly defined language in a majority of English language publications. On Nov 13, 2003, at 2:26 PM, wrote: > Bob ( & others) > How can you argue with what you say... Wiseman is for the elite... > You must be well educated and have the patience to put up with words > such as depurative and vacuity, as technical as they may be...I > personally have no problem with it because I have spent hours with > the dictionary and another dictionary to make sense of the words in > the dictionary. I am finally comfortable. But what about the > average acu student. This type of elitism is only shutting people > out... I do say we need to raise the bar in our education, but I am > not sure if the average student is ready for it. I would rather > raise the bar in conceptual ideas. This is why Bensky's books is so > great… They explain things so people understand them, is this wrong? > Finally I think it is well known that the Chinese terms in Chinese > are not obscure words, but common words of the common man, which > makes things different than the western medical analogy. I am not > saying don't use wiseman, but this started when numerous people poo > pooed Chen for his attempt to step out of the wiseman-box. > > - > > , " Bob Flaws " > <pemachophel2001> wrote: >>> Furthermore, we need to ask the question, 'user-friendly' for > whom? >> >> Excellent question. After 10 years of working with Wiseman's > terminology, I personally find comfort with it is directly > proportional to >> two things: >> >> 1. The reader's/listener's knowledge of the English language >> >> In my experience as a teacher and writer, the higher the knowledge/ > skill/ fluency in English, the less problems Nigel-speak presents. >> English comes from three sources, German, French, and Latin. If one > is familiar with those three sources, then adds a little Greek >> (since this is medicine after all), and is comfortable with words > with more than one syllable, then there should be little/less problem >> with this terminology. Part of the problem is that the schools hire > teachers who are not very literate in English (whether native or >> foreign born) and enroll students whose English is often not any > better. >> >> 2. The reader's/listener's knowledge of Chinese >> >> Given a higher than average knowledge/fluency in English, if one is > able to read Chinese, one sees the dead-on quality of most of >> Nigel's term choices, e.g., quicken for huo, network vessels for > luo, impediment for bi, and limp for ruan. But, in order to > understand >> Nigel's choice of quicken, one has to be familiar with Shakespeare > and the King James Bible, while to grok his choice of impediment, >> one probably had to read Ceasar's Gallic Wars in Latin. Even a less > felicitous term, such as glomus, is, I think, brilliant. It is > related to >> the same Latin root as the colloquial word " glom, " as in to glom up. >> >> What I'm getting at is that Nigel-speak is not sixth grade English > (what popular magazines consider the common denominator). It >> makes full use of the power, complexity, and subtlety of the > wonderfully unique English language. English has more words than any >> other language in the world. To master English is no easy feat. > Yet, it is my experience that a truly Master's level of education >> provided in English requires Master's level English. One of our > problems has been that, all too often, our education has been >> conducted in second and third grade English. >> >> It is my experience as a teacher that students with better > education and higher intelligence have less problems with Wiseman's >> terminology, while students with less education and slower CPUs > have more problems with Wiseman's terminology. However, that >> same second class of listeners, including not a few teachers at > ACOM schools, have just as much problem when I use English >> medical and scientific terminology. As a profession, we really do > need to decide what level of intelligence and education are >> necessary to enter this profession. Unfortunately, some of the > people making those decisions are themselves not the best and the >> brightest. >> >> IMO. >> >> Bob > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2003 Report Share Posted November 14, 2003 Jim, Ok. Take Radix Bupleuri (Chai Hu). For functions, B & G has: 1. Resolves lesser yang disorders and reduces fevers 2. Spreads liver qi and relieves constraint 3. Raises the yang qi Using Wiseman's terminology, what I get (in 260 Essential Chinese Medicinals) is: 1. Out-thrusts the exterior and recedes or abates heat 2. Courses the liver and resolves depression 3. Upbears and lifts the yang qi In terms of the first function, the Nei Jing says, " For depression, out-thrust. " Out-thrusting as a treatment principles means to upbear and out-thrust the yang qi, thus thrusting depressed evils outward from the body. Knowing this, A) we can use Chai Hu for more than just half-externally, half-internally located evils. Knowing this, B) we also know that evils in a shao yang disease are depressed. Further, B & G use the term " fever. " However, this can be very misleading. What about a person with a subnormal body temperature as measured by a thermometer but who manifests symptoms of heat externally? Thye do not have a fever, but they do have externally manifesting heat. In terms of the second function, resolving depression uses the term " depression " as opposed to constraint. Knowing this, we can relate Chai Hu's use not only to liver depression (gan yu) but to Zhu Dan-xi's six depressions (liu yu) and his statement, " Hundreds of diseases are caused by depression. " In other words, depression is a generic term and does not always refer to only liver depression. Further, by using the verb " relieve " under function one and " resolve " under function two, B & G obscurs the fact that both of these are the same verb in Chinese, jie, to resolve. This verb ties these two functions together logically. They are not two separate functions but only different faces of a common function. We " resolve " the exterior and we " resolve " depression. This carries over to the third listed function as well. If we substitute the word " raises " for " upbears, " then we lose the implication of the qi mechanism which upbears and downbears, exits (or floats) and enters (or sinks). Once we know the word " upbear, " we know that Chai Hu not only lifts and raises fallen central qi, but also resolves and disinhibits the qi mechanism as a whole. By promoting upbearing, we automatically promote downbearing. By out-thrusting, we also automatically facilitate sinking or entering, although this is rarely something we actually need to do in clinical practice. The point here being that Chai Hu regulates the qi mechanism as a whole and does not just raise sunken spleen qi. I could do this in many more cases, but, frankly, don't have the time. This is exactly why I created 260 Essential Chinese Medicinals, to provide a cheap, no very heavy, alternative reference which makes these kinds of clinically important technicalities more obvious and apparent for those who would like to take their practice to the next level. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2003 Report Share Posted November 16, 2003 I just sow Chins book, thing its great alon 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.