Open Translation Standard; was standards project

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> Let's not just blame the dictionary outright. >>>

 

 

Z'ev:

 

There is a lot of weight in the postmodernist notion that we only

know what the text says; not necessarily what the author meant.

Every translation---even every reading---is also a kind of dialog

with the original author.

 

Do you know that the changes between Wiseman's two versions would

have made a difference, for a fact or are just excusing the

dictionary? How much real difference did the pre-publication version

have from the final version, in the Qin-bo Wei matter? The tacit

assumption that Wiseman will work all the time for everyone hasn't---

perhaps cannot---be demonstrated. Wiseman might be best suited to

the first few years of basic teaching when more consensus can be

established. Even if that is the case, it can be a life preserver to

our profession. So far the arguments for it's " preciseness " on this

forum haven't really suggest more, and only presume the rest.

 

The best circumstance in which to consider a translation is for the

reader to see the Chinese characters in context along with the

translation---we should call this the " Open Translation Standard " .

For example, I found several minor errors and omissions in the BP

translation of Book 10 in the Mai Jing. One of them was trivial (a

misread charcter), but another issue hindges on (what I suspect is

the fact) that those involved in that translation do not actually

use the Mai Jing pulse method in Book 10. My only reason for

translating and commenting on it is because I do use this method---

but I'm not a translator, per se. This latter point reminds me of

the issue from the Chimed group of some wanting to keep academics

and practitioners separate.

 

In any case, once Doug talks to the practitioners who know the

written material well and who studied with Qin-bo Wei students, the

matter should become clear and resolved. I would trust their close

association and knowledge since many details and subtlties don't get

into print.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Good questions, Jim.

 

I did get to view early glosses of the Wiseman dictionary, and they

were far from complete at that time. Also, it is one thing to have a

dictionary, it is another thing to be able to use it effectively. New

tools take time to use.

 

There are other factors in translating Chinese medical works, including

time, the translator's understanding and comprehension, and original

versions used. There are apparently different versions of Qin Bowei's

work available. Remember, the English text is an anthology, a

collection of lecture notes and writings, not an original textbook.

Another example of Qin Bowei's work in English, with the Chinese

characters and pinyin, is available as the body of text used in Paul

Unschuld's " Learn to Read Chinese. " You might find it interesting to

compare the two English works.

 

As any professional translator will tell you, (Marnae Ergil for one),

and I don't consider myself to be at that level of expertise by a long

shot, translating classical works is far more difficult than modern

Chinese works. A lot more tools and resources, and specialized

glossaries and dictionaries, become necessary. I have a few of these,

but because my Chinese is still very limited, my use of them is also.

 

As far as your work in the Mai Jing goes, in my opinion, the Mai Jing

is in the same category Chinese texts as the Su Wen. In other words,

it is a Han dynasty classic, with specific use of classical Chinese

language, and concepts that are often obscured in translation without

specific explanation. As I mentioned earlier, Paul Unschuld has

developed a glossary for the Su Wen, for terms which largely do not

appear in the Wiseman dictionary, and many terms which don't even

appear in modern Chinese texts. This doesn't detract from the

importance of the Clinical Dictionary, it simply means we need more

specialized tools for the subject.

 

I have a Chinese version of the Mai Jing, and would be very interested

in what you've discovered in chapter 10. And I agree, that as a

practitioner of this pulse method, that your perspective on this will

be very valuable.

 

I am hoping that my own perspective on Nan Jing pulse diagnosis will be

useful to others, although I recognize its limitations in advance.

 

 

 

 

On Nov 30, 2003, at 12:08 PM, James Ramholz wrote:

 

> , " " wrote:

>> Let's not just blame the dictionary outright. >>>

>

>

> Z'ev:

>

> There is a lot of weight in the postmodernist notion that we only

> know what the text says; not necessarily what the author meant.

> Every translation---even every reading---is also a kind of dialog

> with the original author.

>

> Do you know that the changes between Wiseman's two versions would

> have made a difference, for a fact or are just excusing the

> dictionary? How much real difference did the pre-publication version

> have from the final version, in the Qin-bo Wei matter? The tacit

> assumption that Wiseman will work all the time for everyone hasn't---

> perhaps cannot---be demonstrated. Wiseman might be best suited to

> the first few years of basic teaching when more consensus can be

> established. Even if that is the case, it can be a life preserver to

> our profession. So far the arguments for it's " preciseness " on this

> forum haven't really suggest more, and only presume the rest.

>

> The best circumstance in which to consider a translation is for the

> reader to see the Chinese characters in context along with the

> translation---we should call this the " Open Translation Standard " .

> For example, I found several minor errors and omissions in the BP

> translation of Book 10 in the Mai Jing. One of them was trivial (a

> misread charcter), but another issue hindges on (what I suspect is

> the fact) that those involved in that translation do not actually

> use the Mai Jing pulse method in Book 10. My only reason for

> translating and commenting on it is because I do use this method---

> but I'm not a translator, per se. This latter point reminds me of

> the issue from the Chimed group of some wanting to keep academics

> and practitioners separate.

>

> In any case, once Doug talks to the practitioners who know the

> written material well and who studied with Qin-bo Wei students, the

> matter should become clear and resolved. I would trust their close

> association and knowledge since many details and subtlties don't get

> into print.

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Wiseman might be best suited to

the first few years of basic teaching when more consensus can be

established. Even if that is the case, it can be a life preserver to

our profession. So far the arguments for it's " preciseness " on this

forum haven't really suggest more, and only presume the rest.

 

>>>>>I actually think that his work is best used as a text for the study of

Chinese terms and not for translation of texts. Because when one uses a standard

one is not allowed to convey the spirit of meaning if it one believes it is

different than the defined terms. His book should be used as a basic first year

survey of terms in CM

Alon