Establisment of a TCM_Terminology Discussion List?

[Guest guest]

Hi Godfrey, Peter (Deadman), Bob, & All,

 

Re: TCM Terminology and why we MUST retain the Pinyin (if not

the Hanzi) Terms.

 

I am crossposting this to other TCM/CHM/AP lists because, IMO,

this issue deserves widespread international debate.

 

Godfrey advised us to read Peter Deadman's review of the PDCM

by Wiseman & Feng [

http://www.jcm.co.uk/BookReviews/bookrevs69.phtml ].

 

Z'ev responded by referring us to an in-depth rebuttal by Bob Felt of

Peter's review:

http://www.paradigm-pubs.com/paradigm/refs/Felt/JCM.htm

 

If YOU have not read BOTH of those articles, I urge you to do so

ASAP.

 

Peter's review is thought-provoking. It acknowledges the

monumental work and scholarship of Wiseman & Feng, and that

they have done a great service to western understanding of TCM.

 

However, it also highlights the difficulty of having ANY ONE

" Standardised Term " for a specific TCM concept, as written in

Pinyin/Hanzi script.

 

However, Bob's rebuttal convinces me that we NEED Wiseman's

PDCM, not only because it is the most comprehensive compilation

of terms in Hanzi, Pinyin AND English, but ALSO because it has a

comprehensive index, and explanation of the uses and clinical

implications of the terms.

 

Where do we go now? There is no easy way around the impasse.

IF the Wiseman & Feng English Term (WFET) becomes the " Gold

Standard " for TCM terms in English, the many nuances inherent in

the original Pinyin/Hanzi terms will be lost to those who know only

WFET.

 

Many of us believe that we need a comprehensive and user-friendly

glossary, in which the WFET could be the backbone, but

terminology and definitions by other authors could be stitched in.

 

IMO, the way to go is to establish a DIGITAL DATABASE that

incorporates all the common TCM terms used in the main English

Language texts, but indexes them (and their implications) back to

the Pinyin and Hanzi terms.

 

I have searched Google to see if there is any email discussion list

specifically to discuss TCM terminology. I have failed to find one. Is

there such a list? If not, would those interested wish to establish

one?

 

A TCM_Terminology List would allow all thise interested to debate

the issues raised by Godfrey and Bob, and (if there are enough

TCM teachers & scholars on board), maybe even to begin to

construct excel spead sheets that list the main terms.

 

Any takers? Any volunteeers to be the ListMaster of a

TCM_Terminology List? [i cannot undertake this for many reasons,

but I would be interested to join that list).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Godfrey wrote:

> I agree Tym - much better to use the pinyin for all the basic

> terms ...

 

as

Phil R. suggests. This month's European Journal of Oriental

Medicine

has an interesting article called " Language Referencing in the

Teaching of " by Frances Turner. For an MPhil

she

conducted interviews with 20 teachers, practitioners and authors of

Chinese Med. The consensus was that the standardisation of

translation

can stifle diversity and lead to rigidity and misunderstanding: " Most

respondents did not see a problem with differing translations as long

as the connection to the Chinese terminology remained in place,

and

felt that we benefit from the richness of diverse approaches " .

 

The problem with Wiseman's Dictionary is that the terms he uses

mangle

the English language. Peter Deadman's review of the book

discusses

this in detail: http://www.jcm.co.uk/BookReviews/bookrevs69.phtml

 

The rather fervent support for the book seen in some American

quarters

is a manifestation of a politico-ideological power struggle in my

view. As Turner's article says: " However there are problems with

standardisation, both politically and academically. The political and

economic implications of adopting any one particular English

translation system create heated debate on this subject, since

standardisation is a way of investing power in the authority which

cannot be made by any one person or group but must be set with

reference to all the texts and all the branches of the profession. "

 

Major English speaking OM authorities on both sides of the Atlantic

were left out of the discussion before publication.

 

Godfrey Bartlett

(England)

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

 

Best regards,

 

Email: <

 

WORK : Teagasc Research Management, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

 

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

 

Chinese Proverb: " Man who says it can't be done, should not interrupt man doing

it "