Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 , " " <@e...> wrote: > > 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. what exactly would the topics be? As usual, the detractors of Wiseman fail to understand the Council of Oriental Medical Publishers (COMP) guidelines that uses Wiseman's glossary as its de facto standard. Wiseman's complete glossary contains about 30,000 entries. I believe the PD has about 6000 of the most clinically relevant. No other chinese english medical dictionary written by a native english speaker has a fraction of this. It is already fully digitized and ready to go. For years the detractors have made such collegial statements as " > The problem with Wiseman's Dictionary is that the terms he uses > mangle > the English language. However COMP has really been given no other choice when no other party has produced a comparable glossary sufficient to provide terms necessary to translate all the CM literature. Despite this, the COMP standard has always remained a flexible one. Any author is free to deviate from Wiseman's terminology as long as the first instance is noted and the alternate term is keyed to the original chinese. The purpose and method has always been what is stated below by a Wiseman detractor. " Most > respondents did not see a problem with differing translations as long > as the connection to the Chinese terminology remained in place, " Then we all agree. The reason Wiseman is the default standard is because no other exists. Wiseman is the only terminology that provides a simple method to identify the source character. If another comprehensive glossary existed, there would be a debate to be had. But for the few hundred terms glossed by Chen or Bensky or Maciocia, anyone is already free to use those instead in a COMP publication as long as they are clearly pegged to a source character. As for the thousands of other terms one might encounter less frequently, one can do as they please at that time as well. But unless you are willing to spend your life glossing the entire TCM medical corpus, wiseman will be the default. I also think people continue to confuse translation with commentary. Translation must be faithful to the original. This so-called debate we are having would be considered laughable in any other field outside our own. Of course terms must be targeted to the source on a one to one basis. That way you always can identify the source character. Isn't that the goal? If you know what character a term refers to and you know the definition of that character in TCM, you have all the information you need. I would rather be at the mercy of Wiseman's PD, which is based upon the analysis of these terms in hundreds of chinese medical dictionaries spanning centuries than at the mercy of what whimsical thought is in the head of anyone who happens to be able to read chinese. If they have something to say other than the consensus of the ages, then say it and make it clear you are interjecting your opinion into the corpus. As for pinyin, the utility only goes so far. Numerous pinyin terms of the SAME tone refer to different characters. To suggest this as a solution reveals the true debate. Which is whether medical chinese is a vast technical terminology or a merely a few hundred key terms, the rest of which can be understood in layperson's terms. The latter position gives the authors the license to write connotatively on any subject, substituting precision in translation for personal authority. Instead of being able to trace every term yourself, you are asked to just accept the author's explanation and not ask what term was being translated in the first place. Anything but a one for one term translation is something other translation, IMO. I would say most of what people are saying is lost in Wisemanese is actually COMMENTARY and DEFINITION. Perhaps technical medical terms should not be clear at first glance. Perhaps they should demand that students seek both of the above before assuming understanding based upon layperson connotation. That is what so-called free translation accomplishes, that and nothing more. Perhaps what some think is lost in wisemanese was just never there to begin with and the diverse translations out there are actually the imposition of preconception and western thought on TCM. Nothing about precise translation should stifle explanation. But the corrollary question will be raised. Is there something about your translation that reveals some nuance not revealed in Wiseman's definition (and I meant definition - the term itself is really meaningless unless you learn the definition and if you know the definition then ubby dubby or pig latin will do just fine)? If so, where did these nuances come from? > Major English speaking OM authorities on both sides of the Atlantic > were left out of the discussion before publication. I don't know how the process went way back when, but it is the fatal flaw that all vested parties did not work on this together instead of having it " imposed " by someone perceived as an outsider. I suspect that all were invited to the table and very few attended. I know one of Phil's main interest is computerized searchable databases. We don't really need to spend any more time debating this matter. We can just use Wiseman and anyone who wants to deviate on terms can easily insert the terms of their choice into the database, keeping it all pegged to the chinese. I suppose what folks really want to do is translate the same chinese character with different english terms depending on context. so they don't even want their own internal standard. Not just a rejection of Wiseman, but a rejection of standards altogether. None of this is to say that the non-standardized genre cannot exist side by side and or that it should not. It is like translating poetry and I really think this metaphor is the crux of the issue. One can imagine a reason to have both a direct targeted translation for technical accuracy and freer one to capture the essence, so to speak. Perhaps this is what the rendering of CM demands. Perhaps in order to convey CM in english, one type of translation is not enough. Perhaps the chinese language contains in one character both the technical precision and poetic imagery that demands two different modes of speech in english. I certainly accept the significance of the poetic imagery of the CM literature, such as it is. Others may be drawn more to this, but we both need to accept that both aspects exist. There is technical precision and a vast language that goes with it. There is also an imagery that is not conveyed well by such a vocabulary. Imagery is often best served served by a well chosen word in a certain context rather than an abstract term and a run to the glossary to define it. Those who are slaves to the rigid precision of language become bound by it. But those who are guided solely by perceived images in the absence of real study often do things that make their chinese teachers cringe. There is some middle ground here. Chinese Herbs (619) 668-6964 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Todd has made a number of insightful comments on this subject, which are issues that he can clearly perceive even without personally undertaking extensive language study. The crux of the issue lies not in making terminology that is feel- good, easy English reading. The main issue is that students who are undertaking Chinese study require a way to make sense of the texts they are approaching. As a student of Chinese, the first thing one notices when reading Chinese medical literature is that the pages are completely full of words that make no sense when you punch them into a common dictionary. You ask your Chinese friends and they can read the words, but they don't understand the meaning themselves in this context, and certainly cannot explain it. The reason is that the vocabulary is technical, specialized for a particular field, with many words taken directly from archaic writing styles. When you realize that there are more than 6000 of these terms, it occurs to you that you are going to have to either a) research each term individually, via classical dictionaries and conversations for endless hours with doctors with nothing but free time on their hands to tutor you, or b) you are going to gravitate towards the use of a specialized dictionary. Every other specialized field has a dictionary. Having a generally one-to-one match of English to Chinese allows database searching of terms, which is the translator's best friend. Now that such vast databases are in use, no translator can turn them down. A simple term list is not sufficient unless it has definitions that explain the terms. Nigel's PD is the only source that provides extensive definitions. The English language does not have extreme flexibility to borrow terms endlessly from other languages. Japanese is able to borrow words fairly easily, whereas French discourages the borrowing of words more vigorously than English does. Borrowing endless amounts of pinyin words is a mess. Few people accent their pinyin, and even if they did, Todd's point is valid: many different Chinese words have the exact same sound and intonation. Thus, translators use terms in English, which are more clearly differentiated than hundreds of words borrowed and expressed in pinyin. So many Chinese words are present in technical parlance that the range of English words is equally wide. There is a place for vernacular speech on many issues, particularly when speaking with those outside of the field. Having a standard terminology for professional discourse allows written material to be transparent, traceable, accountable. Essentially, it cuts out the middleman. Many people cannot devote years of their life to the study of Chinese for a variety of reasons, yet they deserve access to a wide range of primary literature that is as valid and authentic as the original, not loose interpretations subjected to the bias of a translator. Much of the information in the English literature is simplified, watered down. Nobody cares what language you use when you talk to Western doctors or your patients. The debate concerns professional discourse within our field. Using Wiseman terminology is akin to the use of a scientific form of writing in Western medicine. A doctor speaks about a common cold when talking to a patient or chatting with his colleagues, but he switches to the term coryza virus the moment he starts typing his research proposal. Everyone who writes books on TCM from primary sources has to study Chinese. Every student uses Nigel's dictionary because it is the only one that is so complete. There is no other option if you want to read Chinese medical literature in its authentic state. Other dictionaries exist, but they are very simplified and are written with Western medical terminology instead of the traditional metaphors that preserve the theory and worldview of the time they were written. As a translator, you cannot approach ancient literature with a dictionary that translates something as acute conjunctivitis. They had no concept of a conjunctiva in the Han dynasty. Therefore, Nigel's dictionary remains the only one that can be used to access the entire body of Chinese literature. As Todd pointed out, the databases that translators use are already digital. Everyone who reads Chinese looks up words all the time. We all use computers, and the idea that aspiring translators will turn down the use of a developed terminology that has 30,000 terms in a searchable database is ludicrous. It is like deciding that you are going to walk from San Diego to Los Angeles because you are too stubborn to drive. It is far easier for English readers to stretch their vocabulary by a few dozen words and peg special nuances to their use than it is for all the translators to reinvent the wheel just because some people don't like using polysyllabic English words. Can you imagine the Western medical world demanding that all terms be as simple and flexible as possible? Eric Brand , wrote: > , " " > <@e...> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > what exactly would the topics be? As usual, the detractors of Wiseman > fail to understand the > Council of Oriental Medical Publishers (COMP) guidelines that uses > Wiseman's glossary as > its de facto standard. Wiseman's complete glossary contains about > 30,000 entries. I > believe the PD has about 6000 of the most clinically relevant. No > other chinese english > medical dictionary written by a native english speaker has a fraction > of this. It is already > fully digitized and ready to go. For years the detractors have made > such collegial > statements as > > " > The problem with Wiseman's Dictionary is that the terms he uses > > mangle > > the English language. > > > However COMP has really been given no other choice when no other party > has produced a > comparable glossary sufficient to provide terms necessary to translate > all the CM > literature. Despite this, the COMP standard has always remained a > flexible one. Any > author is free to deviate from Wiseman's terminology as long as the > first instance is noted > and the alternate term is keyed to the original chinese. The purpose > and method has > always been what is stated below by a Wiseman detractor. > > > " Most > > respondents did not see a problem with differing translations as long > > as the connection to the Chinese terminology remained in place, " > > Then we all agree. The reason Wiseman is the default standard is > because no other exists. > Wiseman is the only terminology that provides a simple method to > identify the source > character. If another comprehensive glossary existed, there would be a > debate to be had. > But for the few hundred terms glossed by Chen or Bensky or Maciocia, > anyone is already > free to use those instead in a COMP publication as long as they are > clearly pegged to a > source character. As for the thousands of other terms one might > encounter less > frequently, one can do as they please at that time as well. But unless > you are willing to > spend your life glossing the entire TCM medical corpus, wiseman will be > the default. > > I also think people continue to confuse translation with commentary. > Translation must be > faithful to the original. This so-called debate we are having would be > considered > laughable in any other field outside our own. Of course terms must be > targeted to the > source on a one to one basis. That way you always can identify the > source character. Isn't > that the goal? If you know what character a term refers to and you > know the definition of > that character in TCM, you have all the information you need. I would > rather be at the > mercy of Wiseman's PD, which is based upon the analysis of these terms > in hundreds of > chinese medical dictionaries spanning centuries than at the mercy of > what whimsical > thought is in the head of anyone who happens to be able to read > chinese. If they have > something to say other than the consensus of the ages, then say it and > make it clear you > are interjecting your opinion into the corpus. > > As for pinyin, the utility only goes so far. Numerous pinyin terms of > the SAME tone refer > to different characters. To suggest this as a solution reveals the > true debate. Which is > whether medical chinese is a vast technical terminology or a merely a > few hundred key > terms, the rest of which can be understood in layperson's terms. The > latter position gives > the authors the license to write connotatively on any subject, > substituting precision in > translation for personal authority. Instead of being able to trace > every term yourself, you > are asked to just accept the author's explanation and not ask what term > was being > translated in the first place. Anything but a one for one term > translation is something > other translation, IMO. > > I would say most of what people are saying is lost in Wisemanese is > actually COMMENTARY > and DEFINITION. Perhaps technical medical terms should not be clear at > first glance. > Perhaps they should demand that students seek both of the above before > assuming > understanding based upon layperson connotation. That is what so- called > free translation > accomplishes, that and nothing more. Perhaps what some think is lost > in wisemanese was > just never there to begin with and the diverse translations out there > are actually the > imposition of preconception and western thought on TCM. Nothing about > precise > translation should stifle explanation. But the corrollary question > will be raised. Is there > something about your translation that reveals some nuance not revealed > in Wiseman's > definition (and I meant definition - the term itself is really > meaningless unless you learn > the definition and if you know the definition then ubby dubby or pig > latin will do just fine)? > If so, where did these nuances come from? > > > > Major English speaking OM authorities on both sides of the Atlantic > > were left out of the discussion before publication. > > > I don't know how the process went way back when, but it is the fatal > flaw that all vested > parties did not work on this together instead of having it " imposed " by > someone perceived > as an outsider. I suspect that all were invited to the table and very > few attended. I know > one of Phil's main interest is computerized searchable databases. We > don't really need to > spend any more time debating this matter. We can just use Wiseman and > anyone who > wants to deviate on terms can easily insert the terms of their choice > into the database, > keeping it all pegged to the chinese. I suppose what folks really want > to do is translate > the same chinese character with different english terms depending on > context. so they > don't even want their own internal standard. Not just a rejection of > Wiseman, but a > rejection of standards altogether. > > None of this is to say that the non-standardized genre cannot exist > side by side and or > that it should not. It is like translating poetry and I really think > this metaphor is the crux > of the issue. One can imagine a reason to have both a direct targeted > translation for > technical accuracy and freer one to capture the essence, so to speak. > Perhaps this is what > the rendering of CM demands. Perhaps in order to convey CM in english, > one type of > translation is not enough. Perhaps the chinese language contains in > one character both > the technical precision and poetic imagery that demands two different > modes of speech in > english. > > I certainly accept the significance of the poetic imagery of the CM > literature, such as it is. > Others may be drawn more to this, but we both need to accept that both > aspects exist. > There is technical precision and a vast language that goes with it. > There is also an > imagery that is not conveyed well by such a vocabulary. Imagery is > often best served > served by a well chosen word in a certain context rather than an > abstract term and a run to > the glossary to define it. Those who are slaves to the rigid precision > of language become > bound by it. But those who are guided solely by perceived images in > the absence of real > study often do things that make their chinese teachers cringe. There > is some middle > ground here. > > > > Chinese Herbs > > > > > (619) 668-6964 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 " I suspect that all were invited to the table and very few attended. " This is absolutely correct. No one was ever shut out of this process. Besides, this is an on-going process and always has been. Anyone at any time can be a part of this process if they like. Anyone can argue for different term choices. Since its inception, there has been continuous evolution and change in the " Wiseman " term set based on others' in-put and suggestions. Bottom line (IMO) is that resistance to play a constructive role in this term selection and standardization process is based on A) fear and B) concern for personal financial gain. Fear means fear of not knowing either Chinese or English well enough or of not knowing Chinese medicine well enough to successfully state and defend one's case in an open and public forum. Concern for personal finances means concern over one's teaching salary or publishing income. Teachers commonly object to " Wiseman's " terminology because its adoption would highlight their own ignorance of English, Chinese, and/or Chinese medicine. The use of " Wiseman's terminology shows all too clearly which emperors have no clothes. As for " Wiseman's " terminology " mangling " the English language, I am routinely told all over North America and Europe that I am the clearest teacher of Chinese medicine my listeners have ever heard, and I always use Nigel-speak whenever I teach. Typically also, native Chinese speaking listeners tell me that I teach Chinese medicine the way that they themselves understand it, unlike other Western teachers they have encountered. In my experience, the issue is proficiency in English, not some flaw in " Wiseman's " terminology. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > resistance to play a constructive role in > this term selection and standardization process is based on A) fear > and B) concern for personal financial gain. I hope I'm not diving in over my head, but here goes ... In my pre-TCM life I was a professional writer, editor, and occasional translator (not Chinese). I've also done a lot of reading into the theory of translation. I can't say with certainty that this is the case here, but there may be a third issue at play. That is, translators fear of a loss of creative freedom. Many translators like to pick their own language as a way of conveying their reading of the source text. I personally think a standard glossary is necessary for any technical field, but the tradeoff is it does not allow for as much individual choice as some writers might want. Just thought I'd add that to the conversation. Best, Sarah Rivkin Student, Graduate Program in Oriental Medicine Touro College New York, NY saydit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Eric & others, I have heard that there is a medical dictionary (in Chinese) available in Digital form... Does anyone have this or know where to get this? - > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > Tuesday, October 05, 2004 6:34 AM > > Re: terminology list > > > has made a number of insightful comments on this subject, which > are issues that he can clearly perceive even without personally > undertaking extensive language study. > > The crux of the issue lies not in making terminology that is feel- > good, easy English reading. The main issue is that students who are > undertaking Chinese study require a way to make sense of the texts > they are approaching. > > As a student of Chinese, the first thing one notices when reading > Chinese medical literature is that the pages are completely full of > words that make no sense when you punch them into a common > dictionary. You ask your Chinese friends and they can read the > words, but they don't understand the meaning themselves in this > context, and certainly cannot explain it. The reason is that the > vocabulary is technical, specialized for a particular field, with > many words taken directly from archaic writing styles. When you > realize that there are more than 6000 of these terms, it occurs to > you that you are going to have to either a) research each term > individually, via classical dictionaries and conversations for > endless hours with doctors with nothing but free time on their hands > to tutor you, or b) you are going to gravitate towards the use of a > specialized dictionary. Every other specialized field has a > dictionary. > > Having a generally one-to-one match of English to Chinese allows > database searching of terms, which is the translator's best friend. > Now that such vast databases are in use, no translator can turn them > down. A simple term list is not sufficient unless it has definitions > that explain the terms. Nigel's PD is the only source that provides > extensive definitions. > > The English language does not have extreme flexibility to borrow > terms endlessly from other languages. Japanese is able to borrow > words fairly easily, whereas French discourages the borrowing of > words more vigorously than English does. Borrowing endless amounts > of pinyin words is a mess. Few people accent their pinyin, and even > if they did, Todd's point is valid: many different Chinese words > have the exact same sound and intonation. Thus, translators use > terms in English, which are more clearly differentiated than > hundreds of words borrowed and expressed in pinyin. So many Chinese > words are present in technical parlance that the range of English > words is equally wide. > > There is a place for vernacular speech on many issues, particularly > when speaking with those outside of the field. Having a standard > terminology for professional discourse allows written material to be > transparent, traceable, accountable. Essentially, it cuts out the > middleman. Many people cannot devote years of their life to the > study of Chinese for a variety of reasons, yet they deserve access > to a wide range of primary literature that is as valid and authentic > as the original, not loose interpretations subjected to the bias of > a translator. Much of the information in the English literature is > simplified, watered down. > > Nobody cares what language you use when you talk to Western doctors > or your patients. The debate concerns professional discourse within > our field. Using Wiseman terminology is akin to the use of a > scientific form of writing in Western medicine. A doctor speaks > about a common cold when talking to a patient or chatting with his > colleagues, but he switches to the term coryza virus the moment he > starts typing his research proposal. > > Everyone who writes books on TCM from primary sources has to study > Chinese. Every student uses Nigel's dictionary because it is the > only one that is so complete. There is no other option if you want > to read Chinese medical literature in its authentic state. Other > dictionaries exist, but they are very simplified and are written > with Western medical terminology instead of the traditional > metaphors that preserve the theory and worldview of the time they > were written. > > As a translator, you cannot approach ancient literature with a > dictionary that translates something as acute conjunctivitis. They > had no concept of a conjunctiva in the Han dynasty. Therefore, > Nigel's dictionary remains the only one that can be used to access > the entire body of Chinese literature. > > As Todd pointed out, the databases that translators use are already > digital. Everyone who reads Chinese looks up words all the time. > We all use computers, and the idea that aspiring translators will > turn down the use of a developed terminology that has 30,000 terms > in a searchable database is ludicrous. It is like deciding that you > are going to walk from San Diego to Los Angeles because you are too > stubborn to drive. > > It is far easier for English readers to stretch their vocabulary by > a few dozen words and peg special nuances to their use than it is > for all the translators to reinvent the wheel just because some > people don't like using polysyllabic English words. > > Can you imagine the Western medical world demanding that all terms > be as simple and flexible as possible? > > Eric Brand , > wrote: > > , " " > > <@e...> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > what exactly would the topics be? As usual, the detractors of > Wiseman > > fail to understand the > > Council of Oriental Medical Publishers (COMP) guidelines that uses > > Wiseman's glossary as > > its de facto standard. Wiseman's complete glossary contains about > > 30,000 entries. I > > believe the PD has about 6000 of the most clinically relevant. No > > other chinese english > > medical dictionary written by a native english speaker has a > fraction > > of this. It is already > > fully digitized and ready to go. For years the detractors have > made > > such collegial > > statements as > > > > " > The problem with Wiseman's Dictionary is that the terms he uses > > > mangle > > > the English language. > > > > > > However COMP has really been given no other choice when no other > party > > has produced a > > comparable glossary sufficient to provide terms necessary to > translate > > all the CM > > literature. Despite this, the COMP standard has always remained a > > flexible one. Any > > author is free to deviate from Wiseman's terminology as long as > the > > first instance is noted > > and the alternate term is keyed to the original chinese. The > purpose > > and method has > > always been what is stated below by a Wiseman detractor. > > > > > > " Most > > > respondents did not see a problem with differing translations > as long > > > as the connection to the Chinese terminology remained in > place, " > > > > Then we all agree. The reason Wiseman is the default standard is > > because no other exists. > > Wiseman is the only terminology that provides a simple method to > > identify the source > > character. If another comprehensive glossary existed, there would > be a > > debate to be had. > > But for the few hundred terms glossed by Chen or Bensky or > Maciocia, > > anyone is already > > free to use those instead in a COMP publication as long as they > are > > clearly pegged to a > > source character. As for the thousands of other terms one might > > encounter less > > frequently, one can do as they please at that time as well. But > unless > > you are willing to > > spend your life glossing the entire TCM medical corpus, wiseman > will be > > the default. > > > > I also think people continue to confuse translation with > commentary. > > Translation must be > > faithful to the original. This so-called debate we are having > would be > > considered > > laughable in any other field outside our own. Of course terms > must be > > targeted to the > > source on a one to one basis. That way you always can identify > the > > source character. Isn't > > that the goal? If you know what character a term refers to and > you > > know the definition of > > that character in TCM, you have all the information you need. I > would > > rather be at the > > mercy of Wiseman's PD, which is based upon the analysis of these > terms > > in hundreds of > > chinese medical dictionaries spanning centuries than at the mercy > of > > what whimsical > > thought is in the head of anyone who happens to be able to read > > chinese. If they have > > something to say other than the consensus of the ages, then say it > and > > make it clear you > > are interjecting your opinion into the corpus. > > > > As for pinyin, the utility only goes so far. Numerous pinyin > terms of > > the SAME tone refer > > to different characters. To suggest this as a solution reveals > the > > true debate. Which is > > whether medical chinese is a vast technical terminology or a > merely a > > few hundred key > > terms, the rest of which can be understood in layperson's terms. > The > > latter position gives > > the authors the license to write connotatively on any subject, > > substituting precision in > > translation for personal authority. Instead of being able to > trace > > every term yourself, you > > are asked to just accept the author's explanation and not ask what > term > > was being > > translated in the first place. Anything but a one for one term > > translation is something > > other translation, IMO. > > > > I would say most of what people are saying is lost in Wisemanese > is > > actually COMMENTARY > > and DEFINITION. Perhaps technical medical terms should not be > clear at > > first glance. > > Perhaps they should demand that students seek both of the above > before > > assuming > > understanding based upon layperson connotation. That is what so- > called > > free translation > > accomplishes, that and nothing more. Perhaps what some think is > lost > > in wisemanese was > > just never there to begin with and the diverse translations out > there > > are actually the > > imposition of preconception and western thought on TCM. Nothing > about > > precise > > translation should stifle explanation. But the corrollary > question > > will be raised. Is there > > something about your translation that reveals some nuance not > revealed > > in Wiseman's > > definition (and I meant definition - the term itself is really > > meaningless unless you learn > > the definition and if you know the definition then ubby dubby or > pig > > latin will do just fine)? > > If so, where did these nuances come from? > > > > > > > Major English speaking OM authorities on both sides of the > Atlantic > > > were left out of the discussion before publication. > > > > > > I don't know how the process went way back when, but it is the > fatal > > flaw that all vested > > parties did not work on this together instead of having > it " imposed " by > > someone perceived > > as an outsider. I suspect that all were invited to the table and > very > > few attended. I know > > one of Phil's main interest is computerized searchable databases. > We > > don't really need to > > spend any more time debating this matter. We can just use Wiseman > and > > anyone who > > wants to deviate on terms can easily insert the terms of their > choice > > into the database, > > keeping it all pegged to the chinese. I suppose what folks really > want > > to do is translate > > the same chinese character with different english terms depending > on > > context. so they > > don't even want their own internal standard. Not just a rejection > of > > Wiseman, but a > > rejection of standards altogether. > > > > None of this is to say that the non-standardized genre cannot > exist > > side by side and or > > that it should not. It is like translating poetry and I really > think > > this metaphor is the crux > > of the issue. One can imagine a reason to have both a direct > targeted > > translation for > > technical accuracy and freer one to capture the essence, so to > speak. > > Perhaps this is what > > the rendering of CM demands. Perhaps in order to convey CM in > english, > > one type of > > translation is not enough. Perhaps the chinese language contains > in > > one character both > > the technical precision and poetic imagery that demands two > different > > modes of speech in > > english. > > > > I certainly accept the significance of the poetic imagery of the > CM > > literature, such as it is. > > Others may be drawn more to this, but we both need to accept that > both > > aspects exist. > > There is technical precision and a vast language that goes with > it. > > There is also an > > imagery that is not conveyed well by such a vocabulary. Imagery > is > > often best served > > served by a well chosen word in a certain context rather than an > > abstract term and a run to > > the glossary to define it. Those who are slaves to the rigid > precision > > of language become > > bound by it. But those who are guided solely by perceived images > in > > the absence of real > > study often do things that make their chinese teachers cringe. > There > > is some middle > > ground here. > > > > > > > > > Chinese Herbs > > > > > > > > > > (619) 668-6964 > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 , " saydit " <saydit@e...> wrote: > translators fear of a loss of creative freedom. Many translators like to pick their own > language as a way of conveying their reading of the source text. I personally think a > standard glossary is necessary for any technical field, but the tradeoff is it does not allow > for as much individual choice as some writers might want. I think this point is a good one, but I also think that it has already come up in this thread. However, I am note sure people should be getting creative with translation. If they do, then it should be called an interpretation or commentary or something else. If an author says that " 2 + 2 = 4 " (in a different language) and I decide to get creative and translate it as " 2 + 2 = 5 - 1 " , then even though what I am saying might be correct, it is not what the original author said. Brian C. Allen 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.