Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 , ajeffres@a... wrote: [....] " Chinese Medical Herbology and Pharmacology " by John Chen.... Its pretty good, as the new Bensky MM. What is the general opinion of practitioners, teachers, and students about these two texts in comparison with each other? The topic was briefly discussed earlier but it was before the Bensky text was actually released. It seems to me that Chen's book is a good resource for information on the pharmacology and modern applications, whereas Bensky's seems stronger in classical references and historical developments. Both texts seem to be solid reference books that cannot really replace each other, given that they have a different focus when they deviate on the basic information. Unfortunately, on the basic tcm information, both texts still tend to simplify the tcm concepts by not pegging their translations to the source terms. Do people on the list feel that the technical density of TCM is confusing to students and needs to be simplified for practioners in the West? Or do most of us think that technical accuracy is of primary importance and students should be pushed to a higher level of accountability on technical info? I suspect that the books that we gravitate to reflect our varying perceptions of tcm. Some regard tcm to be a highly technical field that requires a great deal of specificity, while others tend to emphasize less complexity but compensate with a good bedside manner with patients and gentle delivery of information to students. Additionally, some people prefer Westernized TCM and others prefer TCM with its metaphors and traditional theory intact. Chinese materia medicas are extremely dense with technical terms. To some degree, this reflects the bluntness in Chinese expression of technical information, and it probably also reflects the fact that Chinese doctors tend to be more focused on technical accuracy than a cozy bedside manner. While I understand that different translators use different methodologies and that people like to have a wide range of freedom of interpretation when they translate, it seems like basic herbal textbooks are one area where there should be a consensus on the technical information. Although the Chinese books themselves are not in complete agreement about everything, they tend to use the same technical terms over and over when describing the actions of meds. Chen's book has a glossary that is slightly under 20 pages, Bensky's is much shorter. I learned herbs by using Bensky's terms in school and felt that they were clear and understandable; however, when I started reading MM and formula books in Chinese I realized that there was a great deal of complexity that was omitted. Thousands of terms are used in materia medica books. The more that students are exposed to the level of complexity that is used in Chinese materials, the easier it becomes to approach advanced materials and to explore opportunities in the wider world beyond the board exams. As English speakers, we are essentially at the mercy of translators, who are in turn at the mercy of our buying habits. It seems that readers are voting with their dollars to have simplified expression of TCM. Does this reflect an actual desire for simplified TCM or are we just used to the status quo and accept simplicity because few alternatives are presented? Eric > > Hi Rick, > The book is > -Anne > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 At 7:51 AM +0000 10/25/04, smilinglotus wrote: >It seems that >readers are voting with their dollars to have simplified expression of >TCM. Does this reflect an actual desire for simplified TCM or are we >just used to the status quo and accept simplicity because few >alternatives are presented? -- I'm not sure you can say that we are voting with our dollars unless we have a real choice. At present, we buy the Bensky because it seems like the best. Is there a materia medica in English that offers a more technical density? Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 > I'm not sure you can say that we are voting with our dollars unless > we have a real choice. At present, we buy the Bensky because it seems > like the best. Is there a materia medica in English that offers a > more technical density? Unfortunately, there isn't. I guess I am assuming that these authors would be presenting a more technically accurate version of a materia medica if they believed that their customers wanted one. Obviously, these books aren't far from the mark in terms of their basic presentation, it is just that they tend to omit some of the specific indications due to their simplified translation technique. When I was a student I wanted a MM in Wiseman terminology, but the fact that these authors have spent years writing huge volumes that totally miss the terminology concept makes me think that I must be in the minority. I really like the addition of many meds beyond the basic ones for testing purposes, as it gives the reader an appreciation for the fact that the Chinese currently use a wider range of meds than we do. It may be unnecessary for students to include less-commonly used meds, but it is nice to have the info available in English for reference purposes. Similarly, it is nice to have expanded classical commentary and pharmacological information. Both books have a nice presentation. Honestly, my only bone to pick with either text is the term issue. We are trying to establish progressively higher standards of Western education to approximate the level that our Chinese colleagues reach in their educational process. Yet we still have our most basic textbooks failing to differentiate the 7 Chinese words that are applied in various circumstances to convey different nuances of supplementation. We still have words like spermatorrhea showing up in our textbooks, which lumps together two major patterns ( " seminal efflux " & " seminal emission " ). These diseases have different clinical significance for treatment and different degrees of severity. Seminal emission itself has two subpatterns of its own, which also represent different degrees of severity (dream emission & emission without dreaming) and involve different organ systems, necessitating different treatment strategies. Lumping four distinct patterns into one term causes new students to have a simplified concept of the TCM disease patterns and pathomechanisms, and gives no guide to how to select medicinals appropriately based on the specific disease. An English dictionary definition of spermatorrhea offers nothing close to the nuances of the Chinese terms. This concept has become so vague and distorted that some students and teachers think spermatorrhea refers to masturbation! I think students should be exposed to the technical complexity of TCM from the beginning, as opposed to starting with simplified information and having to learn that it is more complicated in their advanced classes. Eric , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@o...> wrote: > At 7:51 AM +0000 10/25/04, smilinglotus wrote: > >It seems that > >readers are voting with their dollars to have simplified expression of > >TCM. Does this reflect an actual desire for simplified TCM or are we > >just used to the status quo and accept simplicity because few > >alternatives are presented? > -- > > > Rory > -- > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > Monday, October 25, 2004 6:21 AM > > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen > > > > > I'm not sure you can say that we are voting with our dollars unless > > we have a real choice. At present, we buy the Bensky because it seems > > like the best. Is there a materia medica in English that offers a > > more technical density? > > > Unfortunately, there isn't. I guess I am assuming that these authors > would be presenting a more technically accurate version of a materia > medica if they believed that their customers wanted one. Obviously, > these books aren't far from the mark in terms of their basic > presentation, it is just that they tend to omit some of the specific > indications due to their simplified translation technique. When I was > a student I wanted a MM in Wiseman terminology, but the fact that > these authors have spent years writing huge volumes that totally miss > the terminology concept makes me think that I must be in the minority. [Jason] Eric and Others, I don't want to speak for Dan but the following is what he has expressed in the past... First of all he does not carry yours and Wiseman's belief that CM is such a technical language. He believes that there are only a handful of technical terms and that everything is based on context. He does not believe you should have 1000's of pegged terms because in different situations these terms might be slightly off... I have definitely seen this latter to be true... Chinese authors use terms differently. It is not like every Chinese writer has a dictionary on their desk when they write... They take liberties of expression, as do we, and many of the so-called technical terms that Wiseman has pegged just do not work. This is even more so true when we go back into pre-modern writings. As far as Dan's new book, I give it 2 thumbs up. I see no problems and have not had any trouble understanding the terms. Maybe you could give some examples of a situation where things are unclear because he did not use Wiseman terminology. This would be interesting... But I think Dan's and others feelings are if the term is transparent then there is no need to gloss. Finally I am not arguing for or against Wiseman or standardized terminology. This is just 1 side of it... Because the majority of the time when I translate use Wiseman terms, but sometimes use Unschuld, and sometimes neither. But since I am no linguist nor as experienced as Bensky I have little authority to deviate. Dan on the other hand is quite proficient, so he does have solid ground to stand on. > > We still have words like spermatorrhea showing up in our textbooks, > which lumps together two major patterns ( " seminal efflux " & " seminal > emission " ). These diseases have different clinical significance for > treatment and different degrees of severity. Seminal emission itself > has two subpatterns of its own, which also represent different degrees > of severity (dream emission & emission without dreaming) and involve > different organ systems, necessitating different treatment strategies. > Lumping four distinct patterns into one term causes new students to > have a simplified concept of the TCM disease patterns and > pathomechanisms, and gives no guide to how to select medicinals > appropriately based on the specific disease. An English dictionary > definition of spermatorrhea offers nothing close to the nuances of the > Chinese terms. This concept has become so vague and distorted that > some students and teachers think spermatorrhea refers to masturbation! [Jason] Well there is much written on why this may be so, I have heard both Chinese and Western's say it is possible. I think it was also Damone who had a thesis written on this idea, so one must consider more than just the term. > > I think students should be exposed to the technical complexity of TCM > from the beginning, as opposed to starting with simplified information > and having to learn that it is more complicated in their advanced classes. [Jason] I agree, but CM would have to start attracting a) more students (or not), because more people would probably drop out, or b) just attract higher caliber students.... Either way is fine with me... - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Eric, I totally agree about the terminology. Students don't really get this medicine because they and, more importantly, their teachers are not using the correct terms nor even all the necessary terms in order to really convey and understand the practical technicalities of it. As a publisher as well as an author, translator, and teacher, it's my opinion than Bensky and the Chens have chosen the terminology they have entirely for economic reasons. This is the terminology most schools use. Whether we like it or not, this is the terminology most students and practitioners use. Therefore, to use anything but the lowest common denominator consigns your book to second-rate status in terms of sales and influence on the profession. Of course, this is a catch-22. Bensky et al. helped set the de facto standard of terminology. Then Maciocia, the Chens, and others write to this terminology in order to become required textbooks. This then reinforces the loop, and round and round we go, never really getting much better. I can tell you that publishers, such as Paradigm and Blue Poppy, which choose to use Wiseman's terminology suffer economically for that decision. We have tried (and tried and tried) to get others to bite the bullet and switch, but others have put their personal economic interests ahead of their interests in the profession as a whole. That being said, as more and more translators see the value and need for Wiseman's terminology and more and better books are published using this terminology, eventually the tide will turn. (If not, than a few of us have invested a huge amount of time and money for nothing.) Already, there is a second generation of up and coming translators using this term set. Many of these translators combine clinical chops with academic sinology credentials. This second generation includes such people as Craig Mitchell, Bob Damone, Michael Helm a.k.a. John Day, Lynn Kuchinski, Chip Chace, Simon Becker, Rob Helmer, Dagmar Riley, and Barbara Kirschbaum. Eventually, any intelligent, thinking person will be have to recognize that the quality of the books and other materials translated and written by these people is simply a cut above the same old same old in terms of technical virtuousity. IMO, Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 , " " <@c...> wrote: >>[...] Chinese authors use terms differently. It is not like >>> every Chinese writer has a dictionary on their desk when they >>write... They > >take liberties of expression, as do we [....] While it is true that the Chinese do have some variance in expression on certain terms, it is worth noting the fact that the Chinese themselves are the original proponents of standardizing terminology, within TCM expression in Chinese itself. They have huge committees and organizations, journals and conferences to debate which terms are synonymous and which are clinically distinct. After they decide which terms are the standard terms to apply in each instance (based on consensus within their community), then we will have an increasingly homogenous base of modern source literature to translate. However, modern texts are already quite consistent in their use of technical terms, especially in a modern materia medica. >>He [bensky] believes that there are only a handful >> of technical terms and that everything is based on context. He does not > believe you should have 1000's of pegged terms because in different > situations these terms might be slightly off [….] The people proposing the idea that TCM Chinese language has 1000's of technical terms are the Chinese themselves, the Wiseman camp is but a small offshoot in the Western world that realizes the importance of this. It is not as though Nigel Wiseman is launching a one-man crusade to standardize terms and suppress creativity, he is simply responding to the fact that term standardization is an important objective of the people whose books we are translating. The notion that CM language has only " a handful " of technical terms is ridiculous. If that were the case, there would not be huge dictionaries in Chinese on the subject, nor huge organizations and conferences for term standardization. If Chinese medical lingo was transparent, any Chinese person could pick up a modern MM and tell you exactly what it says- try giving a MM to a Chinese friend and see how quickly they tell you that they don't precisely understand it because it contains special words used in the context of traditional medicine. >[...]and many of the so-called technical > terms that Wiseman has pegged just do not work. […] While there are instances when Wiseman terms are synonymous or have multiple interpretations based on context, the vast majority of these interpretations and term comparisons are elaborated in the PD. Thus, the English term used in translation can be looked up and the entire range of its interpretation can be explored. Naturally, there will be some differences in nuance that are not contained in the PD, but these differences require a level of interpretive skill that is only possessed by a small number of historians or translators. Accordingly, the PD terminology remains the basis for our generation of translators. Bensky's terms may be understandable, but they don't give anyone but Bensky anything to go on when approaching new literature. >This is even more so true > when we go back into pre-modern writings. Term use does differ significantly for pre-modern works. Yet in pre-modern works there is an incredibly wide range of latitude for translators to make stuff up, intersperse their own interpretations, and simply the expression. Pre-modern Chinese is very vague to begin with, so it already lends itself to a great deal of supposition and interpretation. This is an area where consistent term use is more important as opposed to less important. Because the texts are " sacred, " they must be translated more literally than modern books; this model of translation is closer to philological translation than to free translation. Philology is the study of past cultures, and their translation technique is quite literal. Philological translation aims to avoid cultural interference. When terms are used differently than they are used in modern times, it can be explained in the text or in footnotes. But if the basis of the text is not pegged to the Chinese terms, then nobody has a clue what the original text said (unless they read Chinese, in which case they wouldn't bother reading the English translation in the first place). If the words in English are not traceable to the Chinese terms, it is not a translation, it is an original work, an interpretation. It may have a useful place, it may even be clearer than a translation, but it is an interpretation and not a translation of the original text. Translation requires a trusted source that one can rely on for term research, because our generation cannot research each term completely without a twenty year learning curve. Wiseman & Feng's terms are extensively researched and come from the combination of linguistics and the experience and research of top Chinese doctors. I do not doubt Bensky's experience nor his linguistic abilities, but he hasn't made anything available for translators to follow his style. His terms will fall out of fashion when he stops writing books because he has published no materials that allow his translation techniques to be usable to anyone but himself. I'm not dissing his book, I think it is a useful text. I am merely pointing out that his translation technique is not transparent and is not particularly useful for approaching a wider range of advanced literature (unless he offers a way to teach it to others). Eric > > > > > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > > Monday, October 25, 2004 6:21 AM > > > > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure you can say that we are voting with our dollars unless > > > we have a real choice. At present, we buy the Bensky because it seems > > > like the best. Is there a materia medica in English that offers a > > > more technical density? > > > > > > Unfortunately, there isn't. I guess I am assuming that these authors > > would be presenting a more technically accurate version of a materia > > medica if they believed that their customers wanted one. Obviously, > > these books aren't far from the mark in terms of their basic > > presentation, it is just that they tend to omit some of the specific > > indications due to their simplified translation technique. When I was > > a student I wanted a MM in Wiseman terminology, but the fact that > > these authors have spent years writing huge volumes that totally miss > > the terminology concept makes me think that I must be in the minority. > [Jason] > Eric and Others, > > I don't want to speak for Dan but the following is what he has expressed in > the past... First of all he does not carry yours and Wiseman's belief that > CM is such a technical language. He believes that there are only a handful > of technical terms and that everything is based on context. He does not > believe you should have 1000's of pegged terms because in different > situations these terms might be slightly off... I have definitely seen this > latter to be true... Chinese authors use terms differently. It is not like > every Chinese writer has a dictionary on their desk when they write... They > take liberties of expression, as do we, and many of the so-called technical > terms that Wiseman has pegged just do not work. This is even more so true > when we go back into pre-modern writings. > As far as Dan's new book, I give it 2 thumbs up. I see no problems and have > not had any trouble understanding the terms. Maybe you could give some > examples of a situation where things are unclear because he did not use > Wiseman terminology. This would be interesting... But I think Dan's and > others feelings are if the term is transparent then there is no need to > gloss. Finally I am not arguing for or against Wiseman or standardized > terminology. This is just 1 side of it... Because the majority of the time > when I translate use Wiseman terms, but sometimes use Unschuld, and > sometimes neither. But since I am no linguist nor as experienced as Bensky > I have little authority to deviate. Dan on the other hand is quite > proficient, so he does have solid ground to stand on. > > > > > We still have words like spermatorrhea showing up in our textbooks, > > which lumps together two major patterns ( " seminal efflux " & " seminal > > emission " ). These diseases have different clinical significance for > > treatment and different degrees of severity. Seminal emission itself > > has two subpatterns of its own, which also represent different degrees > > of severity (dream emission & emission without dreaming) and involve > > different organ systems, necessitating different treatment strategies. > > Lumping four distinct patterns into one term causes new students to > > have a simplified concept of the TCM disease patterns and > > pathomechanisms, and gives no guide to how to select medicinals > > appropriately based on the specific disease. An English dictionary > > definition of spermatorrhea offers nothing close to the nuances of the > > Chinese terms. This concept has become so vague and distorted that > > some students and teachers think spermatorrhea refers to masturbation! > [Jason] > > Well there is much written on why this may be so, I have heard both Chinese > and Western's say it is possible. I think it was also Damone who had a > thesis written on this idea, so one must consider more than just the term. > > > > > > I think students should be exposed to the technical complexity of TCM > > from the beginning, as opposed to starting with simplified information > > and having to learn that it is more complicated in their advanced classes. > [Jason] > I agree, but CM would have to start attracting a) more students (or not), > because more people would probably drop out, or b) just attract higher > caliber students.... Either way is fine with me... > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 , " " <@c...> wrote: He does not > believe you should have 1000's of pegged terms because in different > situations these terms might be slightly off... I have definitely seen this > latter to be true... Chinese authors use terms differently. Jason How can a term that is pegged target to source be " slightly off " . This debate has nothing to do with what is the best target term; it is all about pegging the target to the source so the reader can explore the matter for themselves. nothing more, nothing less. this continual shifting of the debate to whether one term is better than another is a straw man attack. If you want to trust a translator's context, that is your prerogative. I would rather have the best access to the source a non chinese reader can have. Don't get me wrong, I see three levels of accessing chinese source material. Reading chinese, a fully glossed target to source, contextual or connotative translation. All three serve a vital role; it is not a matter of which is better in all circumstances. For example, if you can't read much chinese, you would be wise to get your data from english books. Likewise, if you want to be able to trace a term to its source regardless of what the author thinks of this quest, wiseman is your only choice. And if you absorb large amounts of information better when it is written more transparently, connotative texts like Bensky and Maciocia fit the bill quite well. But if one relies solely on connotative texts because the author who wrote them claims that is satisfactory, you are at the mercy of that author. Since you read chinese and have studied wiseman and thus have access to a wide range of sources, perhaps you may take for granted what is lacking in more simplified presentations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 , " smilinglotus " <smilinglotus> wrote: > > Philology is the study of past cultures, and their translation > technique is quite literal. Philological translation aims to avoid > cultural interference. When terms are used differently than they are > used in modern times, it can be explained in the text or in footnotes. > But if the basis of the text is not pegged to the Chinese terms, then > nobody has a clue what the original text said (unless they read > Chinese, in which case they wouldn't bother reading the English > translation in the first place). If the words in English are not > traceable to the Chinese terms, it is not a translation, it is an > original work, an interpretation. It may have a useful place, it may > even be clearer than a translation, but it is an interpretation and > not a translation of the original text. this is really the crux of the matter. on one side, we have the scholarly weight of disciplines that have been evolving for centuries and of which distinct rules of accurate transmission are widely agreed upon across many fields and cultures. Opposing this we have the economic incentives of a few companies preying on the ignorance of their audiences, making a case for a connotative style of translation that can only be entertained amongst those who are uneducated in the realities of translation. There are many academic and political reasons why this happened. It was not nefarious. But the entire case has been made post hoc as there was clearly no thought given to the matter a priori. There is no academic leg upon which to stand this radical thesis and we would do well to stop debating it. It is quite akin to continuing to debate whether the sun revolves around the earth. In all other fields, this issue of correct translation is a closed matter. If the chinese have TCM dictionaries with 30,000 terms, they have already decided that their medicine has a huge technical vocabulary. And there is only one bonafide way to translate such a technical corpus. If one rejects these dictionaries as true compendiums of TCM and rejects the only accpeted model for trnaslating such material, then one has chosen to be outside the mainstream of both modern CM and modern western academia. Its a free country, but that does not mean every position has merit and this one has none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > Monday, October 25, 2004 10:41 AM > > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen > > > > > , " " > <@c...> wrote: > >>[...] Chinese authors use terms differently. It is not like > >>> every Chinese writer has a dictionary on their desk when they > >>write... They > > >take liberties of expression, as do we [....] > > > While it is true that the Chinese do have some variance in expression > on certain terms, it is worth noting the fact that the Chinese > themselves are the original proponents of standardizing terminology, > within TCM expression in Chinese itself. [Jason] This is not as clear as one may say... Yes Chinese have put together dictionaries for a long time. This does not mean that in reality the papers, books etc written in a huge country and over a long stretch of time, by any means, conform to this... They have huge committees > and organizations, journals and conferences to debate which terms are > synonymous and which are clinically distinct. [Jason] As this is rather new, and I have yet to see anything definitive come out of it... After they decide which > terms are the standard terms to apply in each instance (based on > consensus within their community), then we will have an increasingly > homogenous base of modern source literature to translate. [Jason] Yes... when... (but that does not help us for the past, only the future.) However, > modern texts are already quite consistent in their use of technical > terms, especially in a modern materia medica. [Jason] This is debatable... IF one sticks to main stream material, i.e. material medicas, yes, but there is so much out there and yes it does not conform... But since we are dealing with a medicine that is heavily weighed on the past, this presents a problem. Not only do I regularly read non-modern material, but quotes from the past show up all the time in modern sources. The consistency breaks down very fast. Look at Bensky's MM - Quote after quote of pre-modern material. > > The people proposing the idea that TCM Chinese language has 1000's of > technical terms are the Chinese themselves, the Wiseman camp is but a > small offshoot in the Western world that realizes the importance of > this. It is not as though Nigel Wiseman is launching a one-man > crusade to standardize terms and suppress creativity, he is simply > responding to the fact that term standardization is an important > objective of the people whose books we are translating. > > The notion that CM language has only " a handful " of technical terms is > ridiculous. If that were the case, there would not be huge > dictionaries in Chinese on the subject, nor huge organizations and > conferences for term standardization. [Jason] I think this misses the point. Of course there are huge committees to decide the best term, but one reason is because it the past, and very recent past, there has been little standardization, otherwise why put so much energy into it... But more importantly is that the huge Chinese dictionaries have nothing to do with the issues at hand (hence a straw man)... The issue is about the translation into English. No one is denying that there is a huge amount of vocab in Chinese... The question is what do we do with it in English. Bensky (as far as know) only thinks that some of these terms should be 'pegged'... Not every single term... and this makes complete sense. You have to have a book that readable. Todd says that he wants to know what every term is... And that is nice, but maybe 1% of the CM community will ever look every term or even 10% of the terms - This is just reality.. What do we do about the people that just want to learn CM... In that case the best word for the context is appropriate, especially if it conveys the meaning better than the 'pegged' Wiseman term... There is compromise... Eric I still would you to present to examples from the BEnsky text that you feel miss the boat because he did not use a Wiseman term... If Chinese medical lingo was > transparent, any Chinese person could pick up a modern MM and tell you > exactly what it says- try giving a MM to a Chinese friend and see how > quickly they tell you that they don't precisely understand it because > it contains special words used in the context of traditional medicine. > [Jason] This again misses the point... We are talking about the English word chosen to represent a Chinese concept in a given situation being transparent, or understood without the use of a dictionary. An example is if I say the spleen is deficient. You may like vacuity, and that is fine, but the word and meaning is clear to everyone reading it- that is transparent. I will address some examples in todd's post. > > > >[...]and many of the so-called technical > > terms that Wiseman has pegged just do not work. [.] > > > While there are instances when Wiseman terms are synonymous or have > multiple interpretations based on context, the vast majority of these > interpretations and term comparisons are elaborated in the PD. [Jason] I personally have found many instances that the Wiseman term does not fit the context... So I have a choice, 1) put the awkward term in the sentence - then people read it and think they understand it but there understanding will be wrong and even if they take the time to look up the word in the PD (which most people won't) then it still will be off because the meaning is slightly askew... This is the problem... or 2) I can substitute a word that convey the meaning of the passage making things clear, footnote the original character if I like (which most people won't look at anyway)... So yes you are at the mercy of the translator, that is why you should read translations from people you trust. But why would I put a Wiseman term in a contextual passage that just doesn't get the meaning across??? Thus, > the English term used in translation can be looked up and the entire > range of its interpretation can be explored. Naturally, there will be > some differences in nuance that are not contained in the PD, but these > differences require a level of interpretive skill that is only > possessed by a small number of historians or translators. [Jason] True and not true... I am no historian, but I have found many instances that when checked with Chinese scholars or colleagues have shown to have different meanings... One should also not forget that the PD is limited compared to Chinese dictionaries.. Therefore all words / definitions are not going to be included... this is where one needs to break out of the box... And Bensky I know has the skill to interpret the nuance therefore that is why breaks out the box... > Accordingly, the PD terminology remains the basis for our generation > of translators. Bensky's terms may be understandable, but they don't > give anyone but Bensky anything to go on when approaching new literature. [Jason] I am unsure what you mean with this... He is not trying to compete with Wiseman as a dictionary, he is just trying to convey CM... I really don't understand what this has to 'our generation of translators' - could you explain... Like I have said I do not find his material at the least bit hard to understand. A recent example comes to mind about the debate between nourish, supplement etc... I remember some people being very specific on what these terms mean and I think Wiseman makes some major distinctions, but it wasn't a week later until I came across a pretty mainstream source that just completely used the terms differently... One has to be flexible and not to rigid, because the Chinese are not using everything the same way, it is a huge country with a lot of history. > > > > >This is even more so true > > when we go back into pre-modern writings. > > > Term use does differ significantly for pre-modern works. Yet in > pre-modern works there is an incredibly wide range of latitude for > translators to make stuff up, intersperse their own interpretations, > and simply the expression. Pre-modern Chinese is very vague to begin > with, so it already lends itself to a great deal of supposition and > interpretation. This is an area where consistent term use is more > important as opposed to less important. Because the texts are > " sacred, " they must be translated more literally than modern books; > this model of translation is closer to philological translation than > to free translation. > > Philology is the study of past cultures, and their translation > technique is quite literal. Philological translation aims to avoid > cultural interference. When terms are used differently than they are > used in modern times, it can be explained in the text or in footnotes. > But if the basis of the text is not pegged to the Chinese terms, then > nobody has a clue what the original text said (unless they read > Chinese, in which case they wouldn't bother reading the English > translation in the first place). If the words in English are not > traceable to the Chinese terms, it is not a translation, it is an > original work, an interpretation. It may have a useful place, it may > even be clearer than a translation, but it is an interpretation and > not a translation of the original text. > > Translation requires a trusted source that one can rely on for term > research, because our generation cannot research each term completely > without a twenty year learning curve. Wiseman & Feng's terms are > extensively researched and come from the combination of linguistics > and the experience and research of top Chinese doctors. I do not > doubt Bensky's experience nor his linguistic abilities, but he hasn't > made anything available for translators to follow his style. His > terms will fall out of fashion when he stops writing books because he > has published no materials that allow his translation techniques to be > usable to anyone but himself. [Jason] I agree and this is not the debate (on my end)... I am not trying to follow Bensky or saying anyone should, I am just pointing out his angle, and it makes sense (as you seem to attest to above - he has the skill)... He is not trying to get people to use his terms (at least to my knowledge), but he is saying here is a MM that one can read and get a good accurate understanding of the topic at hand, and I think he has done knock down job... My point is only that I in my limited experience can see why he takes his stance... Terms are not as clear cut and there are times to deviate. I look at a lot of pre-modern as well earlier 20th century, and it is a murky world out there.... - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 At 12:20 PM +0000 10/25/04, smilinglotus wrote: >I guess I am assuming that these authors >would be presenting a more technically accurate version of a materia >medica if they believed that their customers wanted one. -- Eric, I'm wondering if you can illustrate your point with an example of such writing for us to compare with Bensky -- perhaps a few paragraphs translated on a single herb from a standard Chinese materia medica. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 It is funny because I am a young translator, I have pegged words all the time (from wiseman) thinking I am conveying the meaning of the passage to only be shown by a more experienced (Chinese or colleague) that no no no that is not what it means, and if I use the Wiseman term it only confuses the passage. >>>And that is why half of the time what they translate make little sense alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 , " " <@c...> wrote: > [Jason] > I will ask you also (Todd) - If Bensky's new MM is a simplified text that > somehow lacks the real meaning, can you give some examples. > > - Students at PCOM seem to think that releasing the exterior (Bensky talk) goes hand in hand with sweating as a treatment principle. This is because Bensky uses that phrase only when speaking of the various way to treat an exterior pathogen. I do not feel like double checking the Wiseman's terms currently, but Bob Flaw's MM (260 Essential Chinese Medicinals) which uses the Wiseman terminology gives several different treatment principles, such as effusing, scattering, coursing, etc. when speaking of " resolving " the exterior. By knowing the pathogen and condition of the patient, the proper treatment principle can be chosen, and therefore then proper herb. It is not so clear cut with the Bensky MM. Also, you made another point about simplified terminology being OK for those just wanting to learn CM. If this were really so, then why not suggest to the Chinese that they drop term usage for standard level practitioners, for example, of all the subtypes of supplementation and just lump them all together into an imaginary word such as tonify, and of all the subtypes of draining and just lump them all together into the (incorrect) idea of sedate? Brian C. Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 This is unbelievable. You must be exaggerating to make a point. On Oct 25, 2004, at 9:07 PM, Alon Marcus wrote: > > >>>And that is why half of the time what they translate make little > sense > alon > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 I really listening to Jason on this. I'm not sure if you can blame students lack of understanding on Bensky. For Xi Xin the Actions are disperse cold and release the exterior etc... (commentary says its ability " to induce sweating is rather weak " For Sheng Jiang - release exterior and disperse cold Cong Bai - release the exterior and induces sweating xiang ru= induces sweating and releases the exterior compare to Wiseman: effusion sweat fa1 han4 = sweating effuse fa1 = to move outward, as sweat through the interstices; to induce such movement. for example, effuce the exterior means to induce sweating so that evils located in the exterior can escape. coursing the exterior shu1 biao3 = a method of treatment used to free the exterior of evil without necessarily making the patient sweat. scattering - not in dictionary..... Doug ________________ , " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...> wrote: > > , " " > <@c...> wrote: > > > [Jason] > > I will ask you also (Todd) - If Bensky's new MM is a simplified text > that > > somehow lacks the real meaning, can you give some examples. > > > > - > > Students at PCOM seem to think that releasing the exterior (Bensky > talk) goes hand in hand with sweating as a treatment principle. This > is because Bensky uses that phrase only when speaking of the various > way to treat an exterior pathogen. > > I do not feel like double checking the Wiseman's terms currently, but > Bob Flaw's MM (260 Essential Chinese Medicinals) which uses the > Wiseman terminology gives several different treatment principles, such > as effusing, scattering, coursing, etc. when speaking of " resolving " > the exterior. By knowing the pathogen and condition of the patient, > the proper treatment principle can be chosen, and therefore then > proper herb. It is not so clear cut with the Bensky MM. > > Also, you made another point about simplified terminology being OK for > those just wanting to learn CM. If this were really so, then why not > suggest to the Chinese that they drop term usage for standard level > practitioners, for example, of all the subtypes of supplementation and > just lump them all together into an imaginary word such as tonify, and > of all the subtypes of draining and just lump them all together into > the (incorrect) idea of sedate? > > Brian C. Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 These are bad examples if you are trying to say that Wiseman terms confuse the picture. What Bensky is translating as " induces sweating " in Wiseman terms is simply expressed as " promotes sweating. " Nothing hard about that. What Bensky is rendering as " release the exterior " is what Wiseman renders as " resolving the exterior. " This word (jie3) is used in many different contexts, the exterior is only one of them. Many things can be resolved that cannot be released, such as toxins. Resolution of the exterior is a broad term that includes all the different methods of treating exterior evils, it is not a term that is specific to imply a direction or method of resolution. Eric , " " wrote: > > I really listening to Jason on this. > > I'm not sure if you can blame students lack of understanding on Bensky. > For Xi Xin the Actions are disperse cold and release the exterior etc... (commentary says > its ability " to induce sweating is rather weak " > For Sheng Jiang - release exterior and disperse cold > Cong Bai - release the exterior and induces sweating > xiang ru= induces sweating and releases the exterior > > compare to Wiseman: > > effusion sweat fa1 han4 = sweating > > effuse fa1 = to move outward, as sweat through the interstices; to induce such > movement. for example, effuce the exterior means to induce sweating so that evils located > in the exterior can escape. > > coursing the exterior shu1 biao3 = a method of treatment used to free the exterior of > evil without necessarily making the patient sweat. > > scattering - not in dictionary..... > > > > Doug > ________________ > > > > , " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...> wrote: > > > > , " " > > <@c...> wrote: > > > > > [Jason] > > > I will ask you also (Todd) - If Bensky's new MM is a simplified text > > that > > > somehow lacks the real meaning, can you give some examples. > > > > > > - > > > > Students at PCOM seem to think that releasing the exterior (Bensky > > talk) goes hand in hand with sweating as a treatment principle. This > > is because Bensky uses that phrase only when speaking of the various > > way to treat an exterior pathogen. > > > > I do not feel like double checking the Wiseman's terms currently, but > > Bob Flaw's MM (260 Essential Chinese Medicinals) which uses the > > Wiseman terminology gives several different treatment principles, such > > as effusing, scattering, coursing, etc. when speaking of " resolving " > > the exterior. By knowing the pathogen and condition of the patient, > > the proper treatment principle can be chosen, and therefore then > > proper herb. It is not so clear cut with the Bensky MM. > > > > Also, you made another point about simplified terminology being OK for > > those just wanting to learn CM. If this were really so, then why not > > suggest to the Chinese that they drop term usage for standard level > > practitioners, for example, of all the subtypes of supplementation and > > just lump them all together into an imaginary word such as tonify, and > > of all the subtypes of draining and just lump them all together into > > the (incorrect) idea of sedate? > > > > Brian C. Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 > > bcataiji [bcaom] > Monday, October 25, 2004 10:31 PM > > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen > > > > , " " > <@c...> wrote: > > > [Jason] > > I will ask you also (Todd) - If Bensky's new MM is a simplified text > that > > somehow lacks the real meaning, can you give some examples. > > > > - > > Students at PCOM seem to think that releasing the exterior (Bensky > talk) goes hand in hand with sweating as a treatment principle. This > is because Bensky uses that phrase only when speaking of the various > way to treat an exterior pathogen. > > I do not feel like double checking the Wiseman's terms currently, but > Bob Flaw's MM (260 Essential Chinese Medicinals) which uses the > Wiseman terminology gives several different treatment principles, such > as effusing, scattering, coursing, etc. when speaking of " resolving " > the exterior. By knowing the pathogen and condition of the patient, > the proper treatment principle can be chosen, and therefore then > proper herb. It is not so clear cut with the Bensky MM. [Jason] I do not get your beef here, but will think about it... > > Also, you made another point about simplified terminology being OK for > those just wanting to learn CM. If this were really so, then why not > suggest to the Chinese that they drop term usage for standard level > practitioners, for example, of all the subtypes of supplementation and > just lump them all together into an imaginary word such as tonify, and > of all the subtypes of draining and just lump them all together into > the (incorrect) idea of sedate? [Jason] First, I did not say this... I do not consider, at the moment, Bensky to be 'Simplified' terminology. And I not suggesting that we lump everything together... There are distinctions that are very helpful, but I was simply making a point that at the moment and in the past HUGE china has not conformed to one standard and fitting all of that in the simple PD is dangerous. I think it would be different if there was actually a standardization that was followed in China (and it probably will happen in the future)... but that does not answer the question of NOW. It is interesting that people are so afraid to TRUST the translator, but if one conforms to this pegged term idea then one must trust the limited PD... Don't get me wrong, I love the PD and use it daily. I think it is the best thing we have going and it is only going help the profession and expand, but let us not get too pigeon holed. A translator must make decisions based on context and if they don't match the PD one common step is to check the actual Chinese dictionaries which have more information. If I find an answer there I ask you what do I do? 1) Use the wiseman term (that does not fit) so that you can look it up and get the wrong definition (because the right one just is not there) or 2) use a different word (maybe a BEnsky, Unschuld, or just my own word) that conveys the meaning more clearly... You may call this simplified, but I call it more intelligent and complex. What if the Chinese dictionary doesn't even have the usage because the Author is riffing or using language in his own way... then one usually checks with authorities in the subject or time period to get the nuance. Then again one must convey the meaning correctly. IF the Wiseman term doesn't cut it then you branch out... simply as that... In these situations I could footnote the character (showing there is some discrepancy conveying that the translator is unclear or just clarity for readers, but what happens when you go to your PD and things don't match... It is a confusing issue and I don't think it is black and white...) There is this dream that one can hit a button on a computer and a Chinese passage with all the correct Wiseman terms will appear, if only Chinese language was so simple. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 I was simply responding to Brian comments below... Doug , " smilinglotus " <smilinglotus> wrote: > > These are bad examples if you are trying to say that Wiseman terms > confuse the picture. > > What Bensky is translating as " induces sweating " in Wiseman terms is > simply expressed as " promotes sweating. " Nothing hard about that. > > What Bensky is rendering as " release the exterior " is what Wiseman > renders as " resolving the exterior. " This word (jie3) is used in many > different contexts, the exterior is only one of them. Many things can > be resolved that cannot be released, such as toxins. Resolution of > the exterior is a broad term that includes all the different methods > of treating exterior evils, it is not a term that is specific to imply > a direction or method of resolution. > > Eric > > , " " > wrote: > > > > I really listening to Jason on this. > > > > I'm not sure if you can blame students lack of understanding on Bensky. > > For Xi Xin the Actions are disperse cold and release the exterior > etc... (commentary says > > its ability " to induce sweating is rather weak " > > For Sheng Jiang - release exterior and disperse cold > > Cong Bai - release the exterior and induces sweating > > xiang ru= induces sweating and releases the exterior > > > > compare to Wiseman: > > > > effusion sweat fa1 han4 = sweating > > > > effuse fa1 = to move outward, as sweat through the interstices; to > induce such > > movement. for example, effuce the exterior means to induce sweating > so that evils located > > in the exterior can escape. > > > > coursing the exterior shu1 biao3 = a method of treatment used to > free the exterior of > > evil without necessarily making the patient sweat. > > > > scattering - not in dictionary..... > > > > > > > > Doug > > ________________ > > > > > > > > , " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > , " " > > > <@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > [Jason] > > > > I will ask you also (Todd) - If Bensky's new MM is a simplified text > > > that > > > > somehow lacks the real meaning, can you give some examples. > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > Students at PCOM seem to think that releasing the exterior (Bensky > > > talk) goes hand in hand with sweating as a treatment principle. This > > > is because Bensky uses that phrase only when speaking of the various > > > way to treat an exterior pathogen. > > > > > > I do not feel like double checking the Wiseman's terms currently, but > > > Bob Flaw's MM (260 Essential Chinese Medicinals) which uses the > > > Wiseman terminology gives several different treatment principles, such > > > as effusing, scattering, coursing, etc. when speaking of " resolving " > > > the exterior. By knowing the pathogen and condition of the patient, > > > the proper treatment principle can be chosen, and therefore then > > > proper herb. It is not so clear cut with the Bensky MM. > > > > > > Also, you made another point about simplified terminology being OK for > > > those just wanting to learn CM. If this were really so, then why not > > > suggest to the Chinese that they drop term usage for standard level > > > practitioners, for example, of all the subtypes of supplementation and > > > just lump them all together into an imaginary word such as tonify, and > > > of all the subtypes of draining and just lump them all together into > > > the (incorrect) idea of sedate? > > > > > > Brian C. Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Let's try to ground this discussion in concrete examples. The term " resolve " (jie3) as in " resolve the exterior " is the same resolve as in " resolve depression " (jie yu) and " resolve toxins " (jie du). It does not equal diaphoresis. Fa han ( " effuse sweat " equals diaphoresis. The technical implication of jie biao (resolve the exterior) is that the defensive qi is depressed (yu4) or bound up (jie 2)in the exterior with the externally contracted (wai gan) evil qi (xie qi). Therefore, it needs to be resolved or untied. Similarly, toxins are typically engendered due to depression transforming heat or more heat, i.e., fire, or dampness and more heat. That is why they also need to be resolved or untied, separated, divided, undone, etc. If one does not understand that resolve conveys the same sense of untying, unknotting, unbinding, or resolving depression in all these cases, then one will not understand why Zhu Dan-xi famously said, " Depression causes the hundreds of diseases, " and one will not understand exactly what is being done in all these cases. They will also not understand why an exterior-resolving medicinal can be used to course the liver and rectify the qi, i.e., course the liver and resolve depression, or clear heat and resolve toxins. Effusion (fa1) conveys the sense of something being pushed outward, as does out-thrust (tou3). However, in Chinese, tou differs from fa in that it also conveys the idea of " fully, thoroughly, in a penetrating way. " So there's an element of emphasis with tou that is lacking from fa. That is why tou is commonly used with the word du2 or toxins. Toxins are quantitatively more powerful than mere wind evils. Effusion and out-thrusting are typically accomplished by windy natured, up-bearing and out-thrusting meds. Now one begins (or should begin) to really understand the mechanisms at work when resolving the exterior. At this point, one should also understand why some exterior-resolving medicinals at some doses may also effuse sweat or cause diaphoresis, at least as long as one knows that, " The qi moves fluids. " If the qi is being effused and out-thrust, the fluids (i.e., sweat) may follow (sui2) the qi and exit (chu1). To course (shu1) means to make something move along its normally appointed route as well as to " disperse and scatter. " In the case of coursing wind (shu feng), typically we are coursing the defensive qi (which is depressed in the exterior) and scattering or dispersing wind. In my experience as a teacher, failure to understand and appreciate Wiseman's term choices typically goes hand in hand with 1) lack of understand of the original Chinese and/or 2) a poor grasp of the English language (either because of not being a native speaker or not being a well educated person with good verbal skills). Wiseman's term choices make full use of the three main steams of the English language: Anglo-saxon/German, French, and Latin. Additionally, Wiseman assumes a certain level of educated familiarity with pre-20th century English. If one has studied Latin, one should have no problem with the word effuse. Likewise, if one has studied French or even just thinks about the various meanings of the word course in English, one will have little trouble understanding its various Chinese medical implications. After all, we're supposed to be well versed in the ideas of the qi and blood moving along various channels and vessels, passageways and thoroughfares, or courses. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 , " " <@c...> wrote: If I use a pegged > term (that is not applicable) and you never research the passage on your own > (which 99.9% of the time won't be done, then you will have the wrong > understanding and never know it...) I think your answer just reflects a basic philosophical difference that suggest to me that this argument can never be resolved. If one thinks that a technical term should be transparent and should not be glossed in order to understand, we are literally on different pages. I think technical terms should NOT be transparent so students are FORCED to look them up. Anyone who thinks they know the meaning of a technical term at first glance has done a great disservice to themselves and their patients. As for examples of what is missing from bensky, I will leave that to Eric. He reads chinese and has already noted that there are many. I personally find the new bensky fantastic, the best info in the language on single herbs. But to argue that economics play no role in his decision to ignore linguistic conventions in technical translation is just counter-intuitive. Economics affect all decisions of businesses. As to whether TCM is a vast technical language or a just a few key terms, it is not his to decide. In fact, despite your position that trusting Wiseman is just trusting another tyranical translator, nothing could be further from the truth. Wiseman's work is based upon 100s of actual medical dictionaries from China. The chinese have already decided themselves that their medicine is a vast technical language. Again, you can certainly reject that, but that puts you outside mainstream CM thought on the topic. Finally, your continual references over the years to unnamed chinese and other colleagues who dispute the accuracy of wiseman terms is a meaningless red herring for so many reasons. A native chinese or any other person without expertise in professional translation has nothing to offer on this topic, IMO, regardless of how well they know TCM. See, there is no middle ground. You can either take this position on translation that will only serve to further marginalize our field or we can enter the mainstream on this matter. there really is no debate on this topic outside our field. Layperson translators within the field who disagree really have no leg to stand upon. I agree with Flaws, those who object to Wiseman term choices may actually be lacking a solid enough education to understand them. Perhaps we need to come clean on this matter, as well. How many of those in the field who complain about wiseman term choices (this is not directed at you or Dan, Jason) went to college and got a solid liberal arts education and actually graduated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 This is unbelievable. You must be exaggerating to make a point. >>>obviously alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 > [Jason] > This is not as clear as one may say... Yes Chinese have put together > dictionaries for a long time. This does not mean that in reality the > papers, books etc written in a huge country and over a long stretch of time, > by any means, conform to this... Actually, the vast majority of texts that are applied clinically today are modern books that were written in the past 50 yrs after the creation of " TCM. " This process was primarily a process of standardization, and the university system in China is based on only a few major publishers that form the influential opinion on medicinals and other basic subjects. These books put out by the key publishers are all remarkably similar in term selection, often the terms used are verbatim identical between texts on medicinal therapy. Prior texts were often identical copies because of the lack of intellectual property- the information was the " people's information " and texts didn't even list authors, much less copyrights. You continue to make the argument that term standards do not apply because many texts are from earlier time periods. It is true that some major differences exist over time, but Chinese is an incredibly consistent language over history- it has not changed anywhere near as much as Western languages have. If you read English or French that is hundreds of years old, you can barely make sense of it, yet you could read a few lines from the ben cao gang mu without even noticing a huge difference. You must also remember that the literate writers were in the extreme minority back then and those who could write were incredibly well-educated and versed in the meaning of words. We are in a predicament as to how to truly understand, much less translate works that are in ancient Chinese. There is a place for connotative translation, but classical works are not the place to argue its merits. Scholars in mainstream academia reject the notion of connotative translation for ancient works from foreign cultures. While deviations in meaning do appear on terms over time, pegging all the terms and showing the deviations gives the reader access to the authentic, unfiltered material. The deviations should not be obscured by making the whole text an interpretative work, they should be pointed out and elucidated to promote understanding of the concepts and the nuances of that historical period. In fact, when it comes to translating both modern and classical literature, Wiseman terminology is the only terminology that has been successfully applied to works in multiple eras. The Shang Han Lun by Feng, Mitchell, & Wiseman demonstrated that the translation methodology is extremely clear even when applied to a book that is 2000 years old. Ancient Chinese is marked more by its similarities than its differences to modern Chinese. As I stated previously, the issue of early works is an issue where accuracy and accountability matters more, rather than less. (Of course, Unschuld's terminology is also valid, but he respectfully supports Wiseman terms for the transmission of TCM.) You say that Bensky is a trustworthy translator and you are perfectly happy with him doing the interpreting for you. I basically agree that Bensky has done his homework and I think his text is a very good presentation of the material. The thing I dispute is that the translation methodology used in connotative texts is what our pivotal textbooks should be based on. You raise the idea that a level of trust in the core translator is necessary. You assert that you trust Bensky to interpret for you, but you question whether Wiseman & Feng's PD can be trusted to provide the all info that you require. With regard to connotative translation, you put your trust in Bensky. How far do you extend your trust to the translator? Would you trust Macciocia to write this text? There comes a point when reading connotative translation when you just can't be sure where the source left off and where the interpreter starts talking. Tomorrow you may encounter another author whose reputation you aren't familiar with, do you trust that they did their homework? Do you really want a middle-man between you and the books you are reading? You complain that the PD doesn't have all the answers and that Wiseman & Feng may not be cued into all the nuances of these words. You say that adopting PD terminology requires faith in interpretation just like Bensky does. Bob pointed out that Nigel's terms as perceived as difficult because they draw from words that are beyond our (embarrassingly poor) mastery of the English language, but each term is very carefully researched to have the closest possible match. I certainly trust Nigel when it comes to linguistics, as his command of Chinese and English is impeccable and his term research is meticulous. When it comes to whether these terms match the Chinese understanding, consider the fact that Feng Ye has been working with Nigel for over ten years and played a pivotal role in the creation of the PD. Westerners seem to completely ignore our Chinese counterparts when we debate on topics like this, as though we are now the authorities. Feng Ye is a CM doctor that measures his individual patients by the hundreds of thousands, and his education involved the memorization of all the major Chinese classics in addition to modern works. Feng Ye has studied Chinese medicine continually for his entire life and has an incredibly solid reputation in both internal medicine as well as classical works. He definitely can be trusted on his knowledge of terms in Chinese medicine. If you need a higher standard to earn your trust than Wiseman & Feng, you might just need to study on another planet. Eric Brand , " " <@c...> wrote: > > > > > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > > Monday, October 25, 2004 10:41 AM > > > > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen > > > > > > > > > > , " " > > <@c...> wrote: > > >>[...] Chinese authors use terms differently. It is not like > > >>> every Chinese writer has a dictionary on their desk when they > > >>write... They > > > >take liberties of expression, as do we [....] > > > > > > While it is true that the Chinese do have some variance in expression > > on certain terms, it is worth noting the fact that the Chinese > > themselves are the original proponents of standardizing terminology, > > within TCM expression in Chinese itself. > [Jason] > This is not as clear as one may say... Yes Chinese have put together > dictionaries for a long time. This does not mean that in reality the > papers, books etc written in a huge country and over a long stretch of time, > by any means, conform to this... > > They have huge committees > > and organizations, journals and conferences to debate which terms are > > synonymous and which are clinically distinct. > [Jason] > As this is rather new, and I have yet to see anything definitive come out of > it... > > After they decide which > > terms are the standard terms to apply in each instance (based on > > consensus within their community), then we will have an increasingly > > homogenous base of modern source literature to translate. > [Jason] > Yes... when... (but that does not help us for the past, only the future.) > > However, > > modern texts are already quite consistent in their use of technical > > terms, especially in a modern materia medica. > [Jason] > This is debatable... IF one sticks to main stream material, i.e. material > medicas, yes, but there is so much out there and yes it does not conform... > But since we are dealing with a medicine that is heavily weighed on the > past, this presents a problem. Not only do I regularly read non-modern > material, but quotes from the past show up all the time in modern sources. > The consistency breaks down very fast. Look at Bensky's MM - Quote after > quote of pre-modern material. > > > > > The people proposing the idea that TCM Chinese language has 1000's of > > technical terms are the Chinese themselves, the Wiseman camp is but a > > small offshoot in the Western world that realizes the importance of > > this. It is not as though Nigel Wiseman is launching a one-man > > crusade to standardize terms and suppress creativity, he is simply > > responding to the fact that term standardization is an important > > objective of the people whose books we are translating. > > > > The notion that CM language has only " a handful " of technical terms is > > ridiculous. If that were the case, there would not be huge > > dictionaries in Chinese on the subject, nor huge organizations and > > conferences for term standardization. > [Jason] > I think this misses the point. Of course there are huge committees to > decide the best term, but one reason is because it the past, and very recent > past, there has been little standardization, otherwise why put so much > energy into it... But more importantly is that the huge Chinese > dictionaries have nothing to do with the issues at hand (hence a straw > man)... The issue is about the translation into English. No one is denying > that there is a huge amount of vocab in Chinese... The question is what do > we do with it in English. Bensky (as far as know) only thinks that some of > these terms should be 'pegged'... Not every single term... and this makes > complete sense. You have to have a book that readable. Todd says that he > wants to know what every term is... And that is nice, but maybe 1% of the CM > community will ever look every term or even 10% of the terms - This is just > reality.. What do we do about the people that just want to learn CM... In > that case the best word for the context is appropriate, especially if it > conveys the meaning better than the 'pegged' Wiseman term... There is > compromise... > > Eric I still would you to present to examples from the BEnsky text that you > feel miss the boat because he did not use a Wiseman term... > > > > If Chinese medical lingo was > > transparent, any Chinese person could pick up a modern MM and tell you > > exactly what it says- try giving a MM to a Chinese friend and see how > > quickly they tell you that they don't precisely understand it because > > it contains special words used in the context of traditional medicine. > > > [Jason] This again misses the point... We are talking about the English word > chosen to represent a Chinese concept in a given situation being > transparent, or understood without the use of a dictionary. An example is > if I say the spleen is deficient. You may like vacuity, and that is fine, > but the word and meaning is clear to everyone reading it- that is > transparent. > > I will address some examples in todd's post. > > > > > > > > >[...]and many of the so-called technical > > > terms that Wiseman has pegged just do not work. [.] > > > > > > While there are instances when Wiseman terms are synonymous or have > > multiple interpretations based on context, the vast majority of these > > interpretations and term comparisons are elaborated in the PD. > [Jason] > I personally have found many instances that the Wiseman term does not fit > the context... So I have a choice, 1) put the awkward term in the sentence - > then people read it and think they understand it but there understanding > will be wrong and even if they take the time to look up the word in the PD > (which most people won't) then it still will be off because the meaning is > slightly askew... This is the problem... or 2) I can substitute a word that > convey the meaning of the passage making things clear, footnote the original > character if I like (which most people won't look at anyway)... So yes you > are at the mercy of the translator, that is why you should read translations > from people you trust. But why would I put a Wiseman term in a contextual > passage that just doesn't get the meaning across??? > > Thus, > > the English term used in translation can be looked up and the entire > > range of its interpretation can be explored. Naturally, there will be > > some differences in nuance that are not contained in the PD, but these > > differences require a level of interpretive skill that is only > > possessed by a small number of historians or translators. > [Jason] > True and not true... I am no historian, but I have found many instances that > when checked with Chinese scholars or colleagues have shown to have > different meanings... One should also not forget that the PD is limited > compared to Chinese dictionaries.. Therefore all words / definitions are not > going to be included... this is where one needs to break out of the box... > And Bensky I know has the skill to interpret the nuance therefore that is > why breaks out the box... > > > > Accordingly, the PD terminology remains the basis for our generation > > of translators. Bensky's terms may be understandable, but they don't > > give anyone but Bensky anything to go on when approaching new literature. > [Jason] > I am unsure what you mean with this... He is not trying to compete with > Wiseman as a dictionary, he is just trying to convey CM... I really don't > understand what this has to 'our generation of translators' - could you > explain... Like I have said I do not find his material at the least bit > hard to understand. > A recent example comes to mind about the debate between nourish, supplement > etc... I remember some people being very specific on what these terms mean > and I think Wiseman makes some major distinctions, but it wasn't a week > later until I came across a pretty mainstream source that just completely > used the terms differently... One has to be flexible and not to rigid, > because the Chinese are not using everything the same way, it is a huge > country with a lot of history. > > > > > > > > > >This is even more so true > > > when we go back into pre-modern writings. > > > > > > Term use does differ significantly for pre-modern works. Yet in > > pre-modern works there is an incredibly wide range of latitude for > > translators to make stuff up, intersperse their own interpretations, > > and simply the expression. Pre-modern Chinese is very vague to begin > > with, so it already lends itself to a great deal of supposition and > > interpretation. This is an area where consistent term use is more > > important as opposed to less important. Because the texts are > > " sacred, " they must be translated more literally than modern books; > > this model of translation is closer to philological translation than > > to free translation. > > > > Philology is the study of past cultures, and their translation > > technique is quite literal. Philological translation aims to avoid > > cultural interference. When terms are used differently than they are > > used in modern times, it can be explained in the text or in footnotes. > > But if the basis of the text is not pegged to the Chinese terms, then > > nobody has a clue what the original text said (unless they read > > Chinese, in which case they wouldn't bother reading the English > > translation in the first place). If the words in English are not > > traceable to the Chinese terms, it is not a translation, it is an > > original work, an interpretation. It may have a useful place, it may > > even be clearer than a translation, but it is an interpretation and > > not a translation of the original text. > > > > Translation requires a trusted source that one can rely on for term > > research, because our generation cannot research each term completely > > without a twenty year learning curve. Wiseman & Feng's terms are > > extensively researched and come from the combination of linguistics > > and the experience and research of top Chinese doctors. I do not > > doubt Bensky's experience nor his linguistic abilities, but he hasn't > > made anything available for translators to follow his style. His > > terms will fall out of fashion when he stops writing books because he > > has published no materials that allow his translation techniques to be > > usable to anyone but himself. > [Jason] > I agree and this is not the debate (on my end)... I am not trying to follow > Bensky or saying anyone should, I am just pointing out his angle, and it > makes sense (as you seem to attest to above - he has the skill)... He is > not trying to get people to use his terms (at least to my knowledge), but he > is saying here is a MM that one can read and get a good accurate > understanding of the topic at hand, and I think he has done knock down > job... My point is only that I in my limited experience can see why he > takes his stance... Terms are not as clear cut and there are times to > deviate. I look at a lot of pre-modern as well earlier 20th century, and it > is a murky world out there.... > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 If one has studied Latin, one should have no problem with the word effuse. Likewise, if one has studied French or even just thinks about the various meanings of the word course in English, one will have little trouble understanding its various Chinese medical implications. >>>>These are not difficult words as are the rest of WT (even for me a non native speaker). They just support those that like professional lingoes. And to say that others would always use release exterior for all the other uses of jie (or resolve) or any other version or term when describing other uses of jie or any other term, is just an over simplification. Usually terms are used with additional words to clarify meaning specific to each use. That is the difference in both approaches. WT advocates want to use standard words believing that each character has been used in unified ways while others would like to use a variety of words based on context. It is very arrogant to think that only those that use WT understand or study deeper meaning of Chinese medicine and/or terms. alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 It is very arrogant to think that only those that use WT understand or study deeper meaning of Chinese medicine and/or terms. > alon Could you please show me the post to which you are responding said that? Thanks, Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Rory , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@o...> wrote:> I'm wondering if you can illustrate your point with an example of > such writing for us to compare with Bensky -- perhaps a few > paragraphs translated on a single herb from a standard Chinese > materia medica. I will do half the work if you (or anyone else) does the other half. Simply take a medicinal that is of interest or confusing, and write up the actions, indications, combinations, etc (you know, the brief basic info). I will then translate that section with Wiseman terms from a standard PRC text and you can see how they compare. Honestly, it is a very imperfect experiment. Bensky would have been compiling from multiple sources unless he bought the rights for a single publisher's text. The information is almost certainly taken from any number of texts and synthesized together to be as clear as possible without being repetitive or leaving things out. This is natural and not at all a problem. But it is a bit unrealistic to expect the experiment to actually reveal too much, as it would be far too easy for me to to include everything written about that one drug and compile an extremely dense monograph just to prove a point. Bensky naturally left things out by choice because he had to prioritize the information that he wanted to present. Otherwise, he would have to publish an 8000 page book that would be too heavy to carry and too expensive to buy. It is not really fair to him to put his work out to get overshadowed by volume and specificity when I have a whole library and he has a single entry to represent himself. We would need to translate the same few paragraphs in Chinese for it to prove anything either way. I have no way of knowing which books were used for which drugs, and it is not fair to compare two different Chinese texts as though they were the same text (no matter how similar their term selection may be). I don't have the extra time to search through books until I find the one that seems to match exactly what his text is saying. However, I will give an example of a term that I feel is lacking when viewed in his translation scheme. Medicinals that disinhibit dampness (li4 shui3)in Wiseman are described as medicinals that drain dampness in Bensky's text. Since li4 shui3 implies the method through which dampness is eliminated in this context (via the urine vs. by drying or by transforming), it makes sense to say that fu ling drains dampness. However, when you consider the meaning of li4 in Chinese, a far more complex picture emerges that has relevance to our conception of the body in CM: Wiseman lists this under the entry for disinhibit: To promote fluency, movement, or activity, i.e., to treat inhibited flow of qi, blood or fluids, or inhibited physical movement. The Chinese was originally a pictorial representation. The left-handed portion represents a grain stock heavy with seed, and the right side is a variant form of dao1, the word for knife. A sharp knife cutting down ripe grain stock, speedily bringing the benefit of the harvest. In its modern usage, the character retains the meaning of sharpness, favorability, profit, and benefit. In Chinese medicine, the meaning is to promote favorable movement, which we render as disinhibit. The English is derived from Latin dis- not inhibire- inhibit. Li4 is a word that shows up in many different contexts. For example, the gallbladder can be disinhibited, as can the lungs, the urine, the lumbus, the orifices, the throat, the qi, the joints, the diaphragm, etc. In most contexts, " draining " is not what is happening. Wiseman uses draining to indicate what we do to acupuncture points or for things like draining precipitation. Disinhibiting doesn't promote urination unless it is already inhibited, it releases the inhibition, not simply promoting diuresis. Not all traditional damp-disinhibiting meds are in fact diuretic, although some definitely are. All are effective for treating dampness, however. This idea of " promoting fluency, movement, or activity, i.e., to treat inhibited flow of qi, blood or fluids, or inhibited physical movement " that is present in the Chinese, yet lacking in the word " drain, " to me represents a significant loss and simplification. Eric > > At 12:20 PM +0000 10/25/04, smilinglotus wrote: > >I guess I am assuming that these authors > >would be presenting a more technically accurate version of a materia > >medica if they believed that their customers wanted one. > -- > > Eric, > > -- > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 BTW, I used the example of li4- disinhibit in my example of a term obscured by translation. The word disinhibit is a bit rough in English because it is not in common use. However, it is worth noting that the word is only 'strange sounding' when used as a verb; as an adjective it is rendered as uninhibited. The negative is very common as well in CM literature, bu4 li4- inhibit. The idea that Wiseman terms are inflexible does not hold much water, because in actual fact the terms are adapted to work in all parts of speech that they are needed in. Furthermore, a certain degree of latitude is given to translators for expression so long as the meaning is not obscured. For example, Bob discussed fa1 han4, " effuse sweating, " in his illustration of how we can understand the concepts better if we pay attention to their expression. Bob is using the most literal form of this compound because he is emphasizing its precise meaning, and thus bringing the readers' awareness to other instances where things effuse by the movement of qi. Using this phrase would be the best course of action in translation of classical material, because it ensures the literal meaning in Chinese with a minimum of cultural interference. However, in a modern work, translators have the latitude to express this term as " promotes sweating " because this phrase is perfectly acceptable for communicating the meaning of the term for practical use. Modifications for different parts of speech expand the fa1 han4 list to include sweat, sweating, perspire, and perspiration, which are all acceptable within the framework of Wiseman terminology. Thus, the idea that accountability is synonymous with inflexibility is really false. The terms are very adaptable to a variety of contexts. Eric , " smilinglotus " <smilinglotus> wrote: > > Rory , Rory Kerr > <rorykerr@o...> wrote:> > I'm wondering if you can illustrate your point with an example of > > such writing for us to compare with Bensky -- perhaps a few > > paragraphs translated on a single herb from a standard Chinese > > materia medica. > > I will do half the work if you (or anyone else) does the other half. > Simply take a medicinal that is of interest or confusing, and write up > the actions, indications, combinations, etc (you know, the brief basic > info). I will then translate that section with Wiseman terms from a > standard PRC text and you can see how they compare. > > Honestly, it is a very imperfect experiment. Bensky would have been > compiling from multiple sources unless he bought the rights for a > single publisher's text. The information is almost certainly taken > from any number of texts and synthesized together to be as clear as > possible without being repetitive or leaving things out. This is > natural and not at all a problem. But it is a bit unrealistic to > expect the experiment to actually reveal too much, as it would be far > too easy for me to to include everything written about that one drug > and compile an extremely dense monograph just to prove a point. > > Bensky naturally left things out by choice because he had to > prioritize the information that he wanted to present. Otherwise, he > would have to publish an 8000 page book that would be too heavy to > carry and too expensive to buy. It is not really fair to him to put > his work out to get overshadowed by volume and specificity when I have > a whole library and he has a single entry to represent himself. > > We would need to translate the same few paragraphs in Chinese for it > to prove anything either way. I have no way of knowing which books > were used for which drugs, and it is not fair to compare two different > Chinese texts as though they were the same text (no matter how similar > their term selection may be). I don't have the extra time to search > through books until I find the one that seems to match exactly what > his text is saying. > > However, I will give an example of a term that I feel is lacking when > viewed in his translation scheme. > > Medicinals that disinhibit dampness (li4 shui3)in Wiseman are > described as medicinals that drain dampness in Bensky's text. Since > li4 shui3 implies the method through which dampness is eliminated in > this context (via the urine vs. by drying or by transforming), it > makes sense to say that fu ling drains dampness. However, when you > consider the meaning of li4 in Chinese, a far more complex picture > emerges that has relevance to our conception of the body in CM: > > Wiseman lists this under the entry for disinhibit: > To promote fluency, movement, or activity, i.e., to treat inhibited > flow of qi, blood or fluids, or inhibited physical movement. The > Chinese was originally a pictorial representation. The left-handed > portion represents a grain stock heavy with seed, and the right side > is a variant form of dao1, the word for knife. A sharp knife cutting > down ripe grain stock, speedily bringing the benefit of the harvest. > In its modern usage, the character retains the meaning of sharpness, > favorability, profit, and benefit. In Chinese medicine, the meaning > is to promote favorable movement, which we render as disinhibit. The > English is derived from Latin dis- not inhibire- inhibit. > > Li4 is a word that shows up in many different contexts. For example, > the gallbladder can be disinhibited, as can the lungs, the urine, the > lumbus, the orifices, the throat, the qi, the joints, the diaphragm, > etc. In most contexts, " draining " is not what is happening. Wiseman > uses draining to indicate what we do to acupuncture points or for > things like draining precipitation. Disinhibiting doesn't promote > urination unless it is already inhibited, it releases the inhibition, > not simply promoting diuresis. Not all traditional damp-disinhibiting > meds are in fact diuretic, although some definitely are. All are > effective for treating dampness, however. > > This idea of " promoting fluency, movement, or activity, i.e., to treat > inhibited flow of qi, blood or fluids, or inhibited physical movement " > that is present in the Chinese, yet lacking in the word " drain, " to me > represents a significant loss and simplification. > > Eric > > > > > > At 12:20 PM +0000 10/25/04, smilinglotus wrote: > > >I guess I am assuming that these authors > > >would be presenting a more technically accurate version of a materia > > >medica if they believed that their customers wanted one. > > -- > > > > Eric, > > > > > -- > > > > > > 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.