Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > > I'm sorry that I am " whining " for you to provide examples. However, > despite the requests from Z'ev, myself, and Bob (who even provided a > perfect way for you to bring to light any contention with minimal > effort), you have provided none. You have argued again and again > without substance. I have provided multiple examples, as has Bob > Flaws. I'm sick of arguing with someone who doesn't have the time to > give a rational response. > > Eric [Jason] 1) Here is the deal, Both Z'ev and You admit the PD is limited. (Meaning there are holes and exceptions)... Every translator I have talked with says the same thing... If everyone aggress that the world is round why should I spend the time to prove it to you... That is not the issue I care to debate, period. As far as Bob's way of illustrating the point is far from 'perfect' because he his asking about the 500 most common terms... I have no beef with those, although I bet somewhere there will be an exception to those... That is all I have to say about this dead horse... 2) You also agree that vernacular and Wiseman can co-exist at the same time... Ok ME too... So what is the problem... So everyone who likes Wiseman can publish in Wiseman, and people that don't, can do what they want... People seem to think that if one uses a vernacular text then Wiseman suddenly disappears from the shelves of the bookstore/ library/ student's book bag... It is not going anywhere and students can still look up stuff in there... I don't think every text (used in schools) should be Wiseman, and I get the impression that this is what is being said... I think they are helpful, but so are other texts... So we agree on that... But many times what you call vernacular are Bensky's own technical term (bulging vs. mounting qi). I think the real test is if he can communicate the information correctly... Calling it simplified is degrading and not entirely correct. But more importantly as far as I read it, it is calling it 'deficient'... what else does it mean... If one is simple and the other complex, either the simple one is A) superior because it conveys the idea better (which I know you don't agree with) or B) the simplified one lacks something that the complex one has (this is I assume what you are saying) therefore its lacking something and would be vacuous, correct? Maybe it is more correct to say that Bensky is not simplified just not sourced... Would you agree to that? 3) Cleary Bensky and Clavey do not like the Wiseman terms and think they are too confining... I can see this point but think they take it too the extreme, but I still respect their opinion - I would like to here more from them to understand it better - I am in no position to really say anything. But, there not wanting to publish a Wiseman text is their decision... If one doesn't like a style then one has a right not to publish it. 4) As far as Feng Ye goes, you are right it did sound like I was calling him out... This was not the intention and actually was supposed to be quite the opposite, saying, 'look what he has given to the project...' - A fast post to a fast read on my part... There is so little time in the day .... - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > Thursday, October 28, 2004 7:25 AM > > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen > > > > > > [Jason] > > First of all - I said nothing of the matter about feng ye... Please > re-read > > my post, it is misintrepetation.... > > E: Ok, I re-read it. This is what Todd said, followed by your comment. > : 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. > [Jason] > Come on... get real.. So feng ye has nothing to offer the PD??? > > Eric: > This is clearly calling out Feng Ye, by name, and assuming that he > lacks the expertise in professional translation, and thus would have > nothing to offer to the topic. This demonstrates your propensity to > make an assumption on something that you personally know nothing > about. It is one thing to assume incorrectly, but it is entirely > different to voice an opinion in public that has no basis in reality. > > > [Jason] > > So I don't understand here... you admit that it is not possible for > the PD > > to have everything, but you whine because I have not presented > examples... > > Come on.. Like I said, I could care less about proving this to the > group, it > > si self-evident IMO... You can believe what you want... > > Eric: > Of course it is not possible for the PD to have everything. It is > only a single book and our field is lagging way behind other fields. > Every major written language on the planet has adopted local > terminology for WM. The fact that the PD is not complemented by any > other texts does not show a limit in the PD, but rather a limit in our > community's ability to form a cohesive and profession method of > communication. CM terminology in English has only been recently > developed and it still is not accepted. > > I agree that both vernacular terms and technical terms can peacefully > co-exist. I simply feel that technical terms are more appropriate for > professional discourse. I think vernacular is fine for speech and > common purposes, because people can always switch to technical lingo > anytime clarity is needed. No one contests the use of technical > language in Western medicine. Does that mean that TCM is less > sophisticated? Or does it simply mean that practitioners are less mature? > > As an aside, since I am constantly being requested to provide > examples, I will provide another example of where confusion can result > from non-standard terms. If you look at Doug's response to the Chuan > Lian Zi inquiry in the past day or so, you will see a mention that > chuan lian zi treats swelling and bulging disorders (aka mounting qi). > Now, to my knowledge, chuan lian zi is not indicated for water > swelling (often translated as edema), although it is indicated for > mounting qi. This may be due to inadequate knowledge of obscure > functions on my part, but I don't see any indications of chuan lian zi > for water swelling. Is Doug extrapolating that it reduces swelling > because it treats bulging disorders? Or maybe he just knows something > that I don't know. Interestingly, edema is not a very accurate > translation for water swelling, as edema includes toxic edema, which > is not referred to as water swelling in Chinese sources. Water > swelling is a more narrow term than edema. [Jason] I think you are going on the 20 year old Bensky... The new MM says nothing of swelling and bulging... They use just bulging disorders. And what if you don't know what a bulging disorder is, well... that is a good question... Well you look at p. 1140 where it gives a nice definition with pinyin and character... Once again, no example has been given yet! So you may debate about the term choice (bulging vs. mounting), and that is fine, but that is a different issue. But I can't see (yet) why he is more simplified, he just likes different words... Eric do you have the new MM? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > Thursday, October 28, 2004 6:33 AM > > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen > > > > , " " > <@c...> wrote: > >> [Jason] > > That is a good point, but again I have come across many of the compound > > terms that are not in the dictionary (because they are 'terms')... and > > aren't simply liver qi stag... but you are right the number should be > > lower, but many examples exist... you can check it out.. > > > Eric: > Once again, you make a sweeping statement while failing to provide a > single concrete example. [Jason] This is outrageous, by constantly asking for examples you resign yourself to a position of denying that what I say is true... Are you saying that Wiseman accounts for everything....? Are you saying that you think every term is in the dictionary?.. this is outrageous.. So I will waste some time to prove some points... 1) First and easiest is to prove that incomplete definitions of terms exist... One can look at yinfire or rough pulse... Talk about simplified... But I am not saying that Wiseman should every possible definition and usage, how could he... this is general dictionary with the most mainstream view ... 2) Now the more involved part: Check out the wenrelun , do a search for (͸ ·ç ÓÚ ÈÈ Íâ £¬ »ò Éø ʪ ÓÚ ÈÈ ÏÂ) tou4 feng1 yu2 re4 wai4 and shen4 shi1 yu2 re4 xia4 - A) there is no definition is the Wiseman dictionary for this technical term! (you asked for an example of this) - b) Furthermore if you translate straight with Wiseman speak (it is in the term list) it gives a misrepresentation of the paragraph at hand. It gives the completely wrong meaning, check it out... (you asked for an example of this) and C) here is a technical term that is not even in the list of Wiseman Terms. תű֮»úÀ¨ zhuan3 nue4 zhi1 ji1 kuo4 - It shows up in a MODERN discussion of the SanJiao (yet from a pre-modern quote, as they so often do) - It comes with a paragraph explanation of what the 'term' means. Point 4) Even if Wiseman had an entry of this term (w/o definition) it would be completely useless because it is so bizarre... There you have the 4 examples elucidating all the 4 points in question. Trust me there are many more, and there should be... I can't believe you or Nigel even require examples. To ask someone for examples in such a battering way gives the impression that you think they do not exist. But I will keep asking for examples from the Bensky text that show over simplification or whatever you think is going on, because I have yet to see any... (When you show the examples, I will be converted...) - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 also let look at mounting qi. using this term without elaboration does not give any clue to which or the various possible manifestation of mounting qi is used in any book section. If you give the rest of the needed information to clarify which of the various possibilities are used then using mounting qi is irrelevant, unless you are doing a search in Chinese literature. alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 and he never used Wiseman terms, and somehow I understood everything... >>>>And you studied at pcom which uses WT. alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 > > I think you are going on the 20 year old Bensky... The new MM says nothing > of swelling and bulging... They use just bulging disorders. And what if > you > don't know what a bulging disorder is, well... that is a good question... > Well you look at p. 1140 where it gives a nice definition with pinyin and > character... Once again, no example has been given yet! So you may debate > about the term choice (bulging vs. mounting), and that is fine, but that > is > a different issue. But I can't see (yet) why he is more simplified, he > just > likes different words... Eric do you have the new MM? > > - [Jason] Furthermore, Bensky for his list of technical terms supplies the Wiseman term in [brackets] after the pinyin and character.. Obviously he likes his term better but acknowledges a standard out there that other people may be familiar with... -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 , " " <@c...> wrote: > have never once read something and been completely puzzled because of the > terminology... It communicates the ideas very clearly and I can use ideas > effectively in the clinic. This is what matters... I just also sat through a > lecture from Guo Hui Liu and he never used Wiseman terms, and somehow I > understood everything... How is that possible? People argue that adopting a > set of terms is advanced... I think it is much more advanced to be flexible > enough to understand multiple positions... > > - Just because your read or hear something in English and understand it and can use your understanding clinically does not mean that your English understanding is the same exact understanding that a native Chinese TCM practitioner would have when reading or hearing the same but in Chinese medical Chinese. That is one of the points in this thread. People understand Bensky; that is not the issue. However, are they getting the full understanding of the what the original Chinese passages said before they were translated by Bensky? That is more the point. Brian C. Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 , " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > and he never used Wiseman terms, and somehow I > understood everything... > >>>>And you studied at pcom which uses WT. > alon > Unfortuntely, PCOM does not use WT. Only a few teachers use the terminology, and some more than others because most of the students have not taken the time to learn it well. Brian C. Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 , " " <@c...> wrote: > > I think you are going on the 20 year old Bensky... The new MM says nothing > of swelling and bulging... They use just bulging disorders. And what if you > don't know what a bulging disorder is, well... that is a good question... > Well you look at p. 1140 where it gives a nice definition with pinyin and > character... I wasn't taking any issue with bulging disorder, which I know is Bensky's new term for mounting (hernia in his old book). I was merely wondering how swelling got mixed into the idea with regard to chuan lian zi. I totally have no contest with Alon's point that it has applicability for swelling when due to liver involvement, mind you. This is just out of context because I was suggesting that the use of the word swelling in Doug's post may have been arising from the concept of bulging and confusion between bulging and swelling, which are separate in any system or language use (mounting and the character itself, a mountain in a disease radical do imply something bulging, so it is not an area that I am contending with). Nor do I call Bensky's technical vocab vernacular. Tonify, that is vernacular, but bulging is not. There is no need for an all-out turf war. I am merely arguing on translation principles. Both forms of translation can peacefully co-exist. Each person will have a preference for different styles, and each person will find something useable in texts of either style. I think there are more arguments for Wiseman terms when designing how you want to create your own text, but I appreciate that Bensky made a massive revision of his older work. I have spent enough time on this topic and I'm sure many readers are sick of it by now as well. Best, Eric > > > > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > > Thursday, October 28, 2004 7:25 AM > > > > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen > > > > > > > > > > > [Jason] > > > First of all - I said nothing of the matter about feng ye... Please > > re-read > > > my post, it is misintrepetation.... > > > > E: Ok, I re-read it. This is what Todd said, followed by your comment. > > > : 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. > > [Jason] > > Come on... get real.. So feng ye has nothing to offer the PD??? > > > > Eric: > > This is clearly calling out Feng Ye, by name, and assuming that he > > lacks the expertise in professional translation, and thus would have > > nothing to offer to the topic. This demonstrates your propensity to > > make an assumption on something that you personally know nothing > > about. It is one thing to assume incorrectly, but it is entirely > > different to voice an opinion in public that has no basis in reality. > > > > > [Jason] > > > So I don't understand here... you admit that it is not possible for > > the PD > > > to have everything, but you whine because I have not presented > > examples... > > > Come on.. Like I said, I could care less about proving this to the > > group, it > > > si self-evident IMO... You can believe what you want... > > > > Eric: > > Of course it is not possible for the PD to have everything. It is > > only a single book and our field is lagging way behind other fields. > > Every major written language on the planet has adopted local > > terminology for WM. The fact that the PD is not complemented by any > > other texts does not show a limit in the PD, but rather a limit in our > > community's ability to form a cohesive and profession method of > > communication. CM terminology in English has only been recently > > developed and it still is not accepted. > > > > I agree that both vernacular terms and technical terms can peacefully > > co-exist. I simply feel that technical terms are more appropriate for > > professional discourse. I think vernacular is fine for speech and > > common purposes, because people can always switch to technical lingo > > anytime clarity is needed. No one contests the use of technical > > language in Western medicine. Does that mean that TCM is less > > sophisticated? Or does it simply mean that practitioners are less mature? > > > > As an aside, since I am constantly being requested to provide > > examples, I will provide another example of where confusion can result > > from non-standard terms. If you look at Doug's response to the Chuan > > Lian Zi inquiry in the past day or so, you will see a mention that > > chuan lian zi treats swelling and bulging disorders (aka mounting qi). > > Now, to my knowledge, chuan lian zi is not indicated for water > > swelling (often translated as edema), although it is indicated for > > mounting qi. This may be due to inadequate knowledge of obscure > > functions on my part, but I don't see any indications of chuan lian zi > > for water swelling. Is Doug extrapolating that it reduces swelling > > because it treats bulging disorders? Or maybe he just knows something > > that I don't know. Interestingly, edema is not a very accurate > > translation for water swelling, as edema includes toxic edema, which > > is not referred to as water swelling in Chinese sources. Water > > swelling is a more narrow term than edema. > [Jason] > Once again, no example has been given yet! So you may debate > about the term choice (bulging vs. mounting), and that is fine, but that is > a different issue. But I can't see (yet) why he is more simplified, he just > likes different words... Eric do you have the new MM? > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 > > bcataiji [bcaom] > > That is one of the points in this thread. People understand Bensky; > that is not the issue. However, are they getting the full > understanding of the what the original Chinese passages said before > they were translated by Bensky? That is more the point. [Jason] I get it... and am open to it... but I have yet to see any proof that Bensky is missing the full understanding.. Do you have something to add that elucidates this point? Same with GHL's Warm disease Book, this is not a straight translation, it doesn't use WT... Does it lack something? -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 , " " <@c...> wrote: > > I get it... and am open to it... but I have yet to see any proof that Bensky > is missing the full understanding.. Do you have something to add that > elucidates this point? Same with GHL's Warm disease Book, this is not a > straight translation, it doesn't use WT... Does it lack something? > > -Jason In order to answer your question (and Eric alluded to this), we need the exact Chinese hanzi that Bensky used to come up with a passage on a particular herb. Then, that hanzi can be converted to Wiseman terminology. Then, people can judge accordingly. I have alread initiated discussion on the exterior releasing herbs in Bensky and Bob Flaws elaborated. I find Flaws 260 Essential Medicinals a much more clear and revealing read for the functions of the medicinals in that category. I understood more. I got a more full understanding. That is not to stay that the Bensky text was lacking; perhaps I am not as adept at reading the Bensky text than I am at reading the Flaws text, but this is not likely. Brian C. Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Jason, China is a very large country. There is a small but growing minority that is adapting Wiseman terminology. Nigel, Bob Felt or Eric should be able to fill you in on the details. On Oct 28, 2004, at 9:31 AM, wrote: > > > > > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > > > > WM terms will prevail in WM journals. Jason has referenced the > > absence of Wiseman terms in Chinese journals of TCM. This is due to > > the simple reason that the journals are published in Chinese, not > > English. Wiseman terms are, by definition, terms in English. > > > > Eric > > > [Jason] > Not true.,. I get journals (from China) in English and in Chinese... > Every > Journal I get in Chinese also has a English Index... I do not see > Wiseman > terms there or in the books I have bought from China (English > books)... I > just thought you were saying how prominent the Wiseman speak is in > China... > I just ask, if so, what are they doing with it - or where is it > prominant? > > -Jason > > > > > > Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, > including board approved continuing education classes, an annual > conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 While I also like and use the Warm Disease text, it would be much easier to compare and use terms if the Eastland Press folks published a gloss of all terms used. I've asked them a few times, haven't seen any yet. On Oct 28, 2004, at 9:38 AM, wrote: > > Exactly, there are multiple opinions and will always be... That is the > nature of CM... The more I read in Chinese the more I see this and > laugh at > attempts to put everything in a Box... The Chinese have never done > this (as > a whole) like WM... I know Todd loves the Warm Disease (as do I)... > But I > have never once read something and been completely puzzled because of > the > terminology... It communicates the ideas very clearly and I can use > ideas > effectively in the clinic. This is what matters... I just also sat > through a > lecture from Guo Hui Liu and he never used Wiseman terms, and somehow > I > understood everything... How is that possible? People argue that > adopting a > set of terms is advanced... I think it is much more advanced to be > flexible > enough to understand multiple positions... > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Alon, I don't understand your point here. I do know that understanding the character shan4 ~{p^~} , which has the mountain radical inside the disease radical, gives the sense of a disorder welling up from the inside outwards (therefore, mounting upwards). For me, it expresses the Chinese character into English understanding much more effectively than 'hernia', or leaving it as 'shan disorder'. I think this is an important point. An individual with a working knowledge of medical Chinese, which includes yourself, I believe, is looking for the best term choice to translate the Chinese concept into the target language. One should expect that it would be more difficult to comprehend technical terms in Chinese medicine if they have no clue about the Chinese language. While the Bensky, Macciocia, and Clavey texts may be an easier read, take it from me, many students and practitioners haven't a clue to understanding the so-called 'transparent' terms. Whenever I ask students if they know what many of these terms mean (before entering courses with teachers who use Wiseman terminology), they haven't a clue. It is embarrassing. It is a bit absurd to use terms like meridians, toxin, qi, tonification and sedation if you can't define what they mean. On Oct 28, 2004, at 9:49 AM, Alon Marcus wrote: > also let look at mounting qi. using this term without elaboration does > not give any clue to which or the various possible manifestation of > mounting qi is used in any book section. If you give the rest of the > needed information to clarify which of the various possibilities are > used then using mounting qi is irrelevant, unless you are doing a > search in Chinese literature. > alon > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 > > bcataiji [bcaom] > Thursday, October 28, 2004 12:05 PM > > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen > > > > , " " > <@c...> wrote: > > > > > I get it... and am open to it... but I have yet to see any proof > that Bensky > > is missing the full understanding.. Do you have something to add that > > elucidates this point? Same with GHL's Warm disease Book, this is not a > > straight translation, it doesn't use WT... Does it lack something? > > > > -Jason > > In order to answer your question (and Eric alluded to this), we need > the exact Chinese hanzi that Bensky used to come up with a passage on > a particular herb. Then, that hanzi can be converted to Wiseman > terminology. Then, people can judge accordingly. [Jason] Brian, I find this quite interesting, and somewhat of a cop-out.. Yours (and eric's) stance is that we need some 'original Chinese' to compare Bensky to, to determine if it is actually simplified or not... Yet this (as Eric states) can't be done, although people are still willing to call it simplified... This is complete circular conjecture. There is no proof, so how can you know? And where does someone get off saying things without proof? I think Eric, Bob et al demonstrated that your 'release the exterior' example was not sufficient... Others? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 , " " <@c...> wrote: > how can you know? And where does someone get off saying things without > proof? I don't know. Did you give Eric his proof yet???? > I think Eric, Bob et al demonstrated that your 'release the exterior' > example was not sufficient... Others? > > - In fact, what Bob Flaws wrote showed that the WT used for functions of medicinals in that category gave a more complete understanding. Brian C. Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 Greetings All - I have not responded to a CHA post in a long time - I am simply too busy to read them all on a regular basis - but I was recently told about the terminological discussion going on and felt compelled to read it, and of course, to respond. Although this may seem odd, I wish to begin by " introducing " myself to the group again so that everyone is clear on my background or my " credentials " if you will. I began studying Chinese in 1981 as a freshman in college. I lived for in Taiwan for a year in the early 80's and then graduated from Middlebury College with a B.A. in East Asian Studies. I completed a Master's degree in Anthropology at the University of Washington where I conducted field work with an elderly Cantonese practitioner of Chinese medicine. Although I have not completed my Ph.D. I conducted fieldwork at the Tianjin College of Traditional in the early '90's for the degree. I returned to the States and began teaching Chinese language and Chinese History at ACTCM in San Francisco. After moving to NY I " completed " my Chinese medicine study at PCOMNY. While still a student I was asked by Churchill Livingstone to edit a translated copy of Deng Tie Tao's Practical Diagnosis in . This translation was so unreadable that I proposed simply re-translating it. This translation was completed just prior to my graduation from PCOM. Also while a student I continued teaching Chinese language and Chinese medical history at PCOM. Upon my graduation I continued to teach - branching out into other classes. I later was the Clinic Director and then the Chair of the Dept. of Oriental Medicine at the New York College for Wholistic Health in Syosset, NY where I worked with Craig Mitchell on the translation of Jiao Shu De's Ten Lectures on Chinese Medicinals. I am currently the Chair of the Acupuncture Curriculum Committee at Touro College's Graduate Program in Oriental Medicine. I am not a publisher, I receive no monetary profit from the translation of Practical Diagnosis and not much from Jiao. I am highly invested in the Wiseman terminology. When the 1st edition of the PD came out in the early '90's my husband and I began the work of introducing the concept of a standardized terminology to our faculty and students and this is an endeavor that we have continued at every institution with which we have been engaged. At Touro college we are committed to the use of this terminology as we have seen the difference it makes for students. I would like to address some of the issues that have been raised regarding terminology. If I do not mention individuals by name, please forgive me. If I piss people off, I am not trying to do that and so please do not " take it personally " . As an educator, a clinician and a translator who has been involved with this medicine and with the Wiseman terminology for a long time, I am simply trying to express some of my thoughts. First of all, I wish to commend Bensky, Clavey and Stoger for the 3rd Edition of the Materia Medica. I have begun using it in my classes this semester and find it much more useful as a text. It is clear that many of the suggestions that Bensky must have recieved over the years have been incorporated into the text. Obviously, I regret the fact that Bensky is so strongly opposed to the use of Wiseman's terminology, however it is interesting to me that, as I move through the book (and I have really only worked with the regulate qi substances to this point) many of the changes that have been made in the book actually bring the terminological choices closer in line with Wiseman than I expected. So, in other words, I find the text very useful - but I also find myself attempting to translate the text to my students so that they can understand Bensky's terminological choices in relation to Wiseman's terms (the back of Fundamentals of has a very succinct little Materia Medica that is very helpful for this). This helps my students to understand the theoretical underpinnings of the terms Bensky uses. For example, last week we were discussing Substances that Regulate (Rectify) Qi. In the new edition, Bensky has begun to use the term " bulging " for shan4 (previously translated as hernia, and translated by Wiseman as mounting). Unfortunately, while I greatly prefer the term bulging to the term hernia, Bensky does not differentiate the 7 types of mounting/bulging, using simply the term bulging for all types (as far as I can see). Is this clinically relevant? Yes. Wiseman on the other hand differentiates and names each of the 7 types of mounting. So, as I teacher, I find myself going through the text and identifying the type of mounting that a particular substance might be appropriate to treat and helping my students to clarify this. I am able to do this because I have a greater understanding of the substances than my students do (I hope) but would it not have been useful for Bensky et. al. to simply make this simple differentiation, thereby helping the student and the practitioner to better differentiate one substance from another. Again, as Bob Flaws so clearly stated: go ahead and disagree with Wiseman, go ahead and make a different terminological choice, just make it transparent and make it readily available to the reader. So many points have been raised in this terminological discussion that I barely know where to begin. Like Bob Flaws, Bob Felt, Nigel, Eric and others I often get tired of trying to " prove a point " . Sometimes I give up and simply retreat into my clinical practice. And then, something comes up in class that makes me remember: Oh Yeah, that is why terminology is important. So, once again, here I go. As was pointed out in an earlier post, the language of medicine was originally Greek and Latin. This language was imported with the medicine and until relatively recently, physicians all learned Greek and/or Latin in order to understand the language. Would that all of our students learned Chinese and we could simply ignore this issue (I am definitely with you on this one Bob). Unfortunately due to numerous economic and social considerations this is not what occurred when this medicine was exported from the Chinese community in the United States to the American community in the United States. Some of you may remember (and I have heard stories) of students struggling to understand their teachers and of students with no understanding of Chinese or Chinese medicine " translating " their teachers texts. Well, these were the first texts available (and this was not so long ago). The number of books in our field has multiplying 10 fold (or more) in the past 20 years. However, because early students of this medicine were often " counter-culture " or seeking the harmony and knowledge of the east they did not care too much about how the text was written, as long as they could understand it. As a result, many quite wonderful books (for example the work of C.S. Cheung) has never really made it into the mainstream because it has always posed such a difficulty reading and understanding it. Other work has become very mainstream because it was " so readable " - never mind the fact that it might not portray the reality of Chinese medical theory. And so now, here we are. A much larger handful of individuals do read Chinese and are working on translation. We have a much better understanding of how translation should be conducted, of what the difference is between a translation and a personal experience book. The mere fact that we are able to have this conversation, that someone with the linguistic credentials of Nigel Wiseman is interested in this field speaks to the advancement of our profession. And yet, we erred, long ago, in not requiring students to understand the source language. And so now we must deal with that error, an error that the economics of CM education will not allow us to undo, by producing books that are as true to the source language as possible. Jason, I believe it was you who brought up the topic of trusting an author/translator. This is a very, very difficult proposition. Sticking solely to the issue of translation, what are the criteria that would be used to allow us to trust a translator. Is is clinical experience? How does one's clinical experience affect one's ability to read and translate Chinese? I know the argument - if the translator is not a clinician how can he/she expect to really understand what a book is talking about? Well, if a clinician decides to become a translator, is it not more likely that his/her clinical experience/viewpoints will shape his/her translation choices? Would it not be better for that clinician to either: 1) write a book that he/she clearly indicates is his/her perspective and to explain his/her qualifications for holding that perspective or 2) to translate a book using a standard terminology thereby removing his/her own experience as much as possible, but inserting commentary (a much revered tradition in China) into footnotes where appropriate? This allows the reader to know much more clearly what is translation and what is opinion/clinical experience. I would rather place my translation trust in someone who is well-grounded in the source language and also in the standards for translation and translation theory. Obviously, ideally this individual would work in a team or with a partner who is a clinician so as to clarify issues that might be obscure without a clinician's insight. The team of Feng Ye and Nigel Wiseman seems to me to fit this bill pretty perfectly. Does this mean that I do not trust Bensky? No, but it does mean that I am more apt to question how interpretive his translation is and how much it is influenced by his own clinical experience. This is not a bad thing. It is simply something that I, as a reader, want to know. This is why I posted my background prior to responding. This allows the reader to decide whether or not to trust me! Several people brought up the point that we cannot expect our students or our clinicians to constantly have to refer to a dictionary in order to read a book. I simply cannot agree! First, it is not that tedious a process. Most of the terms that are used by Wiseman/Ye are used quite frequently. So, after looking up a term a few times, you no longer need to. Second, why should we not have the expectation of our students that they will look further than simply at the required reading. This is, after all, graduate school. As a graduate student I spent a lot of time with a dictionary and a thesaurus. Why shouldn't our students. And please, do not give me the argument that " academics " are different from clinical medicine. I do not know how or why being an " academic " has become an insult in this field, but as a teacher, a scholar and a clinician I have no problem demanding the same type of rigor from my students. I expect them to have completed the required reading before coming to class and if they come to class and ask me what a word means - I will send them to the dictionary - a place they should have been before they came to class. We all feel free to gripe about the quality of our CM educations, but how many of us can really say that we went the extra mile or did the extra work to really understand what was being taught. Yes, it is incumbent on teachers to teach well but it is also incumbent on students to work well and to be prepared for class so that they do not need to be spoon fed. In the end, spending the extra five minutes it takes to look up a word will greatly enhance the student's understanding and, in the end, make them a better clinician. Translation in our field is still young. When I first translated Practical Diagnosis I had no idea what I was doing. I was someone who spoke Chinese, who had some understanding of Chinese medicine and who was willing to work hard for very little reward. Later, when working with Craig Mitchell, Michael Helme and Nigel on Jiao, I learned a lot about translation and looking back on Practical Diagnosis now, it is riddled with errors and odd language. I have even offered to do a revision but Churchill was not interested. So, as Bob Flaws said, to use some of the older translations using Wiseman terminology as examples of how it does not work is problematic. Yes, these books are out there, and they are examples of how this terminology can be misused. But, just as a clinician spends several years learning how to practice CM before he/she feels confident about his/her skills, translation is also something that must be learned. When the first edition of Fundamentals of Chinese medicine came out, it was considered much too difficult to read to be a useful text. The next edition corrected many of the problems of the first and made it into an excellent fundamental theory textbook. When Bob Flaws first began publishing using the standard terminology, the complaints from students were non-stop. And yet, as he got better at, and the students learned the language, the terminology become almost a non-issue. In Touro's program, whenever possible, we use a text that uses the Wiseman terminology. Initially there is some griping, but by the end of the first semester students are so used to the terminology that understanding the books and understanding the importance of the dictionary is no longer an issue. Let us look at the most commonly used Fundamental Theory textbooks as an example. These are: Wiseman: Fundamentals of , Maciocia: Foundations of and CAM. Using the idea of trust for the author/translator and being true to the medicine as it is taught in China, let us look at each one of these: Fundamentals: A denotative translation of modern Chinese medicine fundamental theory textbooks by a Ph.D linguist who works and teaches at a College of in Taiwan, whose work is used and published in China and whose language is made readily available and transparent to the reader. Sometimes difficult to read for the new student, but with a good teacher, the dictionary and a little effort, easily becomes accessible. Foundations: An individual interpretation of fundamental theory as learned and understood by him. A highly respected clinician with some Chinese who openly states that he does not believe that a standardized terminology is possible and that he does not feel it is necessary to gloss or explain his terminological choices. Easy to read, but often creates confusion among students. CAM: Overly simplified CM theory that is " westernized " in order to make it accessible. Probably the most widely sold book on CM in this country - except maybe the Web. (Bob Felt is this true?) Granted my analyses may be biased (who are we kidding) but I have no problem making a choice. Looked at from this perspective I " m not really sure how anyone would. Maybe it was not the book we learned from - but so what. As clinicians and educators it behooves us to continually raise our own standards so that our students will be better than we are. Teaching is, in fact, meant to be a fairly selfless act! I am sure that I have not addressed all of the issues that I wanted to address, but I have run out of time - and probably lost most of my readers. I wish to express my thanks to individuals like Bob Felt, Bob Flaws and Nigel Wiseman who have put themselves out there and opened themselves up to criticism, who have taken the more difficult path and are making a comittment to this medicine. I also wish to again openly thank Dan Bensky, Steve Clavey and Eric Stoger for the revised edition of the Materia Medica. It is only by continuing to improve our work that we will advance our profession. Respectfully, Marnae C. Ergil --- wrote: > > > > > > > bcataiji [bcaom] > > Thursday, October 28, 2004 12:05 PM > > > > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & > Chen > > > > > > > > , " Jason > " > > <@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > I get it... and am open to it... but I have yet > to see any proof > > that Bensky > > > is missing the full understanding.. Do you have > something to add that > > > elucidates this point? Same with GHL's Warm > disease Book, this is not a > > > straight translation, it doesn't use WT... Does > it lack something? > > > > > > -Jason > > > > In order to answer your question (and Eric alluded > to this), we need > > the exact Chinese hanzi that Bensky used to come > up with a passage on > > a particular herb. Then, that hanzi can be > converted to Wiseman > > terminology. Then, people can judge accordingly. > [Jason] > Brian, > > I find this quite interesting, and somewhat of a > cop-out.. Yours (and > eric's) stance is that we need some 'original > Chinese' to compare Bensky to, > to determine if it is actually simplified or not... > Yet this (as Eric > states) can't be done, although people are still > willing to call it > simplified... This is complete circular conjecture. > There is no proof, so > how can you know? And where does someone get off > saying things without > proof? > > I think Eric, Bob et al demonstrated that your > 'release the exterior' > example was not sufficient... Others? > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 > > bcataiji [bcaom] > Thursday, October 28, 2004 2:04 PM > > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen > > > > , " " > <@c...> wrote: > > > how can you know? And where does someone get off saying things without > > proof? > > I don't know. Did you give Eric his proof yet???? > [Jason] I did... but again this is a typical straw man... When I ask you too substantiate your claim, you turn it around, change the subject and try to put it on me / different topic... Typical... -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 , " " <@c...> wrote: > [Jason] > I did... but again this is a typical straw man... When I ask you too > substantiate your claim, you turn it around, change the subject and try to > put it on me / different topic... Typical... > > -Jason My post which prompted Bob Flaw's post on the WT used for functions of exterior resolving medicinals showed that the WT provided more information and therefore more understanding. This is now the 3rd time this is being said. What more do you want. Also, you proved nothing to Eric. There is a different between saying that a word is not in the PD, or that the CD dictionary does not have a definition for a word, and your original claim that the definitions in the PD for specific terms were not good enough in specific instances that you come upon all of the time. Furthermore, you spent so much time saying how obvious it was and that you were not going to argue the point, taking up much type written space, that it would have been much easier for you to provide the specific WT from the PD which has a definition, where it appears in one of your many passages of interest, and what you THINK it was supposed to mean in that passage. Then we can look it up in the PD and see the difference and decide for ourselves. Really, it had to have been at least 8 posts of your saying the same thing over and over and saying that you don't need to prove it, that it is obvious, etc. Brian C. Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 , " " <@c...> wrote: > I did... but again this is a typical straw man... When I ask you too > substantiate your claim, you turn it around, change the subject and try to > put it on me / different topic... Typical... > > -Jason Even thought I already addressed this, let me explain it simply for you so that you are sure to understand. Ma Huang a function in Bensky's new MM: promotes urination and reduces edema A student reading this and learning from this would be led to believe that giving Ma Huang to someone will make them urinate. a function in Bob Flaw's 260 Essential Chinese Medicinals: disinhibits water and reduces swelling A student reading this and learning from this would be led to believe that giving Ma Huang to someone will have an effect on water if in fact it is inhibited, rather than in any situation such as the general (simplified) concept of promoting urination. Therefore, because the WT in Flaw's book provides more detail, it provides more understanding. If you are unable to understand this, then please do not respond any further on this thread. Brian C. Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 > > marnae ergil [marnae] > > For example, last week we > were discussing Substances that Regulate (Rectify) Qi. > In the new edition, Bensky has begun to use the term > " bulging " for shan4 (previously translated as hernia, > and translated by Wiseman as mounting). > Unfortunately, while I greatly prefer the term bulging > to the term hernia, Bensky does not differentiate the > 7 types of mounting/bulging, using simply the term > bulging for all types (as far as I can see). [Jason] Marnae, First I want to say thanx for putting your input in on this important subject, but what you say above I don't think is true... i.e. looking at our friend Chuan Lian Zi Bensky, Clavey et al says " with... xiao hui xiang and wu zhu yu for pain in association with COLD-type bulging disorders " ... or " with yan hu suo for... pain from bulging disorders... due to liver qi stagnation... " Clearly he is differentiating... But even if he didn't you are comparing a dictionary vs. a MM... I think we should be careful to compare apples and oranges. I.e. the original texts may have not mentioned such differentiates, and therefore a dictionary or anther source may have more (differentiated) material. I don't see your (above) beef being about translation of terms, or oversimplification because of terms - but about more detailed information... Am I missing something? > > Jason, I believe it was you who brought up the topic > of trusting an author/translator. This is a very, very > difficult proposition. Sticking solely to the issue > of translation, what are the criteria that would be > used to allow us to trust a translator. Is is > clinical experience? How does one's clinical > experience affect one's ability to read and translate > Chinese? I know the argument - if the translator is > not a clinician how can he/she expect to really > understand what a book is talking about? Well, if a > clinician decides to become a translator, is it not > more likely that his/her clinical > experience/viewpoints will shape his/her translation > choices? [Jason] [Jason] You are right, and I don't have a good answer, but I trust Dan & Steve... As well as a handful of others... Would it not be better for that clinician to > either: 1) write a book that he/she clearly indicates > is his/her perspective and to explain his/her > qualifications for holding that perspective or 2) to > translate a book using a standard terminology thereby > removing his/her own experience as much as possible, > but inserting commentary (a much revered tradition in > China) into footnotes where appropriate? This allows > the reader to know much more clearly what is > translation and what is opinion/clinical experience. > I would rather place my translation trust in someone > who is well-grounded in the source language and also > in the standards for translation and translation > theory. Obviously, ideally this individual would work > in a team or with a partner who is a clinician so as > to clarify issues that might be obscure without a > clinician's insight. The team of Feng Ye and Nigel > Wiseman seems to me to fit this bill pretty perfectly. [Jason] I don't think anyone is arguing with this... I of course prefer sourced terms and Wiseman is an easy & accurate solution... I don't think my argument is about who is better or worse. It is not about what I think, or you think, should be the best way to approach translation... I agree with You, Eric, Bob, Bob, et al on this Wiseman translation issue... The point is about the other side of the coin, and the claim that Chinese Medicine cannot be sufficiently translated in this other manner. The claim is that it over-simplifies things... Does it?? I am not sure. It can of course like CAM, but is it possible that it doesn't have to... Remember we are not talking about a vacuum.. meaning judging a book on its own, we have to remember that we have the PD, as well as other sources... I still would like to see more proof... > Does this mean that I do not trust Bensky? No, but > it does mean that I am more apt to question how > interpretive his translation is and how much it is > influenced by his own clinical experience. This is > not a bad thing. It is simply something that I, as a > reader, want to know. [Jason] That is a good point... IS it influenced by his clinical practice.. I would say no, but a good question for Dan & Steve... > I do not know how or why being an " academic " has > become an insult in this field, but as a teacher, a > scholar and a clinician I have no problem demanding > the same type of rigor from my students. I expect > them to have completed the required reading before > coming to class and if they come to class and ask me > what a word means - I will send them to the dictionary > - a place they should have been before they came to > class. We all feel free to gripe about the quality of > our CM educations, but how many of us can really say > that we went the extra mile or did the extra work to > really understand what was being taught. Yes, it is > incumbent on teachers to teach well but it is also > incumbent on students to work well and to be prepared > for class so that they do not need to be spoon fed. > In the end, spending the extra five minutes it takes > to look up a word will greatly enhance the student's > understanding and, in the end, make them a better > clinician. [Jason] Agreed here... > > Translation in our field is still young. When I first > translated Practical Diagnosis I had no idea what I > was doing. I was someone who spoke Chinese, who had > some understanding of Chinese medicine and who was > willing to work hard for very little reward. Later, > when working with Craig Mitchell, Michael Helme and > Nigel on Jiao, I learned a lot about translation and > looking back on Practical Diagnosis now, it is riddled > with errors and odd language. I have even offered to > do a revision but Churchill was not interested. So, > as Bob Flaws said, to use some of the older > translations using Wiseman terminology as examples of > how it does not work is problematic. Yes, these books > are out there, and they are examples of how this > terminology can be misused. [Jason] I think that was my point (a while back) that you DO have to trust someone on either end, and just using WT does not guarantee anything.. For Example, I am a TA for a Translation class and of course we all use Wiseman Speak (most of the time)... The Students papers are of course riddled with misuse... As are most people... But I AM NOT SAYING that using connotative or BEnsky Speak or whatever is some solution... IT just requires hard work... And I have always supported using Wiseman as a foundation... > I wish to express my thanks to individuals like Bob > Felt, Bob Flaws and Nigel Wiseman who have put > themselves out there and opened themselves up to > criticism, who have taken the more difficult path and > are making a comittment to this medicine. I also wish > to again openly thank Dan Bensky, Steve Clavey and > Eric Stoger for the revised edition of the Materia > Medica. It is only by continuing to improve our work > that we will advance our profession. [Jason] 3 cheers to that! -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 > > bcataiji [bcaom] > Thursday, October 28, 2004 3:06 PM > > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen > > > > , " " > <@c...> wrote: > > > [Jason] > > I did... but again this is a typical straw man... When I ask you too > > substantiate your claim, you turn it around, change the subject and > try to > > put it on me / different topic... Typical... > > > > -Jason > > My post which prompted Bob Flaw's post on the WT used for functions of > exterior resolving medicinals showed that the WT provided more > information and therefore more understanding. > > This is now the 3rd time this is being said. What more do you want. > > Also, you proved nothing to Eric. There is a different between saying > that a word is not in the PD, or that the CD dictionary does not have > a definition for a word, and your original claim that the definitions > in the PD for specific terms were not good enough in specific > instances that you come upon all of the time. [Jason] No, you must have missed the post... I gave a clear instance from the wenrelun, you can check it out if you like... > > Furthermore, you spent so much time saying how obvious it was and that > you were not going to argue the point, taking up much type written > space, [Jason] Of course I did, because Z'ev, eric, and even Nigel (later) admits that there are limitations, like I said why do I need to prove the earth is round when everyone agrees... The only reason I finally did post it is because Nigel Chimed in.... You probably have no ability to even judge the examples for yourself... You do not have the skills... that it would have been much easier for you to provide the > specific WT from the PD which has a definition, [Jason] The wenrelun example is not even in the PD - That is 1/2 the point! where it appears in > one of your many passages of interest, and what you THINK it was > supposed to mean in that passage. [Jason] I will make this simple, b/c I see your skill set is low... IF you check the pegged term in the green (Wiseman) book or e-file you get what it is says... You then read the wenrelun passage in CHINESE and see if it fits.. It is real obvious that it is off... I feel no need to hold your hand, and if you really care you can look stuff up... but again I find it surprising that you even entertain the idea that there are no exceptions to the rule. Then we can look it up in the PD > and see the difference and decide for ourselves. Really, it had to > have been at least 8 posts of your saying the same thing over and over > and saying that you don't need to prove it, that it is obvious, etc. [Jason] YES YES YES - because you have to have the context in Chinese to evaluate it.. come on... that is why I kept saying it is not appropriate for the forum... This is like a bunch of monkeys trying to screw in a light bulb... -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 > > bcataiji [bcaom] > Thursday, October 28, 2004 3:17 PM > > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen > > > > , " " > <@c...> wrote: > > > I did... but again this is a typical straw man... When I ask you too > > substantiate your claim, you turn it around, change the subject and > try to > > put it on me / different topic... Typical... > > > > -Jason > > Even thought I already addressed this, let me explain it simply for > you so that you are sure to understand. > > Ma Huang > > a function in Bensky's new MM: > promotes urination and reduces edema > > A student reading this and learning from this would be led to believe > that giving Ma Huang to someone will make them urinate. > > a function in Bob Flaw's 260 Essential Chinese Medicinals: > disinhibits water and reduces swelling > > A student reading this and learning from this would be led to believe > that giving Ma Huang to someone will have an effect on water if in > fact it is inhibited, rather than in any situation such as the general > (simplified) concept of promoting urination. > > > Therefore, because the WT in Flaw's book provides more detail, it > provides more understanding. > > If you are unable to understand this, then please do not respond any > further on this thread. [Jason] So you are saying if I don't agree with you then I shouldn't respond? Well I don't agree... -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 , " " <@c...> wrote: > when everyone agrees... The only reason I finally did post it is because > Nigel Chimed in.... You probably have no ability to even judge the examples > for yourself... You do not have the skills... You are quite entertaining here, Jason, but wrong. In my undergraduate studies, I minored in East Asian Studies & Chinese Language, so Chinese language, speaking it, reading, and writing it, is not a mystery to me. Also, while at PCOM, I've been teaching myself medical Chinese little by little, and have translated small tidbits of things for myself when I felt the need. My skills are no less than yours when you decided to start translating. Furthermore, my skills, and to that matter, whether or not I even exist, has no bearing on whether or not you are wrong or not. > > that it would have been much easier for you to provide the > > specific WT from the PD which has a definition, > [Jason] > The wenrelun example is not even in the PD - That is 1/2 the point! Eric kept asking you to provide an example where the definition in the PD did not fit. You provided an example of a word where there was no definition. So, you proved nothing. > [Jason] > I will make this simple, b/c I see your skill set is low... IF you Which skill set? And why are you getting personal? You don't see me bringing in information about your " skill set " as relayed to me by one of the girls you dated at PCOM? Keep to the point and don't embarrass yourself. > [Jason] > YES YES YES - because you have to have the context in Chinese to evaluate > it.. come on... that is why I kept saying it is not appropriate for the > forum... This is like a bunch of monkeys trying to screw in a light bulb... > > -Jason If it were really not appropriate for the forum, would have put an end to the topic and not allow the posts to continue. Brian C. Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 , " " <@c...> wrote: > > If you are unable to understand this, then please do not respond any > > further on this thread. > [Jason] > So you are saying if I don't agree with you then I shouldn't respond? > Well I don't agree... > > -Jason How did you twist the word " understand " into the word " agree " ? Anyway, if you do not agree, sure, respond. But, and maybe I am wrong, you did ask how WT could provide more understanding about an herb than the Bensky terminology does in his new MM. I responded and showed that I got more understanding from Flaw's MM with the WT than I did from the Bensky book. You cannot disagree that I understood more from Flaw's, you can only realistically comment on your own understanding or the understanding of other reported to you. 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.