Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

[Guest guest]

>

> bcataiji [bcaom]

> Thursday, October 28, 2004 4:10 PM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

>

> , " "

> <@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.

[Jason]

Your skill set seems to be the ability to reference the source text and

evaluate it.. that is it...

 

>

> >

> > 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]

Are you high...? I did not provide a word but a series of characters that

make up 2 technical terms that show where the WT does not fit... I did also

provide words that are not in the PD... But here we are talking about WT's

not just what is in the PD... The definition issue is separate and expressed

with the other examples... Check it out...

 

>

>

> > [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?

[Jason] Funny funny... bring it on... But it is not anything about being

personal, but a level / ability to not be able reference the text and

evaluate it... Am I wrong?

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

>

> bcataiji [bcaom]

> Thursday, October 28, 2004 4:14 PM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

>

> , " "

> <@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.

>

>

[Jason] ]

Check out the disinhibit water from the PD - 'To eliminate dampness by

freeing urination in the treatment of... "

yOu may have got more (who knows how) but I don't agree that his

representation shows anything more than what Bensky writes... This is very

vague.. Are you now able to use the herb better? More clinically effective?

Or somehow you understand things better? Please explain... But the ma huang

does promote urination, according to pharmacological research, so I don't

get what you are saying... Jus because you say you get more means nothing

unless you can demonstrate something tangible... But I actually would like

to hear more about this one, we are finally getting to something tangible...

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

Marnae,

I have enjoyed this post so much, I think you should edit it into an

article and get it into one of our (few) professional journals.

 

One insight of my own I'd like to add here is that it seems that all

respondents feel that the terminology adapted by Eastland Press is the

only real 'alternative' to Wiseman terminology. I don't see any other

authors' methods being considered at this point, including those of

mainland Chinese authors who still use English-Chinese biomedical

dictionaries, Maciocia, or Kaptchuk. I haven't seen any arguments

drawn from any of these works.

 

For me, the Wiseman terminology is like 'open-source' software, with

the terminology freely available, explained, defined, and written about

in several articles and books. Many articles explaining the

terminology are available for free to anyone who would like to read

about it and make up their own mind.

 

The terminology adapted by Eastland Press seems to be more like

'closed-system' software, you can't get 'under the hood'. Again, like

you, Marnae, I don't want this to be perceived as personal. I count

Dan, Steve Clavey and Miki Shima as colleagues, teachers and friends,

and I respect their knowledge of medical Chinese as being far superior

to my own. I also use their books freely when I teach, and enjoy the

new Clavey/Bensky materia medica very much. However, I cannot strongly

emphasize the need for the Eastland Press authors and editors to

publish articles or glosses listing and explaining terminology choices,

and their own arguments for or against terms used by Nigel Wiseman and

Feng Ye in their work. One side of this debate is silent, and hasn't

come up with the material to allow an open discussion on this matter.

I would hope to hear something soon.

 

 

 

 

On Oct 28, 2004, at 1:20 PM, marnae ergil wrote:

 

> 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!

>

>

 

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

 

> [Jason]

> Are you high...? I did not provide a word but a series of characters

that

> make up 2 technical terms that show where the WT does not fit... I

did also

> provide words that are not in the PD... But here we are talking

about WT's

> not just what is in the PD... The definition issue is separate and

expressed

> with the other examples... Check it out...

 

I know what you posted. We already know that there are Wiseman terms

for which definitions do not exist. Therefore, confusion could arise

and may possible be alleved by an alternative word in a given context.

Eric did not argue that point. We also know that there are many

words for which a WT does not exist. Eric also did not argue that point.

Eric did, however, ask you to provide a specific WT in which you did

not think the definition in the PD would apply in a specific case.

 

Have you provided that along without why the PD definition is wrong

and what a better definition would be? If so, I have missed it, and

if you refer me to the post #, I will go back and read it.

 

> [Jason] Funny funny... bring it on... But it is not anything about being

> personal, but a level / ability to not be able reference the text and

> evaluate it... Am I wrong?

>

> -Jason

 

Being that I can read, write, and speak modern Chinese to some degree,

I have been teaching myself medical Chinese, have access to Chinese

dictionaries (with the ability to use them), have a PCOM education

like you do (I graduate in 7 week), have had no difficult translating

the few CM things I felt I needed to translate for myself, what more

do you want?

 

You are posting in a public forum posting general questions to every

member on this list. If you only want answers from a certain types of

people, then please list the qualifications that you require in an

individual so that all others know not to reply.

 

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Enough is enough... 1st then eric.. Now Me... I am bowing out until

something substantial is presented that merits a response, everything has

been said and concrete examples are needed. I have presented mine and

people can present theirs... Otherwise I need to get some translating done

today (on my wasted day off), and take a quick hike in the mountains before

it gets too dark... Hasta,

 

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

 

> [Jason] ]

> Check out the disinhibit water from the PD - 'To eliminate dampness by

> freeing urination in the treatment of... "

> yOu may have got more (who knows how) but I don't agree that his

> representation shows anything more than what Bensky writes... This

is very

> vague.. Are you now able to use the herb better? More clinically

effective?

> Or somehow you understand things better? Please explain... But the ma

 

Because we are talking about understanding and, of course,

misunderstanding, I was trying to point out that Bensky's use of

" promotes urination " would lead one to believe that no matter what, ma

huang is going to make someone urinate. There is the possibility for

a misunderstanding here.

 

I have already checked the PD before I posted and saw the bit about

freeing urination. In order for it to be " freed " it must be in a

state of not being " free, " thus the use of disinhibit. If the

urination is disinhibited, then it can be freed. This leaves less

room for misunderstanding.

 

Now, you mention modern pharmacological research that shows ma huang

promotes urination, and that may put a wrench in my arguement, but

only if the research shows that it promotes urination rather than

promoting inhibited urination. Also, at this point is become a more

complex issue because that research was not available when the sources

were written, and we would have to know the intent of the author. Did

the author mean " take ma huang and you will pee whether you needed to

or not? " or did they mean " take ma huang and it can disinhibit water,

freeing urination? " I do not know.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

>

> bcataiji [bcaom]

> Thursday, October 28, 2004 4:35 PM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

>

> , " "

> <@c...> wrote:

>

> > [Jason]

> > Are you high...? I did not provide a word but a series of characters

> that

> > make up 2 technical terms that show where the WT does not fit... I

> did also

> > provide words that are not in the PD... But here we are talking

> about WT's

> > not just what is in the PD... The definition issue is separate and

> expressed

> > with the other examples... Check it out...

>

> I know what you posted. We already know that there are Wiseman terms

> for which definitions do not exist. Therefore, confusion could arise

> and may possible be alleved by an alternative word in a given context.

> Eric did not argue that point. We also know that there are many

> words for which a WT does not exist. Eric also did not argue that point.

> Eric did, however, ask you to provide a specific WT in which you did

> not think the definition in the PD would apply in a specific case.

>

> Have you provided that along without why the PD definition is wrong

> and what a better definition would be? If so, I have missed it, and

> if you refer me to the post #, I will go back and read it.

>

> > [Jason] Funny funny... bring it on... But it is not anything about being

> > personal, but a level / ability to not be able reference the text and

> > evaluate it... Am I wrong?

> >

> > -Jason

>

> Being that I can read, write, and speak modern Chinese to some degree,

> I have been teaching myself medical Chinese, have access to Chinese

> dictionaries (with the ability to use them), have a PCOM education

> like you do (I graduate in 7 week), have had no difficult translating

> the few CM things I felt I needed to translate for myself, what more

> do you want?

>

> You are posting in a public forum posting general questions to every

> member on this list. If you only want answers from a certain types of

> people, then please list the qualifications that you require in an

> individual so that all others know not to reply.

[Jason]

That was my point, and why I hesitated showing such examples. One must be

much more proficient at translating (pre-modern) that you and 99% of people

on this list. It is not suited for public CHA... One should also have an

understanding of wenbing material to understand this such example.. These

are specific instances and are real, but one has to have to skills to get

it. Do you have a copy of the wenrelun? Id so, I will walk you through it

privately if you want me too. But these examples come from difficult

passages, they are not easy CM MM reading... Hence, this is why if you don't

read strange stuff from different time periods etc, then Wiseman term

usually works fine... I although read and search out bizarre stuff...

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

Z've,

 

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

For me, the Wiseman terminology is like 'open-source' software, with

> the terminology freely available, explained, defined, and written about

> in several articles and books.

 

As one who uses plenty of open source software, I appreciate the

analogy. Very nice.

 

Fernando

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

 

> [Jason]

> That was my point, and why I hesitated showing such examples. One

must be

> much more proficient at translating (pre-modern) that you and 99% of

people

> on this list. It is not suited for public CHA... One should also

have an

> understanding of wenbing material to understand this such example..

These

> are specific instances and are real, but one has to have to skills

to get

> it. Do you have a copy of the wenrelun? Id so, I will walk you

through it

> privately if you want me too. But these examples come from difficult

> passages, they are not easy CM MM reading... Hence, this is why if

you don't

> read strange stuff from different time periods etc, then Wiseman term

> usually works fine... I although read and search out bizarre stuff...

>

> -Jason

 

Firstly, there is no need to sell anyone short on this forum. Even if

someone does not translate, it does not mean that the do not have the

capacity to understand an issue involving a translation.

 

I don't think anyone said that an example of a PD definition that

would not fit a circumstance was non-existant, but Eric, I, and others

did want a concrete example. I, for one, am curious, and enjoy

reading about complex issues, as do many on this forum. I was looking

forward to it, and still am.

 

No, I do not have a copy of the wenrelun. I understand that it may be

difficult or time comsuming for you to convey which PD definition was

not suitable and why, but we are all interested - that is why we read

this forum. Because you said you had many examples and encounter them

frequently, perhaps you could find an example that would be easier for

you to convey.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

>> marnae ergil <marnae@p...>

Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:20 pm

RE: Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

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.>>

 

Marnae, thanks for such a clear and principled post.

Misha

[Guest guest]

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).

 

>>>different people learn and appreciate descriptions differently. It is clear

that Zev and many others which are drawn to learning Chinese characters get

great satisfaction from the images and see these as deepening their

understanding (which in my mind is part of the problems CM has in general but

not part of this conversation). if looking at shan,obviously hernia only

pertains to part of the manifestations of shan disorders, but still clearly

describes the welling up image you get.

If one is to use this term clinically,mounting, hernia or any other term,one

must still have more information to clarify the condition. Since this is the

clinical reality additional words are needed (Qi, blood, cold, painful etc.) to

elaborate the term.Therefore as a reader it is irrelevant to me if one for

example want to describe abdominal hernia as abdominal hernia do to qi

stagnation or call it any other name which conveys to me that we are talking

about abdominal protrusion that is characterized by qi stagnation or if one uses

qi mounting for example. Again the argument is quite different and everybody is

just dancing around it.

Obviously some very smart people do not believe studding and looking at Chinese

medicine in a standardized fashion is correct while other very smart people do.

I for one do not find reading WT books difficult and have needed to look up

terms only occasionally because the vast majority are quite clear and basically

the same (perhaps because I did go through the entire dictionary and as I said

before was quite informative and useful exercise). however to conclude that

everybody learns in the same way, as it seems many of WT advocates apparently

have been advocating

and to say that by the use of freely chosen words which translators and authors

may feel better transmit an idea is inferior in any way is both arrogant and

short sighted and again presumes that everybody learns in the same way.

So as I see it there are two question. 1. is CM standardized and 2. do we all

have to conform to one standard. If the answer to any one of these is no, then

why are we spending all this time on this issue?

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

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.

 

>>>That surprises me. Do the non Chinese use it?

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

I have, respectfully, a slightly different point of view from Brian, as

a long-time teacher and dept. head at PCOM.

 

The herb department largely consists of teachers who utilize Wiseman

terminology to a large degree. I would count at least four of us

(myself, Bob Damone, Warren Sheir). Jack Miller, the CEO,

clearly is supportive of Wiseman terminology as well. The Chinese

faculty is not at all interested, despite my efforts, but I am patient.

Real change takes time.

 

 

On Oct 28, 2004, at 8:00 PM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> 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.

>

> >>>That surprises me. Do the non Chinese use it?

> alon

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

> 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?

 

 

Again, no one has said that the Bensky material is simplified. People

have repeatedly said the Bensky terminology is simplified.

Simplifying the terms simplifies the concepts of CM. If he is

consistently using a variety of technical terms beyond the list in the

glossary, he should explain them. Instead, he makes a reference in

the glossary that could be easily construed as suggesting that the

terms listed in the gloss represent the only significant deviations

from Wiseman & Feng. This is not true. Tonify alone, drain damp

alone obviously show this supposition to be false.

 

Obviously, Bensky has included a great deal of info that doesn't exist

in any one text in Chinese. Obviously, additional information from

Chinese sources would be able to add even more info about the actions

of a drug. The complexity of drug descriptions in CM go on and on,

and the inclusion of everything into any one book is not expected nor

required. Thus, the point that we are making on simplification in

Bensky involves the core concepts, not the nitpicking of specific

entries. All MM are simplified entry to entry. Otherwise, MM would

have 500 volume sets, with one volume devoted to each drug. At $125 a

book, that would really add up.

 

Eric

 

 

 

>

> >

> > bcataiji [bcaom@c...]

> > 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?

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Thanks very much for your insightful post, Marnae.

 

Eric Brand

 

 

, marnae ergil <marnae@p...>

wrote:

> 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

>

>

>

> --- <@c...>

> wrote:

>

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > > bcataiji [bcaom@c...]

> > > 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?

> >

> > -

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Let me just say, I don't know for sure that li4, disinhibit, only

promotes urination when it is inhibited. There is really no way that

we can know. However, given the meaning of the term, it is a distinct

possibility that it is true. We do know from pharmacology that many

meds that disinhibit dampness do not promote urination. Promoting

urination is the exact same meaning as diuresis, it is just a lay term

instead of a technical term.

 

Ma huang, I believe, is diuretic and does promote urination. Clearly

the Chinese term li4 includes diuretic and non-diuretic substances.

The fact that all meds that li4 do treat dampness, although some are

diuretic and some are not, to me suggests that the Chinese were making

assumptions about opening inhibitions that may not perfectly translate

into our concept of diuresis. They saw water swelling and they

assumed that the body was inhibited in its ability to eliminate water,

thus they gave zhu ling or whatever and saw that the dampness

improved. Their assumption that it disinhibited water may have been

based more on the fact that it treated the conditions than that it

increased urine output in ml in every person who took it.

 

My point is, we have no way to know. To say that a drug promotes

urination implies that it does this to anyone who takes it. We know

that there are drugs that disinhibit dampness that do not do this.

Thus, promoting urination is a narrower concept than the Chinese

original and lends itself to assumptions from Western readers. The

idea that disinhibiting drugs only promote urination when it is

inhibited is an idea that is mine alone. I thought that must be the

case but when I asked Nigel he said that there is no way for us to

know one way or the other. The pharmacological evidence clearly shows

us that something is going on that cannot be reduced to an average

increase of urine output of a given number of ml a day in all

patients. Thus, disinhibit as a term choice gives the reader a

definition to go on that allows them to speculate on the true

understanding, whereas the lay term promote urination implies

diuresis, which is simply not true in all cases, although it happens

to be true in the case of ma huang.

 

Ma huang is indicated for wind-water and water swelling. Both of

these conditions are types of edema in WM, but WM's definition of

edema includes diseases that are do not fit this category in TCM.

There is not a one-to-one equation of edema and TCM's breakdown of

various types of water swelling. To imply that these are the same is

to simplify the concepts of traditional medicine and suggests to the

reader that the action of a given med is closer to the sum of its

pharmacology rather than the range of its traditional use.

 

Eric Brand

 

 

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...> wrote:

>

> , " "

> <@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

[Guest guest]

First off, Nigel has always been the first to admit that the PD does

not have all the answers. As many people have said, it is just a

starting point. The phrases you referred us to as holes in the

terminology were all complex, advanced, multi-character expressions

that would be perfect to resolve with footnotes in the text in which

they occurred. Nigel responded to Jason's inquiries with the humble

admission that he does not have all the answers.

 

Nigel stated that of course the PD has holes; what could be expected

when CM is thousands of years old? He also mentioned that if he

worked on the jia yi, he would have embarked on an immense expansion

of his database. He also mentioned that Chip never once approached

him with a single question on how PD terminology could be applied.

 

Nigel has always been open to making additions and receiving new

input. Everyone has always endorsed that terms can be coined in any

way as long as they leave a trace of which terms they came from.

Footnotes for the exceptions are easy to accomodate. But the fact

remains that the vast majority of the terms are perfectly acceptable

within the PD framework. Jason illustrated his examples by pointing

out complex phrases in advanced texts, he himself stated no problem in

any of the commonly used terms from the example of the Jiao text. His

examples illustrate things that should be explained in commentary and

submitted to the PD as new things for inclusion on future editions.

The PD is dynamic, as are all dictionaries and encyclopedias.

 

Jason, you are asserting that Brian's skills are at a low standard

because he cannot read Chinese. Never mind the fact that you cannot

speak Chinese and thus have no way of asking actual humans your

questions instead of only consulting books. Limiting the people you

can communicate with to pure bilinguals cuts you off from many sources

of knowledge, especially because bilinguals with the depth of English

required for precise term choices are few and far between.

 

You should refrain from insulting your colleagues, we are all in this

together. Brian has demonstrated a diligence to understand Chinese

medicine to the best of his ability. People with such diligence

require no derision. In an ideal world, we would all be able to read

( & speak) Chinese. Taiwanese WM doctors reach this standard, though

few can speak comfortably. It may be unnecessary to speak Chinese to

have a solid grasp of Chinese language and translation, as many

authors have produced excellent work without requiring spoken Chinese.

It is definitely unnecessary to tell Brian that he is at a lower

level than you by telling him that " You probably have no ability to

even judge the examples

> for yourself... You do not have the skills... " Besides, in your

examples you only gave the Chinese, you didn't even offer a

translation. How can Brian judge the examples for himself if you

don't even give him the opportunity to see alternate renderings in

English?

 

There will always be people with higher skills than we have, and there

will always be people with lower skills than we have. If we were

learning half as much from Chinese culture as we are learning from

their medicine, we would be modelling modesty and the virtues of

polite discourse with our fellow professionals.

 

Eric Brand

 

 

 

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

>

>

> >

> > bcataiji [bcaom@c...]

> > 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

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

> > Check out the disinhibit water from the PD - 'To eliminate dampness by

> freeing urination in the treatment of... "

 

 

Yes, but does freeing urination = promote urination? That is a

question that not even Nigel knows the answer to. He is simply trying

to convey what the text says in Chinese. It 'tongs' urination, it

frees it. Does it have to be 'bu tong' before it can be 'tong-ed?'

Do we have any way to know? Are we correct to assume that it promotes

urination? Not necessarily. In the case of ma huang, this assumption

is correct because it is a diuretic drug. But this assumption is not

always correct, as some meds that li4 dampness or water do not promote

urination based on research.

 

Wiseman terms have been researched at great length to preserve not

only the specificity of CM terms, but also their vagueness. Only by

illustrating arenas where TCM is specific as well as vague gives the

students the ability to truly understand the medicine. If we use

highly specific words like 'promote urination= diuresis' for a concept

that is vague in the original language, we are not accurately

presenting Chinese medicine.

 

Similarly, if we use a word like spermatorrhea, which is vague

compared to the four specific Chinese equivalents, we are not

accurately presenting CM.

 

Eric Brand

 

PS. As it turns out, Brian has studied Chinese and thus has the basis

to judge these issues for himself. Making assumptions in public has

caused the US to become involved in a terrible international mess.

Let's not be repeating such mistakes within our own community.

 

 

>

> >

> > bcataiji [bcaom@c...]

> > Thursday, October 28, 2004 4:14 PM

> >

> > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

> >

> >

> >

> > , " "

> > <@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.

> >

> >

> [Jason] ]

 

> yOu may have got more (who knows how) but I don't agree that his

> representation shows anything more than what Bensky writes... This

is very

> vague.. Are you now able to use the herb better? More clinically

effective?

> Or somehow you understand things better? Please explain... But the

ma huang

> does promote urination, according to pharmacological research, so I

don't

> get what you are saying... Jus because you say you get more means

nothing

> unless you can demonstrate something tangible... But I actually

would like

> to hear more about this one, we are finally getting to something

tangible...

>

> -Jason

[Guest guest]

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:33 PM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

>

> , " "

> <@c...> wrote:

> > 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?

>

>

> Again, no one has said that the Bensky material is simplified. People

> have repeatedly said the Bensky terminology is simplified.

> Simplifying the terms simplifies the concepts of CM.

[Jason]

Did I miss something? If the concepts that BEnsk'y terms are presenting are

simplified (as you say) doesn't that mean the material (concepts in the

book) are simplified).. I am confused...

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> Friday, October 29, 2004 1:07 AM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

>

> , " "

> <@c...> wrote:

> > > Check out the disinhibit water from the PD - 'To eliminate dampness by

> > freeing urination in the treatment of... "

>

>

> Yes, but does freeing urination = promote urination? That is a

> question that not even Nigel knows the answer to. He is simply trying

> to convey what the text says in Chinese. It 'tongs' urination, it

> frees it. Does it have to be 'bu tong' before it can be 'tong-ed?'

> Do we have any way to know? Are we correct to assume that it promotes

> urination? Not necessarily. In the case of ma huang, this assumption

> is correct because it is a diuretic drug. But this assumption is not

> always correct, as some meds that li4 dampness or water do not promote

> urination based on research.

[Jason]

Right, it is unclear... So does this change clinically reality...? Not

really... You may like your word better... But the new MM under each herb

qualifies this Li4 Damp (Category) with more specific actions... So I think

my understanding of the herb is the same... But I will consider this example

some more... But it seems that the word should not be judged just isolated,

but the context of the entry... I.e. if the li4 is qualified and it is made

clear in the text then we understand what it is doing... Hence our clinical

reality is the same... We are really curious about the transmission of the

medicine - And As said before I think Bensky does an awesome job - that is

it... People like different words for different reasons... And you have

stated that both should co-exist... then let us live in harmony...

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> Friday, October 29, 2004 12:47 AM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

>

> First off, Nigel has always been the first to admit that the PD does

> not have all the answers. As many people have said, it is just a

> starting point. The phrases you referred us to as holes in the

> terminology were all complex, advanced, multi-character expressions

> that would be perfect to resolve with footnotes in the text in which

> they occurred. Nigel responded to Jason's inquiries with the humble

> admission that he does not have all the answers.

>

> Nigel stated that of course the PD has holes; what could be expected

> when CM is thousands of years old? He also mentioned that if he

> worked on the jia yi, he would have embarked on an immense expansion

> of his database.

[Jason]

It is funny because this is all I said in the beginning and there was such

an uproar... It was said " Prove it... Give me examples, " no need anymore...

Thanx Nigel for Chiming in...

 

 

> Nigel has always been open to making additions and receiving new

> input. Everyone has always endorsed that terms can be coined in any

> way as long as they leave a trace of which terms they came from.

> Footnotes for the exceptions are easy to accomodate. But the fact

> remains that the vast majority of the terms are perfectly acceptable

> within the PD framework. Jason illustrated his examples by pointing

> out complex phrases in advanced texts, he himself stated no problem in

> any of the commonly used terms from the example of the Jiao text. His

> examples illustrate things that should be explained in commentary and

> submitted to the PD as new things for inclusion on future editions.

> The PD is dynamic, as are all dictionaries and encyclopedias.

[Jason]

YES.. that has been my point all along... we agree...

 

>

> Jason, you are asserting that Brian's skills are at a low standard

> because he cannot read Chinese. Never mind the fact that you cannot

> speak Chinese and thus have no way of asking actual humans your

> questions instead of only consulting books. Limiting the people you

> can communicate with to pure bilinguals cuts you off from many sources

> of knowledge, especially because bilinguals with the depth of English

> required for precise term choices are few and far between.

>

> You should refrain from insulting your colleagues, we are all in this

> together.

[Jason]

I really was not insulting Brian, Sorry if it came off like that... It was

purely about his skills in evaluating such a complex example and obtaining a

copy of the wenrelun. IF I had never translated wenbing/ werelun material

and was a beginner it would be so far over my head... Actually even at my

(intermediate) level I found it quite tricky, I tried to fit the Wiseman

term in, and was shown how it didn't work... So sorry to make assumptions,

but for someone who doesn't have a copy of the wenrelun it makes it hard to

continue in showing the example... Precisely why this should be a private

matter, with parties that can evaluate it.

 

How can Brian judge the examples for himself if you

> don't even give him the opportunity to see alternate renderings in

> English?

[Jason]

Exactly, I am sick of typing in stuff... If one cares to check out the

examples then look at the Chinese.. It is clear... Even if I type in the

English you still have to look at the Chinese passage to evaluate it so

there in a no win w/o the Chinese, and no win without experience translating

wenbing area medicine... Therefore you need skills to evaluate it PROPERLY.

There was no personal degradation aimed at Brian...Sorry if Brian actually

fits the bill...

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

Recently, the AAC (Acupuncture Association of Colorado) sent out a

letter stating that they are interested in turning their newsletter

back into the journal it once was. Under their submission guidelines,

they specify that the use of Wiseman et al.'s terminology in the PD is

required for all submissions.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

> Bob Flaws wrote:

 

Recently, the AAC (Acupuncture Association of Colorado) sent out a

> letter stating that they are interested in turning their newsletter

> back into the journal it once was. Under their submission guidelines,

> they specify that the use of Wiseman et al.'s terminology in the PD is

> required for all submissions.

 

This bothers me a lot, and I think it is wrong for a journal to dictate what

terminology must be used. I for one would never read such a thing.

 

Julie Chambers

[Guest guest]

To say that a drug promotes

urination implies that it does this to anyone who takes it.

>>>>There is no drug that does anything to everyone. People are individuals.

Just look at any entry in the PDR.

Again here we have another example of image based appreciation vs clinical more

specific indications. One will never choose ma huang based on its " disinhibiting

urination " one must also understand specifics to ma huang. Therefore here again

we have an argument between those that think an image deepens one's

understanding and those that look at the specific descriptions associated with

ma huang. For example, is ma huang used for visible swelling, for patient

reported decreased urination, does it increase one's urine output when used to

disinhibit urination or not. In other words, those that like the use of lingo

tend to like fixed definitions those that do not would like to see information

more specific to when and how ma huang is used in regard to urine, h20, swelling

or anything else.

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Marnae,

> I have enjoyed this post so much, I think you should edit it

into an

> article and get it into one of our (few) professional journals.

 

Marnae,

 

I second all of Z'ev's comments on your rebuttal. Brava. If you would

like to see this published in Blue Poppy's on-line journal, we would

be happy for it to apear in our Jan. 1 issue.

 

Bob